[**] The King's second daughter, Mary; born 1798, married, 1824,
Colonel C. R. Fox, A.D.C. to the Queen.
[***] As her four children are subsequently mentioned, it may be noted that a posthumous child was born two or three months after this letter was written.
'On Monday morning all left the Castle, and the great square full of carriages being packed was most amusing. The Queen stood at the Window with us. There were three fours of the King's, and nineteen pair of post-horses, besides the out-riders, guard of honour, etc., etc.
'My paper makes me end, or I could go on till to-morrow. Adieu, my good friend! If I have amused you for a few minutes I am well repaid.
'My best remembrances to your trio.
'Yours truly, 'M. C.'
IV
CHOLERA AT BRENTFORD—FALSE RUMOURS ABOUT THE QUEEN—DISMISSAL OF EARL HOWE—DEATH OF THE PRINCESS LOUISE—AT WINDSOR AGAIN—AN AFTERNOON ON VIRGINIA WATER
IN 1832 the cholera made its appearance in many parts of the country, and claimed many victims. At Brentford the people disputed hotly about it, some alleging it was not Asiatic cholera, fearing that the prevalence of that epidemic would be detrimental to the little trade of the town. At the parish meetings feeling ran so high that the disputants almost came to blows, and Colonel Clitherow 'never had so much difficulty in keeping them in decent order.'
In the autumn of the previous year Earl Howe[*] had been dismissed, at the request of Lord Grey, from the post of Chamberlain to the Queen. As this office had always been regarded as independent of the Ministry of the day, the incident attracted a good deal of attention at the time, and formed the subject of a question by Mr. Trevor in the House of Commons, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Althorp, returned a diplomatic reply. Yet, however unusual the action taken by the Government may have been, there can be little doubt that, considering the feeling of the country respecting reform, their decision was a wise one. Earl Howe had twice voted against the Reform Bill, and it might have been inferred that he had been influenced in this action by the Queen against the King's wish. His dismissal did not, apparently, prevent rumours to this effect becoming current, and the Queen and her friends were much annoyed at the imputations thus implied and expressed. That these somewhat natural inferences had no substantial foundation is made clear by a letter written from Boston House, April 11, 1832: