The sun., 1885-11-01
SOME NEW BOOKS.


SOME NEW BOOKS.
Nsw Leaves From the a-eviiis JournsL
SECOND ARTICLE.
It 10 on their social side that these me-
moirs possess abiding interest. for they are in
vested with undeniable authority. Greville
was patrician to the core. He was not. OF
course. a man OF genius like tho Duo de la
Rochefoucauld. and therefore his reflections
and characterizations fail far short Of the
pungency OF those Of that immortal cynic.
Neither was he. like St. Simon. n duke
and peer; yet he had at least as much literary
talent. and his field OF observation lay. like st.
Simon's. among the worlds elect. He was
no stranger In dukes houses. and the
pserage had been recruited from his kin.
Indeed. as he pleasantly relates. one OF
his relatives. Lord Glastonbury. was unable to
perceive how tho House OF Lords could add
any lustre to n person OF his quality. and was
chiefly moved to enter 1t through piuue at the
admission Of an inferior. For the follies and
peccadilloes OF the aristocracy Charles Greville
had the indulgence OF his caste and OF his
time: indeed. some OF them he shared. as he
naively conndos to us. Even for their positive
Vices he could feel a certain tolerance. provided
always the transRressors kept within the
bounds OF seemly and graceful moderation.
But no one. as We shall SEQ. could view with
more repugnance or rebuke with moro severity
the conduct Of mon like Lord Hertford. which
fxod q stigma on their order.
L.
Inasmuoh ss Greville mirrors faithfully the
current opinions Of the English aristocracy.
we arc naturally curious to hear what he has
to say about the young Prince Of Coburg. who.
by a stroke Of good fortune. only incompletely
paraeled by his uncle Leopold. married Queen
Victoria. But tho illusions to the Prince arc
curt and disappointing. For the extreme reti-
cence and caution exhibited In dealing with
this subject we are probably indebted to tho
editor for it is said that Mr.. Reeve. not wish
ing to again provoke resentment in high
places. was careful to submit the manuscript
OF this portion Of tho diary to the Queens eye.
1t is perhaps. a littlo odd that the following
statement should have been allowed to stand:
Nov. &c. 1889. The Queen wrote to all her
family and announced her marriage to them.
When she saw the Duchess OF Gloucester in
town and told her she was to mako the decla-
ration lof her intention to the Privy Councill
tho next day. the Duchess asked her
II 1t was not nervous thing to do.
She said. Yes. but 1 did a much more
nervous thing little while ago. What was
Iuut! pEOpOSou W IItuCo hluolt. "o
are also a little surprised by tho following as
sertion when we consider the youth OF the
Queen and tho almost parental relation uccu-
pied by Melbourne since her accession. II tho
facts wero as they are here related-and surely
the report II incorrect. would have been ex-
plunged by the Queen from the manuscript
they indicate that she may have been quito as
truly chargeable rs tho Prince Consort for that
Interference with her Ministers which led to
unpleasant consequences in tho case OF Lord
Pamerston. Tho Queen settled everythin
about her marriage herself. and without con-
sultinG Melbourne lthen Primo Ministerl at all
on the subject not even communicating
to him her intentions. The reports were
already rife while he was in ignorance.
and at last he spoke to her. told her that he
could not be ignorant OF the reports. nor could
she: that he did not presume to inquire what
her intentions were. but that it was his duty to
tell her that. II she had any, 1t WAS necessary
that her Ministers should no apprised OF them.
She said she had nothing to toll him. and about
a fortnight afterward she informed him that
the whole thing was settled. curious OK
hibition OF her Independence which OK plains the
apprehensions that Lady Cowper has recent
ly expressed to me OF the serious consequences
which her determined character is likely to
produce, II she has already shaken of her do
peuueHCo On hlolUouIuo huu pcSiuS " ny WIN
her own wings. what will she not do when she
is older. and has to deal with Ministers whom
she does not care for. or whom she dislikes ?"
She had shown some six months earlier. in the
Bedchamber affair. how she was disposed to
deal with Ministers she did not caro- for and. II
the story Just quoted DO authentic. we should
infer that tho young Queen was herself
moro to blame than Melbourne for her uncon-
stitutionnl refusal to permit Sir Robert Peel to
designate the ladies of her household. She
| was not. probably. induced to like Peel
| any better by his SUCCESS. a little later. in
| cutting down tho proposed allowance OF
pocket money to Prince Albert from f5O.-
900 to 100000 year. The Queen met with
another rebuff In her attempt to give her con-
templated husband precedence over the whole
royal family. Peel's Conservative supporters
in the House OF Lords prevented this and one
| OF them. Lord Ellenborough. rep!ied. when
| Greville asked him what they moant to do about
| the matter, oh give him the same which
Prince George OF Denmark had; place him
next before the Archbishop OF Canterbury"
Greville said. That will by no means satisfy
! the Queen" at which the other tossed uD bis
head and said What does that siGnify?"
| The Duke of Wellington took part against
tho Queen in this matter. and it is evident
| that Prince Albert bore him a Grudge for
Prince would not 20 to tho Dukes Waterloo
| dinner. He sent an excuse. which WAS a mis-
| take. for tho invitation was a great compliment.
| and this is sort OF national commemoration
| at which he might have felt pride at being
| present" Greville. by the way. wrote pam
phlet on this precedence question: which was
shown to the Queen. Melbourne told me the
| Queen was well satisfied with my pamphlet.
but she remarked that there was n very high
| compliment to the Duke OF Wellington ut the
| end OF 1t. l asked II she had said 1t was Just
one: he said no. sne did not say that" There
| WAS no end. In fact. to the annoyance suffered
| by the Queen in her attompt to dignity the
bridegroom. She wished. for Instance. to have
| his name inserted In the liturgy. but it turned
out that Prince George OF Denmnrk's Queen
! Annes husband) had not been inserted. be-
ing barred out by the Act OF Uniformity.
Apropos OF the King OF Hanover Duke Of
Cumberland in the English peerage). who had
concurrod with the Tories In denying prece-
dsnce to Prince Albert. we are told that on his