Writing Scotland

‘November 9th, 1829

Dined to-day with Byng and met Tom Moore, who was very agreeable; he told us a great deal about his forthcoming 'Life of Byron.' He is nervous about it; he is employed in conjunction with Scott and Mackintosh to write a history of England for one of the new publications like the Family Library. Scott is to write Scotland, Mackintosh England, and Moore Ireland; and they get £1,000 apiece; but Scott could not compress his share into one volume, so he is to have £1,500. The republication of Scott's works will produce him an enormous fortune; he has already paid off £30,000 of the Constable bankruptcy debt, and he is to pay the remaining £30,000 very soon. A new class of readers is produced by the Bell and Lancaster schools, and this is the cause of the prodigious and extensive sale of cheap publications. Moore had received a letter from Madame de Guiccioli to-day; he says she is not handsome. Byron's exploits, especially at Venice, seem to have been marvellous. Moore said he wrote with extraordinary rapidity, but his corrections were frequent and laborious. When he wrote the address for the opening of Drury Lane Theatre, he corrected it repeatedly.’

An entry from diarist Charles Greville.  Scott deliberated over whether to accept the offer to complete an abridged history of Scotland from his other writings, as he recorded in his journal dated April 16, 1829.

‘…The post brought matter for a May or April morning—a letter from Sir James Mackintosh, telling me that Moore and he were engaged as contributors to Longman's Encyclopædia, and asking me to do a volume at £1000, the subject to be the History of Scotland in one volume. This would be very easy work. I have the whole stuff in my head, and could write currente calamo. The size is as I compute it about one-third larger than The Tales of my Grandfather. There is much to be said on both sides. Let me balance pros and cons after the fashion of honest Robinson Crusoe. Pro.—It is the sum I have been wishing for, sufficient to enable me to break the invisible but magic circle which petty debts of myself and others have traced round me. With common prudence I need no longer go from hand to mouth, or what is worse, anticipate my means. I may also pay off some small shop debts, etc., belonging to the Trust, clear off all Anne's embarrassment, and even make some foundation of a purse for her. N.B.—I think this whacking reason is like to prove the gallon of Cognac brandy, which a lady recommended as the foundation of a Liqueur. "Stop, dear madam, if you please," said my grandfather, Dr. Rutherford, "you can [add] nothing to that; it is flaconnadé with £1000," and a capital hit, egad. Contra.—It is terribly like a hack author to make an abridgement of what I have written so lately. Pro.—But a difference may be taken. A history may be written of the same country on a different plan, general where the other is detailed, and philosophical where it is popular. I think I can do this, and do it with unwashed hands too. For being hacked, what is it but another word for being an author? I will take care of my name doubtless, but the five letters which form it must take care of me in turn. I never knew name or fame burn brighter by over chary keeping of it. Besides, there are two gallant hacks to pull with me. Contra.—I have a monstrous deal on hand. Let me see: Life of Argyll,  and Life of Peterborough for Lockhart.  Third series Tales of my Grandfather—review for Gillies—new novel—end of Anne of Geierstein. Pro.—But I have just finished too long reviews for Lockhart. The third series is soon discussed. The review may be finished in three or four days, and the novel is within a week and less of conclusion. For the next, we must first see how this goes off. In fine, within six weeks, I am sure I can do the work and secure the independence I sigh for. Must I not make hay while the sun shines? Who can tell what leisure, health, and life may be destined to me?

Adjourned the debate till to-morrow morning.’

In the Courts

‘Yesterday there was a bother with the Chancellor about Lord Westmeath’s case pending before the Privy Council.[a marital dispute] He took it into his head (probably having been got at by Lady Westmeath or some of her friends) to have it decided forthwith, and sent to desire a Committee might be convened. Westmeath’s counsel was out of town; Follett, whom he relies on, is on the Northern Circuit, but his other counsel is to be had, being at Chislehurst. Accordingly the Chancellor desired that the case might stand over from Thursday, the day he first appointed it (giving only two days’ notice), to Monday, and that it should be notified to the parties that if they did not then appear the case should go on without them. Westmeath came to me in a frenzy of rage, and said the Chancellor was the greatest of villains, and so he would tell him in the House of Lords or in the Privy Council. I begged him to hold his tongue, and I would speak to the Chancellor. So I went to the House of Lords where he was sitting, and told Lemarchant what had passed, and that the case ought not to be thus hurried on. He thanked me very much, and said he would go to Brougham; [120] but he soon returned, and said that the Chancellor would hear nothing, and would have the case brought on, and he therefore advised me not to give myself any further concern in it, and to leave him and Westmeath to settle it as they might. In the meantime Westmeath went down to the House of Lords, and after speaking to Wynford, whom the Chancellor had asked to attend (as he learnt from me), was going to get up in the House of Lords and attack him, and was only prevented by Wynford dragging him down by the tail of his coat. I had already spoken to Wynford, and I afterwards spoke to Lord Lansdowne, telling them that the case ought not to be hurried on in this peremptory way, and I persuaded Lord Lansdowne to set his face against it. However, in the meantime Wynford had urged the Chancellor to put it off, and not exasperate that madman, who would say or do something violent; and, whether from reason or fear, he prevailed on him. Wynford told me that Brougham is undoubtedly mad, and so I really believe he is. ..

The note above comes from Charles Greville’s memoirs; entry dated August 14, 1834.  It seems odd now that what would be considered a family court type of case (in the States) would involve the upper reaches of the judiciary system, but such was the case in the early 1800’s for the nobility. It appears that a substantial amount of time was devoted to Marquess George Nugent’s situation.  A  deed of separation had been granted at an earlier date (~ 1827), and some additional background is found in The Edinburgh Annual Register (volume 18), edited by Sir Walter Scott, and dated January 3^rd, 1825:

Sessions Court, Dublin.

The trial of an indictment, which commenced on Monday, the 3d inst., has been before the Court for several days ;—the King, in the prosecution of the Marquis of Westmeath, v. Anne Connell alias Jones, John Monaghan, Edward Bennett, William Mackenzie, Bernard Maguire, and Patrick Farley. They were charged with conspiring falsely to accuse Lord Westmeath of adultery with Anne Connell, and thus to support Lady Westmeath's application for a divorce against Lord Westmeath. The depositions of the defendant, Anne Connell, were read, in which she swore to many repeated acts of adultery committed with Lord W.; her first acquaintance with him originating in the circumstance of her appearing before him, as a magistrate, to swear an illegitimate child to another person. On the other hand, Lord W. positively swore that he had never before seen the woman in his life; and all the consequences of this denial would follow as a matter of course. —On the third day, Mr. Justice Moore summed up, and the Jury returned a verdict of guilty against Anne Connell, John Monaghan, and Patrick Farley.—Mr Justice Moore: Gentlemen, I never saw or heard of a more reasonable and discerning verdict. It is creditable to yourselves, and of advantage to the public.

William IV's Funeral

‘Yesterday I went to the late King [William IV]’s funeral, who was buried with just the same ceremonial as his predecessor this time seven years.  It is a wretched mockery after all, and if I was king, the first thing I would do should be to provide for being committed to the earth with more decency and less pomp.  A host of persons of all ranks and stations were congregated, who ‘loitered through the lofty halls’, chattering and laughing, and with nothing of woe about them but the garb…’

A king who gave £300 for the Scott Monument might have deserved better treatment than Charles Greville witnessed at William’s state funeral.  Greville, like Scott a diarist, though with a more extensive timeframe and scope, recorded this observation on July 9, 1837.