678 December 14th 1819-December 31st 1820: Newgate, Cato Street, and the Trial of Queen Caroline 1820: Newgate Diary, the 1820 Westminster Election, Byron’s ballad My Boy Hobby, O, the execution of the Cato Street Conspirators, and the Trial of Queen Caroline December 14th 1819-December 31st 1820 Edited from B.L.Add.Mss. 56540 and 56541. In the notes, “I.G.” indicates assistance from Ian Gilmour, to whom I’m grateful. In 1819 Hobhouse contested the parliamentary seat of Westminster, which had become vacant on the suicide of Romilly. He stood as a radical, supported by his father and by Burdett, but was defeated on March 3rd by George Lamb. Riots followed, and a breach opened between him and the Holland House Whigs. Westminster was an unusual constituency. It extended from Temple Bar to Hyde Park, from Oxford Street to the Thames, and three-quarters of its voters were middle-class: shopkeepers, skilled artisans, printers, tailors, and so on. It was the only constituency in the country in which each of its 17,000 rate-paying householders had the vote, which fact made it a headache to any administration, Whig or Tory, which was based upon, and served, as all administrations were and did, the landed gentry. At Westminster, candidates had to stand on the hustings and speak deferentially to people whom they’d normally expect to speak deferentially to them . At this time Hobhouse wrote several pamphlets, and an anonymous reply to a sarcastic speech of Canning’s, written by him and some of his friends in the Rota Club, attracted attention. In 1819 he published another anonymous pamphlet, entitled A Trifling Mistake in Thomas Lord Erskine’s recent Preface . Shortly noticed and respectfully corrected in a Letter to his Lordship, by the author of the Defence of the People. To the question “What prevents the people from walking down to the House, and pulling out the members by the ears, locking up their doors and flinging the key into the Thames?” he answered that “their true practical protectors ... are to be found at the Horse Guards, and the Knightsbridge barracks” ( A Trifling Mistake pp. 49-50). The Commons ignored the answer (which in itself asked for trouble), read the question as rhetorical, and found Hobhouse guilty of breach of privilege … 679 December 14th 1819-December 31st 1820: Newgate, Cato Street, and the Trial of Queen Caroline The diary of one falsely imprisoned by a bullying administration – even though in relatively luxurious conditions, allowed to exercise on the jail roof, free to receive and dine almost anyone he likes – is bound to excite our sympathy, and Hobhouse’s succeeds. His stoicism is admirable. He gets up early for a change, and works non-stop at researching his defence and writing protests, though to no avail. It is only the prorogation of parliament which frees him. The friendship he receives from so many people contrasts with Byron’s mistimed and irrelevant ballad (which gives this website its name). Byron does not understand Hobhouse’s politics, and his jokes miss the mark. Hobhouse, as we can see, is as hostile to “the Mob” as Byron, and the idea (shared by Wellington), that he is a follower of Tom Paine, is foolish. Byron is, perhaps, jealous at seeing his friend suffering in a good English political cause, while he (Byron) stays away, playing the empty games of the Carbonari. Extra drama is provided in the diary by the departure from England of Scrope Davies, and by the so-called “Cato Street Conspiracy”, about the true nature of which no-one has any doubts. As the year progresses and the events of the first half give way to the “Trial” of Queen Caroline, Byron fades from Hobhouse’s mind. It’s sad to think, given their co-operation here, that by the mid-1830s Francis Place was referring to the by-now-reactionary Hobhouse as “live lumber”. Tuesday December 14th 1819: I saw by the papers this morning what a sad mistake Ellice 1 had committed – Kinnaird 2 agreed something should be done, so he drew up a letter to the Speaker. Whilst he was drawing, in came Bickersteth 3 with a petition to the House, or rather a remonstrance, stating the case simply, 1: Edward Ellice (1781-1863) friend of Burdett, H. and B. – a radical Whig. The “sad mistake” he has made is to suggest to the Commons that H. “… should be spared the annoyance of an interrogation at the Bar, and that whatever [is] to be done on the occasion should be done at once” ( Recollections , II 115). He did not realise at the time that this would involve H.’s arrest: he does now. 2: Douglas Kinnaird (1788-1830) friend of B., whose banker and literary agent he was during the poet’s exile, and of H., whose 1813 journey round Europe he had in part shared. Now MP for Bishop’s Castle, a seat he loses in March this year when a select committee declares him “not duly elected”. Had offered himself as Westminster candidate in 1818, but stood down in favour of H. Loses his temper a lot. 3: Henry Bickersteth (1783-1851) afterwards Lord Langdale and Master of the Rolls, was a close friend of H. who shared his radical views. He married Lady Jane Harley. 680 December 14th 1819-December 31st 1820: Newgate, Cato Street, and the Trial of Queen Caroline and calling upon them not to persevere in their injustice. The whole enormity became more apparent the more we thought of it – we agreed on the petition as dignified and proper. We sent to have it engrossed and transmitted to Burdett 4 at the House tonight, immediately after my arrest. About four o’clock, a dreary evening, came Bruce 5 and Ellice, and then Burdett. What Ellice had said had made it necessary that I should give myself up. He very generously said that if I chose to go, 6 he would take the blame upon himself, and say he had exceeded his commission. Burdett advised me again to go, but I recollected how in his own matter 7 his note to the Serjeant-at-Arms had been misconstrued. All I could do was to let Ellice tell the Serjeant-at-Arms where he might find me, but at the same time to let him know that I should yield to force alone – he must come with men – I would not yield to one person. I left Kinnaird’s then, not to return. This night I had a sort of shyness about telling my boy Richard 8 to take my clothes to Newgate , and I did not tell him. Walked to No 1 New Street – Ellice’s – shook hands with Burdett and Kinnaird – Burdett still pressing me to go to France. Went into Ellice’s with Bruce – there sat ourselves down – this was about five o’clock. We chatted and talked in his little room – Ellice went down to the House to tell the Serjeant where I was – the interval was about an hour. I felt as if waiting for a dentist coming to take my tooth out – every now and then fancied the people came. At last Ellice’s butler came and said, “Some persons from the House of Commons, Sir!” – “Show them up”, said I, and rose up. In came a short man. 9 He knew Bruce, and addressed me as “Mr Hobhouse.” He said he was sorry to come on so unpleasant a business – he had a warrant from the Speaker to apprehend me – with that he pulled out the warrant and the copy. I took both – read the warrant – and said “I cannot obey this – had I been called to the bar, I should have 4: Sir Francis Burdett (1777-1844) very rich radical Whig MP. To be H.’s partner in several Westminster elections. H. will propose without success to two of his daughters. Place found him snobbish and distant. 5: Michael Bruce (1787-1861) traveller, friend of H., with whom he witnessed the Hundred Days, sometime lover of Lady Hester Stanhope, Lady Caroline Lamb, and of the widows of both Marshal Ney and Admiral Sir Peter Parker. 6: That is, fly the country (as, for example, John Wilkes had, in not entirely dissimilar circumstances, in 1763). 7: In 1810, on Burdett’s release from the Tower, where he too had been confined for breach of Parliamentary privilege, he had tried without success to bring an action against the Commons Serjeant-at-Arms. 8: H.’s valet. 9: H. pleased to be arrested by a man shorter than he is. 681 December 14th 1819-December 31st 1820: Newgate, Cato Street, and the Trial of Queen Caroline demurred to the tribunal – I now object to the warrant – it is not a legal instrument – I shall not go without force – I presume you are not come alone?” – The messenger said he wished to know what force meant. “I do not mean a regiment of dragoons,” – “Of course,” said the messenger – “well then, I have two men with me below.” – I answered, “I shall not go with you – take back the warrant to the Speaker, and tell him so”. – “Sir” said the little fellow, “I cannot do that – now I have seen you I cannot quit you.” – “Very well,” said I, “then use force – I shall not go without”. The messenger went out, and soon appeared with two tall fellows having certain badges on their breasts, they being other messengers. They waited in the other room – he came in again, and asked me if I should go – “Not without force.” – He seemed to hesitate, and not know what to do.