65
receptions, even before the event of the Mock-Trial, when it was merely surmised that I had influence with the Whig Premier, that the Duke of Cumberland was the only Royal personage who refused to acknowledge, by the slightest salute, the curtsey I made to him, as to others in the Royal circle. I mentioned it to Lord Melbourne. He said, "You take these slights to yourself, but they are not put upon you."
It so happened, by some strange hazard, that in. the list of the jury on the trial, the name of Sir Robert Peel was called;[1] and Sir W. Follett took the opportunity of alluding to that circumstance in his address: he said,—
"He cared not for the political sentiments of those he addressed—he would as soon have twelve political opponents as twelve supporters of his noble client, as he was sure they would do justice to both parties. There was left on the Jury the leader of the political party opposed to his client, hut he would as soon have seen Sir Robert Peel in that box, as any other gentleman; and neither Lord Melbourne nor those who advised him, ever thought of objecting to that gentleman."
Certainly not; but between impeaching a leader whose honour never was attacked, and utterly acquitting all members of the Tory party, there is a wide gulf; and after the denials, more or less angry, and more or less positive, made publicly by persons at the time, the newspapers still debated the subject; and still boldly put the question,—"Who then is the man behind the screen?" The very wording of the Duke of Cumberland's denial,—the very expression, "nor indeed any of us,"— assumed that Lord Melbourne suspected some of the Tory party were the real movers in the extraordinary, unexpected, and unfair attack made upon him. I repeat that I know the late King thought so; and as for Lord Melbourne and myself, how could it seem otherwise than a plot? He
- ↑ Lords Grantley, Lichfield, and Lucan were seated on the bench. Sir E. Peel and Mr P. Baring, M.P., whose names were on the Jury list, were called, but did not answer.—Law Report, 1836.
