text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/170

 lished; also a collection of songs with violin and flute accompaniments, and many single songs. Specially popular among these was ‘From Grave Lessons,’ which is printed by Hawkins. In sacred music Weldon was still more successful; two of his anthems, ‘In Thee, O Lord,’ and ‘Hear my crying,’ were printed in Boyce's ‘Cathedral Music,’ and are still frequently performed. Others were printed in the collections of Arnold and Page. ‘Blessed art Thou’ was published in the ‘Parish Choir,’ vol. iii., and with Welsh words in J. Roberts's ‘Cerddor y Tonic Sol-fa.’ Weldon published only six solo anthems, which he had composed for the celebrated counter-tenor Richard Elford [q. v.], and entitled ‘Divine Harmony;’ but these have not maintained their place upon the repertory. Five pieces, arranged for the organ, were included in Vincent Novello's ‘Cathedral Voluntaries,’ 1831; and two others in A. H. Brown's ‘Organ Arrangements,’ 1879. The cheap editions of Novello and Curwen contain anthems by Weldon, both in staff notation and tonic sol-fa. Burney speaks very inappreciatively of Weldon's anthems, but time has shown he was wrong; and probably not a week passes without a performance of one or more.

[Hawkins's History of Music, chaps. cxlvi. clxiv.; Burney's History of Music, iii. 612 ff.; The Choir and Musical Record, May 1865, p. 430; Grove's Dict. of Music and Musicians, i. 71, iv. 435; Emil Vogel's Katalog der … Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel; Barrett's English Church Composers, pp. 112–16, contains a good account of Weldon's anthems, but a very exaggerated statement of his importance as an inventor of new harmonies; Cheque-book of the Chapel Royal (Camden Soc.), 1872; Davey's History of English Music, pp. 329, 345, 373; Weldon's compositions in the British Museum and Christ Church, Oxford.]  WELDON, RALPH (1674–1713), Benedictine monk, of the ancient family of Weldon of Swanscombe, Kent, was the seventeenth child of Colonel George Weldon (youngest son of Sir Anthony Weldon [q. v.]) and of his wife, Lucy Necton. He was born in London on 12 April (N.S.) 1674, and was christened at the Savoy. Being converted to the catholic religion by Father Joseph Johnstone, he made his abjuration at St. James's Chapel on 12 Oct. 1687. He made his profession as a Benedictine monk in the convent of St. Edmund at Paris on 13 Jan. 1691–2. Although a very learned man, he could never be induced to take priest's orders. He died at St. Edmund's on 23 Nov. 1713.

He was the author of ‘A Chronicle of the English Benedictine Monks from the renewing of their Congregation in the days of Queen Mary to the death of King James II’ [London, 1882], 4to. The original manuscript, consisting of two folio volumes of ‘Chronological Notes,’ is preserved at Ampleforth, and there is an abridgment of it at St. Gregory's, Downside.

[Rambler, 1850, vii. 433; Oliver's Cornwall, p. 529; Snow's Chronology, p. 87; Taunton's English Benedictines, 1898.]  WELDON, WALTER (1832–1885), chemist, eldest son of Reuben Weldon, manufacturer, and his wife, whose maiden name was Esther Fowke, was born at Loughborough on 31 Oct. 1832. He was employed for some years in his father's business, but, finding he had a taste for literature, he went to London as a journalist shortly after his marriage in March 1854. He contributed to the ‘Dial,’ afterwards incorporated with the ‘Morning Star.’ On 1 Aug. 1860 he issued the first number of a sixpenny monthly magazine, called ‘Weldon's Register of Facts and Occurrences relating to Literature, the Sciences, and the Arts,’ but, although ably conducted, it proved a failure, and was abandoned in 1864. Among the contributors were George Augustus Sala, Edmund Yates, Mr. William Michael Rossetti, James Hain Friswell, and Percy Greg. About this time, probably through the influence of a friend and fellow-Swedenborgian, Charles Townsend Hook, a paper manufacturer of Snodland, near Rochester, his attention was drawn to technological chemistry. He read widely and took out his first patents for the ‘manganese-regeneration process,’ which eventually made his name famous, before he had ever seen a chemical experiment. On 18 Sept. 1865 Weldon and his friend Greg met Mr. John Spiller to explain to him two processes devised by Weldon for the cheaper manufacture of magnesium and aluminium, which proved, however, impracticable. In the latter part of 1866 he met Colonel Gamble, and explained that he ‘thought he had obtained a peroxide of manganese’ from the protoxide by suspending it in water and blowing air through, a process which, with certain important modifications, proved ultimately successful. He was at this time, says Colonel Gamble, totally unacquainted with the methods of quantitative chemical analysis, and the results to be obtained thereby. The object of Weldon (and of various unsuccessful predecessors) was to regenerate the manganese peroxide used in enormous quantities in the manufacture of chlorine, and converted into a valueless by-product which was thrown away. From this time onwards


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/148

 Boyse this time, which relates that 'he had no power of maintaining the dignity of wit, and though his understanding was very extensive, yet but a few could discover that he had any genius above the common rank. He had so strong a propension to groveling that his acquaintance were generally of such a cast as could be of no service to him' (, Lives of the Poets, 1753, v. 167). In 1739 Boyse published 'The Deity : a Poem ;' in 1742 'The Praise of Peace, a poem in three cantos from the Dutch of Mr. Van Haren.' He translated Fenelon on the demonstration of the existence of God, and modernised the 'Squire's Tale' and the 'Coke's Tale' from Chaucer. These, with several papers in the 'Gentleman's Magazine' signed Alcæus, were his chief publications in London. At Reading, in 1747, he published, in two volumes, 'An Historical Review of the Transactions of Europe, 1739-45.' When the payments of the booksellers did not satisfy his wants, Boyse begged from sectaries, to whom his father's theological reputation was known, and when their patience was exhausted from any one likely to give. Two of his begging letters are preserved in the British Museum (Sloane MS. 4033 B). A sentence in one of these shows how abject a beggar the poet had become. 'You were pleased,' he writes to Sir Hans Sloane, 'to give my wife the enclosed shilling last night. I doubt not but you thought it a good one, but as it happened otherwise you will forgive the trouble occasioned by the mistake.' The letter is dated 14 Feb. 1738. Two years later he was reduced to greater straits. 'It was about the year 1740 that Mr. Boyse, reduced to the last extremity of human wretchedness, had not a shirt, a coat, or any kind of apparel to put on ; the sheets in which he lay were carried to the pawnbrokers, and he was obliged to be confined to bed with no other covering than a blanket. During this time he had some employment in writing verses for the magazines, and whoever had seen him in his study must have thought the object singular enough. He sat up in bed with a blanket wrapped about him, through which he had cut a hole large enough to admit his arm, and placing the paper upon his knee scribbled, in the best manner he could, the verses he was obliged to make' (, Lives of the Poets, v. 169). Necessity is the mother of invention, and Boyse's indigence led him to the discovery of paper collars. 'Whenever his distresses so pressed as to induce him to dispose of his shirt, he fell upon an artificial method of supplying one. He cut some white paper in slips, which he tyed round his wrists, and in the same manner supplied his neck. In this plight he frequently appeared abroad, with the additional inconvenience of want of breeches' (, v. 169). In the midst of this deserved squalor, and with vicious propensities and ridiculous affectations, Boyse had some knowledge of literature and some interesting, if untrustworthy, conversation. It was this and his miseries, and some traces which he now and then showed of a religious education, not quite obliterated by a neglect of all its precepts, which obtained for him the acquaintance of Johnson. Shiel's 'Life of Boyse' (, v. 160) contains Johnson's recollections. Mrs. Boyse died in 1745 at Reading, where Boyse had gone to live. On his return to London two years later he married again. His second wife seems to have been an uneducated woman, but she induced him to live more regularly and to dress decently. His last illness had, however, begun, and after a lingering phthisis he died in lodgings near Shoe Lane in May 1749. Johnson could not collect money enough to pay for a funeral, but he obtained the distinction from other paupers for Boyse, that the service of the church was separately performed over his corpse.

Besides his literary attainments, Boyse is said to have had a taste for painting and for music,and an extensive knowledge of heraldry. 'The Deity, a Poem,' is the best known of his works. It appeared in 1729, went through two editions in the author's lifetime, and has been since printed in several collections of the English poets ('The British Poets,' Chiswick, 1822, vol. lix.; Park's 'British Poets,' London, 1808, vol. xxxiii.) Fielding quotes some lines from it on the theatre of time in the comparison between the world and the stage, which is the introduction to book vii. of 'Tom Jones.' He praises the lines, and says that the quotation is taken from a poem called the Deity, published about nine years ago, and long since buried in oblivion. A proof that good books no more than good men do always survive the bad.' It was perhaps a knowledge of Boyse's miseries which made Fielding praise him. The poem was obviously suggested by the 'Essay on Man,' and the arrangement of its parts is that common in theological treatises on the attributes of God. The edition of 1749 contains some alterations. These are unimportant, as 'celestial wisdom' (1739) altered to 'celestial spirit' (1749); 'doubtful gloom' (1739) to 'dubious gloom' (1749) ; while the few added lines can neither raise nor depress the quality of the poem. In some of Boyse's minor poems recollections of Spenser, of Milton, of Cowley, and of Prior may be traced. False rhymes are not uncommon in his verse, but the lines are usually tolerable. Some of his best are in a poem on

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/149

 Brabazon Loch Rian, in which Lord Stair's character is compared to the steadfast rock of Ailsa, with a coincident allusion to the Stair crest and the family motto 'Firm.' Four six-line verses entitled 'Stanzas to a Candle,' in which the author compares his fading career to the flickering and burning out of the candle on his table, are the most original of all Boyse's poems. They are free from affectation, and show Boyse for once in a true poetic mood, neither racking his brains for imagery nor using his memory to help out the verse; not writing at threepence a line for the bookseller, but recording a poetic association clearly derived from the object before him.

 BRABAZON, ROGER (d. 1317), judge, descended from an ancient family of Normandy, the founder of which, Jacques le Brabazon of Brabazon Castle, came over with William the Conqueror, his name occurring in the Roll of Battle Abbey. The name is variously spelt Brabaçon, Brabançon, and Brabanson, and was originally given to one of the roving bands of mercenaries common in the middle ages. His great-grandson Thomas acquired the estate of Moseley in Leicestershire, by marriage with Amicia, heiress of John de Moseley. Their son, Sir Roger, who further acquired Eastwill in the same county, married Beatrix, the eldest of the three sisters, and coheirs of Hansel de Bisset, and by her had two sons, of whom the elder was Roger, the judge. Roger was a lawyer of considerable learning, and practised before the great judge De Hengham. His first legal office was as justice itinerant of pleas of the forest in Lancashire, which he held in 1287. In 1289, when almost all the existing judges were removed for extortion and corrupt practices, Brabazon was made a justice of the king's bench, receiving a salary of 33l. 6s. 8d. per annum, being as much greater (viz. 6l. 13s. 4d.) than the salaries of the other puisne justices as it was less than the salary of the chief justice. When Edward I, though acting as arbitrator between the rival claimants to the crown of Scotland, resolved to claim the suzerainty for himself, Brabazon (though not then chief justiciary as one account has it, the office then no longer existing) was employed to search for some legal justification for the claim. By warping the facts he succeeded in making out some shadow of a title, and accordingly attended Edward and his parliament at Norham. The Scottish nobles and clergy assembled there on 10 May 1291, and Brabazon, speaking in French, the then court language of Scotland, announced the king's determination, and stated the grounds for it. A notary and witnesses were at hand, and he called on the nobles to do homage to Edward as lord paramount of Scotland. To this the Scotch demurred, and asked time for deliberation. Brabazon referred to the king, and appointed the day following for their decision; but the time was eventually extended to 1 June. Brabazon, however, did not remain in Scotland till then, but returned south to the business of his court, acting as justice itinerant in the west of England in this year. After the Scottish crown had been adjudged to Baliol, Brabazon continued to be employed upon a plan for the subjection of Scotland. He was one of a body of commissioners to whom Edward referred a complaint of Roger Bartholomew, a burgess of Berwick, that English judges were exercising jurisdiction north of the Tweed; and when the Scottish king presented a petition, alleging that Edward had promised to observe the Scottish law and customs, Brabazon rejected it, and held that if the king had made any promises, while the Scottish throne was vacant, in derogation of his just suzerainty, such promises were temporary only and not binding; and as to the conduct of the judges they were deputed by the king as superior and direct lord of Scotland, and represented his person. Encouraged by this decision, MacDuff, earl of Fife, appealed against the Scottish king to the English House of Lords, and on the advice of Brabazon and other judges it was held that the king must come as a vassal to the bar and plead, and upon his contumacy three of his castles were seized. He is found in 1293 sitting in Westchepe, and with other judges sentencing three men to mutilation by loss of the right hand. But, although sitting as a puisne judge, Brabazon, owing to the political events in which he was engaged, had completely overshadowed Gilbert de Thornton, the chief justice of his court. The time was now arrived to reward him. In 1295 Gilbert de Thornton was removed and Brabazon succeeded him, and being reappointed immediately upon the accession of Edward II, 6 Sept. 1307, continued in that office until his retirement in 1316. He had been a commissioner of array for the counties of Nottingham, Derby, Lancaster, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and York, in 1296, and was constantly summoned to the parliaments which met at Westminster, Salisbury, Lincoln, Carlisle, Northampton, Stamford, and York up to 1314. In 1297 Brabazon's position pointed to him naturally as a member of the council of Edward, the king's son, when left by his father in England as lieutenant of the kingdom. On 1 April 1300 he was appointed to


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/456

 270 her neck, and went out into the hay-field with the mowers and began to mow; but the man was to mind the house, and do the work at home.

First of all he wanted to churn the butter; but when he had churned a while, he got thirsty, and went down to the cellar to tap a barrel of ale. So, just when he had knocked in the bung, and was putting the tap into the cask, he heard overhead the pig come into the kitchen. Then off he ran up the cellar steps, with the tap in his hand, as fast as he could, to look after the pig, lest it should upset the churn; but when he got up, and saw the pig had already knocked the churn over, and stood there, routing and grunting amongst the cream which was running all over the floor, he got so wild with rage that he quite forgot the ale-barrel, and ran at the pig as hard as he could. He caught it, too, just as it ran out of doors, and gave it such a kick that piggy lay for dead on the spot. Then all at once he remembered he had the tap in his hand; but when he got down to the cellar, every drop of ale had run out of the cask.

Then he went into the dairy and found enough cream left to fill the churn again, and so he began to churn, for butter they must have at dinner. When he had churned a bit, he remembered that their milking cow was still shut up in the byre, and hadn't had a bit to eat or a drop to drink all the morning, though the sun was high. Then all at once he thought 'twas too far to take her down to the meadow, so he'd just get her up on the house-top—for the house, you must know, was thatched with sods, and a fine crop of grass was growing there. Now their house lay close up against a steep down, and he thought if he laid a


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/457

 plank across to the thatch at the back he'd easily get the cow up.

But still he couldn't leave the churn, for there was his little babe crawling about on the floor, and "if I leave it," he thought, "the child is safe to upset it." So he took the churn on his back, and went out with it; but then he thought he'd better first water the cow before he turned her out on the thatch; so he took up a bucket to draw water out of the well; but, as he stooped down at the well's brink, all the cream ran out of the churn over his shoulders, and so down into the well.

Now it was near dinner-time, and he hadn't even got the butter yet; so he thought he'd best boil the porridge, and filled the pot with water, and hung it over the fire. When he had done that, he thought the cow might perhaps fall off the thatch and break her legs or her neck. So he got up on the house to tie her up. One end of the rope he made fast to the cow's neck, and the other he slipped down the chimney and tied round his own thigh; and he had to make haste, for the water now began to boil in the pot, and he had still to grind the oatmeal.

So he began to grind away; but while he was hard at it, down fell the cow off the house top after all, and as she fell, she dragged the man up the chimney by the rope. There he stuck fast; and as for the cow, she hung halfway down the wall, swinging between heaven and earth, for she could neither get down nor up.

And now the goody had waited seven lengths and seven breadths for her husband to come and call them home to dinner; but never a call they had. At last she thought she'd waited long enough, and went home. But when she


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/461

 Rh "If you will only get me the best shoes you can for my horse, and the grandest saddle and bridle that are to be found," said the lad, "you may have my twelve mares that graze up on the hill yonder, and their twelve foals into the bargain." For you must know that this year too every mare had her foal.

Yes, his brothers were ready to do that, and so the lad got such strong shoes under his horse, that the stones flew high aloft as he rode away across the hills; and he had a golden saddle and a golden bridle, which gleamed and glistened a long way off.

"Now we're off to the king's palace," said Dapplegrim—that was his name; "but mind you ask the king for a good stable and good fodder for me."

Yes, the lad said he would mind; he'd be sure not to forget; and when he rode off from his brothers' house, you may be sure it wasn't long, with such a horse under him, before he got to the king's palace.

When he came there, the king was standing on the steps, and stared and stared at the man who came riding along.

"Nay, nay!" said he, "such a man and such a horse I never yet saw in all my life."

But when the lad asked if he could get a place in the king's household, the king was so glad he was ready to jump and dance as he stood on the steps.

Well, they said, perhaps he might get a place there.

"Ay," said the lad, "but I must have good stable-room for my horse, and fodder that one can trust."

Yes, he should have meadow-hay and oats, as much as Dapple could cram, and all the other knights had to lead


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/462

 276 their horses out of the stable, that Dapplegrim might stand alone, and have it all to himself.

But it wasn't long before all the others in the king's household began to be jealous of the lad, and there was no end to the bad things they would have done to him, if they had only dared. At last they thought of telling the king he had said he was man enough to set the king's daughter free—whom the Troll had long since carried away into the hill—if he only chose. The king called the lad before him, and said he had heard the lad said he was good to do so and so; so now he must go and do it. If he did it he knew how the king had promised his daughter and half the kingdom, and that promise would be faithfully kept; if he didn't, he should be killed.

The lad kept on saying he never said any such thing; but it was no good,—the king wouldn't even listen to him; and so the end of it was he was forced to say he'd go and try.

So he went into the stable, down in the mouth and heavy-hearted, and then Dapplegrim asked him at once why he was in such dumps.

Then the lad told him all, and how he couldn't tell which way to turn,—

"For as for setting the Princess free, that's downright stuff."

"Oh! but it might be done, perhaps," said Dapplegrim. "I'll help you through; but you must first have me well shod. You must go and ask for ten pound of iron and twelve pound of steel for the shoes, and one smith to hammer and another to hold."

Yes, the lad did that, and got for answer "Yes!" He


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/463

 Rh got both the iron and the steel, and the smiths, and so Dapplegrim was shod both strong and well, and off went the lad from the courtyard in a cloud of dust.

But when he came to the hill into which the Princess had been carried, the pinch was how to get up the steep wall of rock where the Troll's cave was in which the Princess had been hid. For you must know the hill stood straight up and down right on end, as upright as a house-wall, and as smooth as a sheet of glass.

The first time the lad went at it he got a little way up; but then Dapple's fore-legs slipped, and down they went again, with a sound like thunder on the hill.

The second time he rode at it he got some way farther up; but then one fore-leg slipped, and down they went with a crash like a landslip.

But the third time Dapple said,—

"Now we must show our mettle;" and went at it again till the stones flew heaven-high about them, and so they got up.

Then the lad rode right into the cave at full speed, and caught up the Princess, and threw her over his saddle-bow, and out and down again before the Troll had time even to get on his legs; and so the Princess was freed.

When the lad came back to the palace, the king was both happy and glad to get his daughter back; that you may well believe; but somehow or other, though I don't know how, the others about the court had so brought it about that the king was angry with the lad after all

"Thanks you shall have for freeing my Princess," said he to the lad, when he brought the Princess into the hall, and made his bow.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/211

 WELLESLEY, HENRY, (1773–1847), diplomatist, born on 20 Jan. 1773, was the youngest son of Garrett Wellesley or Wesley, first earl of Mornington [q. v.], and Anne, daughter of Arthur Hill, first viscount Dungannon. He was brother of Richard Colley Wellesley, marquis Wellesley [q. v.], of Arthur Wellesley, duke of Wellington [q. v.], and of William Wellesley-Pole, baron Maryborough (afterwards third Earl of Mornington) [q. v.] In his early years he served in the army, exchanging from the 40th foot into the 1st foot guards in April 1791. His diplomatic career began with his appointment as secretary to the Stockholm legation in January 1792. Three years later he was elected to the Irish parliament for the family borough of Trim. In July 1797 he accompanied Lord Malmesbury to Lille as his secretary. Two months later he sailed for India with his brother, then Lord Mornington, afterwards the Marquis Wellesley. Besides the valuable assistance he gave to the viceroy as private secretary, Henry Wellesley while in India rendered some important special services. Together with his brother, Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards Duke of Wellington), he acted as one of the commissioners for the settlement of Mysore after the defeat of Tipú Saib, and was afterwards despatched to England to give a detailed account of the war and the treaties which concluded it. Lord Wellesley described him as ‘next to himself most completely informed on these topics.’ Henry Wellesley left India on 15 Aug. 1799, and had returned thither by March 1801. Soon afterwards he was sent to Lucknow to demand from the vizier of Oude a cession of territory sufficient to defray the cost of the increased subsidised force which the viceroy had sent thither. It was also required that the vizier should in his administration act in conformity with the East India Company's instructions. A treaty was concluded, and Wellesley was appointed lieutenant-governor of the ceded territory. The court of directors of the company, though acknowledging his services, resented the appointment, as Wellesley was not a member of the service, and ordered that he be removed forthwith. But they were overruled by the board of control, who pointed out that the Oude mission was an extraordinary service, and that Wellesley had declined all emoluments except his salary as private secretary to the viceroy. He resigned the lieutenant-governorship in March 1802, and immediately returned to Europe. In the following November the directors wrote to the viceroy a full acknowledgment of his brother's services in Oude. Lord Wellesley requested Castlereagh to communicate all his despatches to Henry Wellesley, adding: ‘Every part of my conduct and the whole course of my sentiments on all subjects are familiar to Mr. Henry Wellesley, in whom I repose the most implicit confidence’ (Wellesley to Castlereagh, 31 Dec. 1803, quoted by ). In the subsequent articles of accusation against the Marquis Wellesley, his brother's name was joined with his own, and, in connection with the Oude affair, Henry Wellesley was (baselessly) charged with offering ‘alarming threats and personal insults’ to the vizier, and with imposing heavy taxes after the cession (Parl. Debates, vii. 391;, ii. 178–81).

After his arrival in England, Wellesley entered upon a short period of political life. He was returned to the English parliament as member for Eye on 20 April 1807, and two years later was also chosen for Athlone, but elected to sit for Eye. During 1808–9 he acted as one of the secretaries to the treasury, and on 20 Dec. 1809 was sworn of the privy council.

In May 1809 he had resumed his diplomatic career, resigning his seat in parliament. He accompanied the Marquis Wellesley to Spain as secretary to the embassy. When, a few months later, the marquis returned to England, Henry Wellesley took his place as envoy-extraordinary. On 1 Oct. 1811 he was named ambassador. During the Peninsular war he gave valuable support to Wellington. In 1812 he was knighted, and in January 1815 created G.C.B. He claimed to have prevented Wellington's deprival of the command of the Spanish army by the ultra-liberal regency; and in 1814 prevailed upon the king of Spain to sign a treaty relinquishing for ever the scheme of a Bourbon alliance. After the peace he concluded a treaty with Spain containing an article by which Anglo-Spanish commercial relations were replaced upon the footing they had been in 1796. In 1817 he negotiated with the same country a treaty for the abolition of the slave trade.

Wellesley left Spain in March 1822, and on 3 Feb. 1823 was named ambassador at Vienna. He remained in Austria for eight years. In August 1827 he told Wellington that he thought he had more than once prevented a rupture between England and Austria. But he complained that Canning never recognised his services. Wellesley's policy towards Austria was probably too conciliatory to please that minister (Sir H. Wellesley to Wellington, December 1827).

In this year, according to Colchester


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/464

 278 "She ought to be mine as well as yours; for you're a word-fast man, I hope," said the lad.

"Ay, ay!" said the king, "have her you shall, since I said it; but, first of all, you must make the sun shine into my palace hall."

Now, you must know there was a high steep ridge of rock close outside the windows, which threw such a shade over the hall that never a sunbeam shone into it.

"That wasn't in our bargain," answered the lad; "but I see this is past praying against; I must e'en go and try my luck, for the Princess I must and will have."

So down he went to Dapple, and told him what the king wanted, and Dapplegrim thought it might easily be done, but first of all he must be new shod; and for that ten pound of iron, and twelve pound of steel besides, were needed, and two smiths, one to hammer and the other to hold, and then they'd soon get the sun to shine into the palace hall.

So when the lad asked for all these things, he got them at once—the king couldn't say nay for very shame; and so Dapplegrim got new shoes, and such shoes! Then the lad jumped upon his back, and off they went again; and for every leap that Dapplegrim gave, down sunk the ridge fifteen ells into the earth, and so they went on till there was nothing left of the ridge for the king to see.

When the lad got back to the king's palace he asked the king if the Princess were not his now; for now no one could say that the sun didn't shine into the hall. But then the others set the king's back up again, and he answered the lad should have her of course, he had never thought of anything else; but first of all he must get as grand a horse


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/465

 Rh for the bride to ride on to church as the bridegroom had himself.

The lad said the king hadn't spoken a word about this before, and that he thought he had now fairly earned the Princess; but the king held to his own; and more, if the lad couldn't do that he should lose his life; that was what the king said. So the lad went down to the stable in doleful dumps, as you may well fancy, and there he told Dapplegrim all about it; how the king had laid that task on him, to find the bride as good a horse as the bridegroom had himself, else he would lose his life.

"But that's not so easy," he said, "for your match isn't to be found in the wide world."

"Oh yes, I have a match," said Dapplegrim; "but 't isn't so easy to find him, for he abides in Hell. Still we'll try. And now you must go up to the king and ask for new shoes for me, ten pound of iron, and twelve pound of steel; and two smiths, one to hammer and one to hold; and mind you see that the points and ends of these shoes are sharp; and twelve sacks of rye, and twelve sacks of barley, and twelve slaughtered oxen, we must have with us; and mind, we must have the twelve ox-hides, with twelve hundred spikes driven into each; and, let me see, a big tar-barrel;—that's all we want."

So the lad went up to the king and asked for all that Dapplegrim had said, and the king again thought he couldn't say nay, for shame's sake, and so the lad got all he wanted.

Well, he jumped up on Dapplegrim's back, and rode away from the palace, and when he had ridden far far over hill and heath, Dapple asked,—

"Do you hear anything?"


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/212

 (Diary, iii. 468), Wellesley refused the vice-royalty of India. Wellington now approached Canning's successor, Lord Goderich, with the view of obtaining a peerage for his brother. On 21 Jan. 1828 Wellesley was created a peer, with the title of Baron Cowley of Wellesley. Wellington soon afterwards suggested his transference to Paris. On Palmerston's appointment to the foreign office at the end of 1830, Cowley offered to resign, and in July 1831 he left Vienna. On 13 March 1835 he was named ambassador at Paris by Peel's tory government, but retired in a few days when the whigs returned to office.

He was reappointed by Peel in October 1841. Princess Lieven, writing to Earl Grey on 6 Aug. 1841, said Cowley's appointment would be agreeable at Paris, but feared his health was too bad (Corresp. of Princess Lieven with Earl Grey, ed. Le Strange, iii. 338). He remained at Paris for the rest of his life, though he resigned his official position in 1846, when the tories went out of office.

Cowley died at Paris on 27 April 1847. He was buried in Grosvenor Chapel, South Audley Street. Metternich, the Austrian chancellor, characterised Cowley as a straightforward man, and as one who had a true eye for affairs. A portrait of him was engraved after a painting by John Hoppner, in the possession of the Duke of Wellington.

Cowley was twice married. His first wife, Charlotte, daughter of Charles Sloane, first earl Cadogan, whom he married in 1803, was divorced by act of parliament in 1810, after an action for criminal conversation, in which Cowley obtained 24,000l. damages from Henry William Paget (afterwards Marquis of Anglesey) [q. v.], who married her the same year. By his first wife Cowley had three sons and a daughter, Charlotte Arbuthnot, who married Robert Grosvenor, first lord Ebury. The eldest son, Henry Richard Charles, earl Cowley [q. v.], is separately noticed. The second wife was Georgiana Charlotte Augusta, eldest daughter of James Cecil, first marquis of Salisbury. She died at Hatfield on 18 Jan. 1860, leaving a daughter, Georgiana Charlotte Mary, who married William Henry Lytton Earle Bulwer, baron Dalling and Bulwer [q. v.]

Cowley's third son, (1809–1882), dean of Windsor, was educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated M.A. in 1830. He took holy orders, and from 1836 to 1854 held the family living of Strathfieldsaye, Hampshire. In 1854 he was nominated dean of Windsor. He had been Queen Victoria's domestic chaplain since 1849, and from that time lived on terms of intimacy with the royal family. The queen stood sponsor to his son, and a portrait of him hangs in the vestibule to the private apartments of Windsor Castle. He died at Hazlewood, near Watford, on 17 Sept. 1882. The Prince of Wales attended his funeral. Wellesley married in 1856 Magdalen Montagu, third daughter of Lord Rokeby. His only son, Albert Victor Arthur, was born in July 1865.

[Doyle's Official Baronage; G. E. C[okayne]'s Complete Peerage; Burke's Peerage; Ann. Reg. 1847, App. to Chron. pp. 225–6; Pearce's Memoirs of the Marquis Wellesley, vols. i. ii.; Wellington Correspondence, ed. second duke, iv. 72–3, 162–7, 171, 469–71, 486, 499; Metternich's Memoirs (transl.), iv. 99, 117; Greville Memoirs, new ed. vi. 20, 27. Cowley's despatches to Castlereagh while in Spain are in Castlereagh's Corresp. vols. ix–xii.; letters to Wellesley and Wellington, 1809–10, in Wellington Suppl. Despatches, vol. vi., and to the latter in India in Gurwood, vol. ii. See also Times, 19 Sept. 1882; Illustr. London News, 23 Sept., with portrait.]

WELLESLEY, HENRY (1791–1866), scholar and antiquary, born in 1791, was the illegitimate son of Richard Colley Wellesley, marquis Wellesley [q. v.] He matriculated on 17 Oct. 1811 from Christ Church, Oxford, where he held a studentship from 1811 to 1828, graduating B.A. in 1816, M.A. in 1818, and B.D. and D.D. in 1847. On 20 June 1816 he became a student at Lincoln's Inn, but having been ordained a minister of the English church he was appointed successively vicar of Flitton-with-Silsoe in Bedfordshire on 5 Sept. 1827, rector of Dunsfold in Surrey on 1 Nov. 1833, and rector of Woodmancote in Sussex on 6 June 1838, resigning the last in 1860. He was also rector of Hurstmonceaux in Sussex at the time of his death. In 1842 he was nominated vice-principal of New Inn Hall, Oxford, and in 1847 was made principal by the Duke of Wellington, then chancellor of the university. While principal he filled the office of university preacher. Wellesley was an accomplished scholar, well read in both ancient and modern literature. He was a member of the Sussex Archæological Society from its foundation in 1846. At the time of his death Wellesley was a curator of the Bodleian Library, of the university galleries, and of the Taylorian Institution. He died at Oxford, unmarried, on 11 Jan. 1866.

Wellesley was the author of ‘Stray Notes on the Text of Shakespeare,’ London, 1865, 8vo. He edited ‘Anthologia Polyglotta; a


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/213

 selection of Versions in various Languages, chiefly from the Greek Anthology,’ London, 1849, 4to; and published ‘Canzone in lode di Bella Donna aggiuntovi un sonetto “fatto per uno ch' era in gran fortuna.” Componimenti Toscani del secolo xiv. dati in luce dal Dottore E. Wellesley,’ Oxford, 1851, 8vo. He also contributed three papers on local antiquities to the ‘Collections’ of the Sussex Archæological Society (iii. 232, v. 277, ix. 107).

[Gent. Mag. 1866, i. 440; Foster's Alumni Oxon. 1715–1886; Foster's Index Eccles.; Lincoln's Inn Records, 1896, ii. 68; Allibone's Dict. of Engl. Lit.; Men of the Time, 1865.]  WELLESLEY, HENRY RICHARD CHARLES, first (1804–1884), born in Hertford Street, Mayfair, on 17 June 1804, was eldest son of Henry Wellesley, first baron Cowley [q. v.] He was educated at Oxford, matriculating from Brasenose College on 14 Jan. 1822, and, like his father, adopted a diplomatic career. Natural abilities, combined with family and social advantages of a marked order, made easy the early stages of his progress. He first became an attaché at Vienna in October 1824, and passed through various subordinate grades at The Hague, Stuttgart, and Constantinople. On 29 Feb. 1848 he was appointed minister-plenipotentiary to the confederated Swiss cantons, and in July he was sent on a special mission to Frankfurt, in order to watch the proceeding of the German parliament, which was then sitting at the Paulskirche, and was engaged in the attempt to draw up a permanent constitution. On 1 March 1851 he was made a K.C.B. and on 7 June appointed envoy extraordinary and minister to the Germanic confederation at Frankfurt. The Earl of Normanby, who had succeeded the first Lord Cowley as ambassador in Paris, retired from the embassy in 1852. Lord Granville had just succeeded to the foreign office, on the retirement of Lord Palmerston, after his quarrel with Lord Russell in 1851 [see arts. , third ;, first ], and on 5 Feb. 1852 he rather unexpectedly appointed Cowley to the vacant embassy at Paris. Three days previously Cowley had been made a privy councillor.

The appointment at the time excited some astonishment, as the world had yet to discover the sterling abilities which lay concealed under the quiet manner and unostentatious character of the new ambassador. Cowley arrived in Paris just two months after the coup d'état of 2 Dec. 1851, which turned the republic into the empire, and he remained there till 1867. His term of office coincided, therefore, with the greater part of the reign of Napoleon III. He had the difficult task, immediately after his arrival, of representing Great Britain during the excitement in both countries which followed the coup d'état; and soon afterwards had to bear a prominent part in the complicated negotiations connected with the eastern question, which preceded the Crimean war. Together with the Earl of Clarendon, then minister of foreign affairs, he represented Great Britain at the Paris congress, which terminated the war in 1856. He also took the leading part in the subsequent negotiations caused by difficulties of detail in regard to the settlement of the new Bessarabian frontier, by the union of Wallachia and Moldavia into one state; the question of the navigation of the Danube; and other collateral points connected with the politics of the east of Europe which arose out of the treaty of Paris.

Cowley was one of the negotiators of the famous ‘declaration of Paris,’ signed in March 1856, by which the European powers agreed that privateering should be abolished; that the neutral flag should in future exempt goods, except contraband, from capture; and that blockades must be effectual in order to be recognised. In 1857 he was sole British plenipotentiary for the conclusion of the peace with Persia, which was signed at Paris on 4 March of that year. He was created Earl Cowley and Viscount Dangan on 4 April 1857, after declining the offer of a peerage in the previous year. It was immediately after these events, however, that his mettle as a diplomatist was put to the severest test. On 14 Jan. Orsini made his attempt to murder the emperor of the French. Cowley's conduct at the critical moment which followed in the relations of Great Britain and France afforded a conspicuous proof of the influence which he had acquired at the Tuileries.

On 20 Jan. 1858 Count Walewski wrote a despatch to M. de Persigny, the French ambassador in London, reflecting upon the conduct of England in affording deliberate countenance and shelter to men by whose writings ‘“assassination was elevated into a doctrine openly preached and carried into practice by reiterated attacks” upon the person of the French sovereign’ (, iv. 186). Palmerston and Clarendon thought it wise to make no written reply to this communication; and contented themselves with instructing the ambassador in the first instance to make a verbal reply. Unfortunately, Walewski's despatch had been accompanied by the publication in the ‘Moniteur’ of addresses to the emperor from officers of


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/214

 the French army, calling for the invasion of England as a nest of brigands and assassins. The irritation thereby produced in England, followed by the acknowledgment that the despatch of Count Walewski had perhaps been accepted in a too quiet manner, led to the fall of Lord Palmerston's government on the second reading of a bill intended to strengthen the law of conspiracy, which on the first reading had been carried by a very large majority. That the dangerous condition of affairs produced by these events did not develop into something graver, was mainly owing to the tact and judgment of Cowley. Walewski was induced by him to explain away the unfortunate expressions of his despatch, and to state that the addresses of the army had been published in the ‘Moniteur’ in ignorance of some of the expressions which they contained. British opinion, already partly satisfied by the fall of Lord Palmerston, had meanwhile had time to realise that the law of conspiracy did require strengthening; and the excitement in both countries gradually cooled down, after a ministerial explanation on 12 March 1858 in parliament and the presentation of a despatch from Cowley to Clarendon by Lord Malmesbury, who was now secretary of state. In this despatch he explained that, though he had not been charged to make any official communication to the French government, he had been enabled by Lord Clarendon's private instructions ‘to place before the French government the views of her majesty's government far more fully, and I cannot but believe far more satisfactorily, than would have been the case had my language been clothed in far more official garb’ (, Life of the Prince Consort, iv. 196–8; Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, pp. 418–30;, Parl. Debates, new ser. vol. clix.)

In February 1859 Cowley was charged with a highly confidential mission to Vienna, in the hope of being able to arrange a mediation in regard to the differences between France and Austria (cf. Parl. Papers, 1859, Lord Cowley to Lord Malmesbury, 1 Jan. 1859; Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, pp. 457–62, 469–473). The mission was, however, foredoomed to failure, as the war party had got the upper hand in Paris (, iv. 391, 404;, 2nd ser. ii. 223). Immediately after the signature of the preliminaries of peace between the two belligerents at Villafranca, the mysterious negotiations which followed placed a severe strain on the abilities and tact of the British ambassador in Paris. Public opinion on the British side of the Channel complained of the enormous naval and military preparations which continued on the French side, and asked against whom they were now intended; while on the French side complaint was made of the constantly increasing mistrust displayed by their old Crimean ally. The volunteer movement, initiated in 1859, was the outward manifestation of British anxiety at the continental situation. The peace of Villafranca had practically left the questions which had caused the war between France and Austria unsettled and open. The wishes of Italy herself as to her future had not been consulted, and the whole peninsula was rapidly sinking into a state of anarchy. The emperor grasped at the idea of a congress to settle the situation which he had created but was unable to terminate, and thereby hoped to be able to free himself from the almost hopeless imbroglio into which his policy had drifted. But it soon appeared that, among other pledges, he had given an undertaking at Villafranca to the emperor of Austria not to press such a proposal. He suggested, however, that a proposal to the same effect should come from London, in which case he promised to support it. It was Cowley's painful duty to suggest in diplomatic language that such a course was one which ‘honour forbade Great Britain to undertake’ (, v. 475). In language of mingled firmness and courtesy he proceeded to point out how impossible the constant shiftings of the imperial policy made it for his government to establish any permanent hold on the good will of the English people. He dwelt more particularly on ‘his majesty's sudden intimacy with Russia after the Crimean war; his sudden quarrel with Austria; the equally sudden termination of the war, which made people suppose he might wish to carry it elsewhere; the extraordinary rapidity with which the late armaments had been made; the attention which had been devoted to the imperial navy, its increase, and the report of the naval commission, which showed plainly that the augmentation was directed against England;’ but England, he insisted, could never allow her naval supremacy to be weakened or doubted. ‘Let the emperor appeal,’ he said, ‘to the common-sense of the English people by facts rather than by words, and he would soon see common-sense get the better of suspicion’ (Lord Cowley to Lord J. Russell, 7 Aug. 1859).

A serious feature of the situation was the distrust which the conduct of the emperor inspired in the two leading statesmen of England, Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell. The suggestion that Savoy and Nice should be surrendered to France, and that the surrender should be recognised as the price of French consent to the annexa-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/215

 tion of the Italian duchies to the kingdom of Italy, was generally felt not only to be inconsistent with the declaration made by the emperor when commencing the late war, but as probably only a preliminary to further attempts on the part of France to extend her frontiers, and thereby endanger the peace of Europe. These views were forcibly placed by Cowley before the emperor in an interview on 9 Feb. 1860 (Lord Cowley to Lord Russell, 10 Feb. 1860,, v. 31). In the course of this conversation he succeeded in extracting from the emperor an acknowledgment that he considered he had obtained from Count Cavour before the war a consent to the surrender of Savoy and Nice, if the result of the war should be to create an Italian state of ten or twelve millions of inhabitants. But this admission did not tend to conciliate those who criticised the imperial policy for want of straightforwardness. Cowley at this time was also occupied as joint-plenipotentiary in assisting Cobden in the negotiations for the treaty of commerce between Great Britain and France (, v. 34, 350), the success of which, as likely to cement a good understanding between the two countries on the solid basis of material interest, was an object he had greatly at heart. The treaty was signed on 23 Jan. 1860. A letter which the emperor wrote conveying his congratulations on the success of these negotiations well illustrates the difficulties with which at this period the British ambassador in Paris had to contend. ‘It is my profound conviction,’ the emperor wrote to Cowley, ‘that the harmonious action of the two nations is indispensable for the good of civilisation, and that their antagonism would be a calamity to all. While saying this, I would ask you, my dear Lord Cowley, to forgive me if occasionally I give too warm an expression to the pain I feel at seeing the animosities and prejudices of another age spring up afresh in England.’ The allusion was to some observations which a few days before had been addressed by him to the British ambassador at a concert at the Tuileries. These observations were not only unusual in their vivacity, but still more unusual from being made in the presence of the Russian ambassador, General Kisseleff. ‘Lord Cowley had at once to check the further progress of remarks in a direction already sufficiently dangerous, by saying that he considered himself justified in calling the emperor's attention to the unusual course he had adopted in indulging, in the presence of the Russian ambassador, in animadversion on the conduct of England;’ and ‘he appealed to him to consider whether he had been properly dealt with, remembering the personal regard and the anxiety to smooth over difficulties between the two governments which in his official capacity he had always shown, even at the risk of exposing himself to be suspected of being more French than he ought to be.’ Cowley then proceeded to justify the distrust occasioned in England by the contradictory language of the emperor in having stated that he meditated no special advantages for France, and in afterwards having to acknowledge that overtures had positively been made by him to Sardinia before the war for the eventual cession of Savoy; and he dwelt on the anxiety occasioned by his having reopened the question of what were the ‘natural frontiers’ of France.

The emperor was not able to question the wisdom or deny the good will of the speaker; neither, as the biographer of the prince consort observes, ‘was it in the emperor's character, in which candour to an adversary formed a large element, to resent them.’ And thus this strange incident terminated, which at one moment, as Lord Russell wrote to the queen, threatened to bear ‘a disagreeable resemblance to other scenes already famous in the history of Napoleon I and Napoleon III’ (the Queen to Lord Russell, 10 March 1860). Cowley received a special despatch approving his conduct in the difficult circumstances in which he had been placed (, Life of the Prince Consort, v. 37–43).

The records of ‘la diplomatie intime’ are always among the most laborious for the biographer to investigate, especially in regard to the history of comparatively recent events, and the materials are as yet not fully accessible for ascertaining ‘the extent of Lord Cowley's direct and personal influence in shaping the history of his time’ (Times, July 1884) after 1861, when he was occupied even more constantly than before in smoothing down the international dangers caused by the hesitating temperament of the French emperor, anxious at one moment to justify the phrase, ‘l'Empire c'est la paix,’ and at another to vindicate the Napoleonic traditions as to the natural frontiers of France; and wishing to satisfy at one and the same time both his own genuine goodwill for the cause of Italian unity and also the clerical passions of the influential section at his court, which was determined to maintain the temporal sovereignty of the pope over what remained of the states of the church. The abortive proposals for a European congress which the emperor renewed in 1863, the desire of Italy to annex Venice and to


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/218

 and devoted himself to the study of Indian business. At that time he became intimately acquainted with Lord Cornwallis, who had recently retired from the governor-generalship of India. In 1797 he was nominated for the post of governor of Madras, the intention being to reappoint Cornwallis as governor-general. The latter, however, could not be spared from Ireland, where he was holding the office of lord lieutenant, and accordingly Mornington was appointed governor-general of India, and sailed on 7 Nov. 1797. He took out with him as his private secretary his brother, Henry Richard Charles Wellesley (afterwards Lord Cowley) [q. v.] He had married, on 29 Nov. 1793, Hyacinthe Gabrielle, daughter of Pierre Roland of Paris, who had lived with him for nine years before their marriage, and by whom he had had children. In the circumstances he did not think it expedient to take her to India.

It was a very critical time in India. Clive had laid the foundations of British supremacy in Bengal, and that supremacy, amid many difficulties, had been consolidated by Warren Hastings; but in the south of India the British had been hard pressed by Hyder Ali, the astute ruler of Mysore, with whom they had maintained a by no means equal contest. Hyder's son and successor, Tippu Sahib, who had been defeated by Cornwallis in 1792, was engaged in plots for the subversion of British rule, and the great Mahratta states had still to be overcome. There were also threats of another invasion of India from the north, where Zamán Shah, the ruler of Cabul, was known to be planning an advance upon Delhi. The danger, however, which at that time was most pressing was an alliance between Tippu and the French, and the co-operation of a French force with that under Tippu for the expulsion of the English. This was Tippu's object, and it so happened that on 26 April 1798, the very day that Mornington reached Madras, a small body of French soldiers landed at Mangalore, a port on the coast of Canara, which was then under Mysore rule.

The condition of affairs in the Hyderabad state was also threatening. In 1759 Colonel Francis Forde [q. v.], acting under Clive's orders, had compelled the nizam of that day, then styled the subahdár of the Dekhan, to renounce the French alliance, and in 1768 and 1779 fresh treaties had been made with the nizam, under which he was bound to maintain no French troops in his service. These treaties, however, had been broken, and Mornington's predecessor, Sir John Shore (afterwards Baron Teignmouth) [q. v.], had taken no steps to enforce their observance. Indeed, when Mornington reached India the troops maintained at Hyderabad under French officers numbered fourteen thousand men. They had been under the command of an able French officer named Raymond, who had died just before Mornington arrived. The Mahratta states of Poona, Baroda, Nagpur, Gwalior, and Indore, however much divided among themselves, were at one in their desire to expel the English from India, while in Oudh and in Rohilkhand the feelings of the people towards the English were the reverse of friendly.

In the course of his voyage Mornington landed at the Cape of Good Hope, where he not only received despatches from India giving the latest news, but met Lord Macartney, then governor of the Cape, who had been governor of Madras; Lord Hobart, who had just retired from the Madras government; General (afterwards Sir) David Baird [q. v.], and Major William Kirkpatrick [q. v.], who had quite recently held the office of British resident at Hyderabad. From Major Kirkpatrick Mornington received a great deal of useful information, although he did not agree with him on all points, and several of the recommendations which, when writing from the Cape, Mornington made to the home government were based upon information given him by Kirkpatrick. The conclusion at which Mornington arrived during his short stay at the Cape was that the balance of power in India no longer existed upon the same footing on which it was placed by the peace of Seringapatam, and that therefore the question was, how it might best be brought back to that state in which the president of the board of control had directed him to maintain it. He was clearly of opinion that the non-intervention policy of his two immediate predecessors—for Cornwallis, as well as Shore, was a believer in that policy—could not be continued. During his stay at Madras he looked into the position of the nawáb of Arcot, the successor of Muhammad Ali, commonly called the Nawáb Wallajah, who owed his throne to the aid given him by Stringer Lawrence [q. v.] and Clive. He found that there was a large debt due by the nawáb to the company, and that the nawáb had no intention of paying it. He also investigated the affairs of Tanjore, a Mahratta state in the south of India; but he was compelled to postpone his decision on both these matters. He did not reach Calcutta until 17 May 1798, and the Mysore question then claimed precedence of all others.

This question assumed an acute phase in June 1798, when a proclamation appeared


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/219

 in the newspapers, which had been issued at Mauritius by the French governor of that island, inviting natives to enlist for an expedition against the English in India, in conjunction with Tippu Sultán. Mornington was at first disposed to question the authenticity of the document, but he at once wrote to General George Harris (afterwards Lord Harris) [q. v.], the commander-in-chief and acting governor at Madras, to be prepared to collect a force in the event of its being required, and, after ascertaining that the proclamation was authentic, he, with the full concurrence of his council, gave further orders for the necessary preparations. In the meantime the first thing to be done was to secure the co-operation of the nizam, and, if possible, also of the Mahrattas, in order that in the war which was impending the English might not be without allies, or, at all events, that the Mysore ruler might not have the aid of the fourteen thousand troops commanded by French officers who were still in the service of the nizam. This was accomplished in the month of September. The French officers were removed, the troops under them were either disbanded or placed under British officers, and a treaty was executed which brought the nizam into the position of a protected prince. The negotiations with the Mahrattas did not do more than secure their neutrality; but, as the event showed, this sufficed to protect the British from a flank attack. Thus within seven months Mornington succeeded in giving effect to a great extent to the policy which he had sketched out in his letters from the Cape.

The execution of that policy was not unattended with difficulties. In the first place the government of Madras had been greatly alarmed by Hyder Ali's victories, and were very unwilling to renew the struggle with his son. Josiah Webbe, the chief secretary, the most able man about the government, and probably the most important, anticipated nothing but disaster from an attack upon Tippu. His views were adopted by the local government, including the commander-in-chief, and formed the text of a remonstrance which the government of Madras addressed to the supreme government. But Mornington had made up his mind, and was not to be moved by any remonstrance. He had thoroughly gauged the situation. He had penetrated Tippu's treachery. He had also received news of the destruction of the French fleet in the battle of the Nile. Up to this point his letters to Tippu had been of a conciliatory character, but now he threw off the mask, and intimated to Tippu that Major (Sir) John Doveton [q. v.], an officer in his confidence, would visit his court and explain his views more fully. About the same time he informed the sultán that he had decided to repair to Madras in order to carry on the negotiations on the spot. All this produced but little effect until Tippu learnt that Mornington had actually reached Madras. To the intimation that a British envoy would be sent him, he replied with studied insolence to the effect that he was going to be absent on a hunting expedition, showing that he had by no means realised the gravity of his position. Mornington soon perceived that Tippu's object was to gain time, in order that the British troops might be exposed to the inconvenience of the monsoon, and also in the hope that some change of circumstances might bring him the aid which he looked for from the French. General Harris was accordingly instructed to advance into Mysore territory, which he did on 11 Feb. 1799. On the 22nd of that month Mornington issued a proclamation, in which he reviewed Tippu's conduct, showing how he had ‘rejected every pacific overture, in the hourly expectation of receiving the succour’ from the French ‘which he has eagerly solicited for the prosecution of his favourite purposes of ambition and revenge,’ and stating that ‘the allies were equally prepared to repel the violence and to counteract the artifices and delays of the sultán,’ and with this view were resolved to place their army in such a position as shall afford ‘absolute protection against any artifice or insincerity, and shall preclude the return of that danger which has so lately menaced their possessions.’ It had been arranged that a force from Bombay, under the command of Major-general James Stuart [see under, d. 1793], the commander-in-chief in that presidency, should co-operate with General Harris. This force, before it joined General Harris, was attacked by Tippu, who was repulsed with considerable loss. Subsequently a battle was fought at Malavelly (27 March 1799), in which the British, who had been reinforced by six thousand of the nizam's troops, were again victorious. On that occasion the left wing, of which the nizam's troops formed a part, was commanded by Colonel Arthur Wellesley (the future Duke of Wellington) [q. v.] Tippu having after this battle retired within the walls of Seringapatam, General Harris advanced and laid siege to that fortress, which was taken by assault on 4 April, Tippu being slain in the assault. This ended the war. The other Mysore fortresses speedily surrendered.

Mornington had now to decide what should be the fate of the Mysore state. The decision at which he arrived was that Mysore should


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/220

 be maintained as a native state under a member of the old Hindu dynasty which had been displaced by Hyder Ali. It was, however, to be shorn of a considerable part of its territory, a portion to be taken by the company and a portion by the nizam. Mornington's original intention was that the Mahratta state of Poona should share in the spoil; for although the Mahrattas had rendered no aid in the advance on Seringapatam, he deemed it expedient on political grounds that the Mahrattas should be admitted on certain conditions to a share of the conquered territory. Those conditions were that the peshwa should enter into a definite alliance against the French, should engage never to employ Europeans without the consent of the company, and should guarantee the inviolability of the new state to be erected in Mysore. These conditions, however, were declined by the peshwa, and accordingly the conquered territory was divided between the company and the nizam. The company's share included Canara, Coimbatur, and in fact all the districts intervening between their possessions on the western coast and the Carnatic. The forts and posts at the heads of the passes leading into Mysore were also assigned to the company, as was the fortress of Seringapatam. The nizam obtained the districts of Gooty and Gurramconda, and land down to Chitaldrug and other fortresses on the northern border of Mysore; but a year later these tracts were all ceded to the company to defray the expenses of the subsidiary force which the nizam was, and still is, required to maintain in his dominions. By this last arrangement the nizam was placed in the position of a protected prince absolutely bound to the British government.

On one part of these arrangements, viz. the revival of the Hindu state of Mysore, there has been considerable difference of opinion, not only at the time when the arrangements were made, but during the years which have since elapsed. The late Sir Thomas (then Captain) Munro [q. v.], who was one of the ablest, if not the ablest, of the rising Indian statesmen of that day, regarded with grave misgivings the re-establishment of the Mysore state. He was strongly in favour, under all the circumstances, of the extension of British rule wherever an opportunity offered. If he had had any voice in the decision of the question, he would have had ‘no rájá of Mysore, in the person of a child dragged forth from oblivion, to be placed on a throne on which his ancestors for three generations had not sat for more than half a century.’ Nor was his opinion without justification from the subsequent course of events. The maladministration of the young rájá, after he attained his majority and was invested with power, was so gross that the government of the country had to be assumed by the company, and was never again placed in his hands. He died without any natural male heir, and it had been quite settled that after his death Mysore should be annexed to the British ráj; but after the Indian mutiny the change of opinion as to the policy of annexation was so great that in 1867 it was decided by the secretary of state to recognise an adoption which the rájá had made shortly before his death, and to maintain Mysore as a native state.

There can be no question that if the native state was to be maintained, the policy adopted by Mornington of setting up a member of the old Hindu family which had formerly ruled in Mysore, in preference to continuing the government in the family of Hyder and Tippu, who had shown themselves so thoroughly hostile to the British power, was a wise policy, and at that time there was much to be said in favour of moderation in extending British territory. As a safeguard for the future, the new ruler was not entrusted with the power of making peace or war, and was forbidden to maintain an army, the company undertaking for an annual subsidy of 280,000l. the protection of the country. The right was also reserved of interfering in the internal government when such interference was required, and this right, as we have said, was exercised when the rájá proved that he was unfit to govern. Sir Barry Close [q. v.], an able military and political officer, was appointed resident at the rájá's court, and Colonel Arthur Wellesley was left in command of the military force quartered in Mysore.

The services rendered by Mornington in thus surmounting the main difficulties by which he was confronted on his arrival in India were acknowledged by votes of thanks from both houses of parliament, and on 2 Dec. 1799 he was created Marquis Wellesley of Norragh in the peerage of Ireland. The latter was not regarded by Wellesley as by any means an adequate reward, and in writing to Pitt he spoke his mind very plainly on the subject. He declined a donation of 100,000l. which was offered to him by the court of directors from the plunder taken at Seringapatam, but was persuaded by that body to accept a star and badge, composed of Tippu's jewels, which the army wished to present to him, but which he had at first refused.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/221

 Shortly after the conquest of Mysore it devolved upon Wellesley to deal with the right to the throne of the native state of Tanjore. It lay between Sarfoji, the adopted son of the late rájá, and Amír Singh, the half-brother of the latter, who was actually on the throne. Wellesley decided that the right clearly lay with Sarfoji, and moreover that the country had been grossly misgoverned by Amír Singh. Sarfoji, however, was very young and inexperienced, and by no means well qualified to conduct the government of the country. In these circumstances Wellesley decided to place Sarfoji in the position of a mediatised prince, and to vest the actual administration in the company's government. This was effected by a treaty concluded on 25 Oct. 1799, which remained in force until 1855, when, owing to the death of the last rájá without leaving a male heir, Tanjore was annexed. Under British rule, both before and since the annexation, Tanjore has prospered wonderfully, and has long been one of the richest districts in India.

A few months later Wellesley placed the nawáb of Surat in a position similar to that of the rájá of Tanjore.

A greater difficulty was presented by the case of the nawáb of the Carnatic. Here the relations between successive nawábs and the company had long been unsatisfactory. Muhammad Ali, who had been secured on his throne by Stringer Lawrence and Clive, was a spendthrift, as was his son, Omdat ul Omrah, and they neither of them had met their engagements to the company, to which they were heavily in debt. About the time when Wellesley took up the question, papers were discovered at Mysore which showed that both Omdat ul Omrah and his father had been engaged in a clandestine correspondence with Tippu, having for its object the expulsion of the English from India. At the moment when this discovery was made Omdat ul Omrah was on his deathbed, and in consequence the question of the succession had to be postponed until his death. Wellesley had previously endeavoured to obtain his assent to an arrangement similar to that which had been made at Tanjore, but had been met, not only by a refusal, but by a demand that the nawáb should share in the distribution of the territories just taken from Mysore. On the nawáb's death Wellesley offered similar terms to his reputed son, Ali Hussain, but by him also the terms were refused. Wellesley then proceeded to treat with Azim ud Dowlah, a nephew of the late nawáb, and with him a treaty was made on 31 July 1801 which provided for the practical annexation of the Carnatic. Under this treaty the complete civil and military administration was vested in the company, one-fifth of the net revenues being assigned to the nawáb. James Mill the historian condemns the arrangement, and affects to throw doubt upon the genuineness of the documents upon which Wellesley acted, stigmatising the whole transaction as ‘an unmanly fraud.’ But his views have not been accepted by any of the authorities best qualified to form a judgment upon such a question; and when we remember that if the documents upon which Wellesley acted were forged, such men as General Harris, General Baird, Colonel Arthur Wellesley, Colonel Close, Henry Wellesley, Captain Macaulay, Neil Benjamin Edmonstone [q. v.], and Josiah Webbe must have been parties to the forgery, it is impossible to suppose that there can have been the slightest foundation for the charge. The treaty of 1801 was a personal treaty, and as such was held in 1855 to justify the government of India in their refusal to put up another mediatised nawáb. The chief members of the Arcot family are now pensioners, liberally pensioned, but coming under the category of subjects.

Wellesley next directed his attention to Oudh. In that frontier state the existing state of things was extremely unsatisfactory. The nawáb, Saádat Ali, was a mere voluptuary, a coward, and a miser. The long-threatened invasion by the Afghan ruler, Zamán Shah, was still by no means improbable, and the army of Oudh was a disorderly rabble. This state of affairs was obviously a serious danger to the company's territories. Wellesley in the first instance despatched Colonel Scott, the Bengal adjutant-general, to explain the situation to the nawáb, and to urge him to replace his so-called army by a British subsidiary force. Saádat Ali's reply was an offer, by no means genuine, to abdicate; but Wellesley did not wish to annex Oudh, and he soon discovered that the offer to abdicate was a mere sham. He therefore despatched to Lucknow his brother, Henry Wellesley, who succeeded in convincing the nawáb that temporising and dilatory shifts would not be tolerated, and that Oudh must be placed either upon the footing of Tanjore or upon that which had been adopted in the case of Hyderabad. The latter arrangement was eventually accepted by the nawáb, and a treaty was made under which certain districts were ceded to the company, who were to maintain a force for the protection of Oudh, the nawáb agreeing to reduce his own troops, and to


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/222

 into his remaining territory a good system of government. About the same time another treaty was made, under which the nawáb of Farrukhabad was mediatised and the civil and military administration of his district assigned to the company.

While these measures were being taken, the danger from Cabul was still threatening. Indeed it was the risk of an invasion by Zamán Shah which mainly impressed upon Wellesley the necessity of strengthening his authority in Oudh. But this, he felt, was not sufficient. He determined that the most effectual method of preventing aggression by the amír of Cabul would be to compel him to act upon the defensive in his own country. He accordingly despatched a native envoy, and subsequently Captain (afterwards Sir John) Malcolm [q. v.] to Persia to negotiate a treaty with the shah. Malcolm's embassy was a very costly affair, but its main object had already been accomplished by the native envoy who had preceded Malcolm, and had incited Muhammad Shah, the brother of the amír, to invade the amír's dominions. From that time there was no further risk of an invasion by Zamán Shah, who shortly afterwards perished in battle.

Another measure which Wellesley had much at heart was the expulsion of the French from the islands of Mauritius and Bourbon, whence, by means of privateers, they were able to inflict serious loss upon Indian commerce. He also contemplated the expulsion of the Dutch from Java. His plans, however, were frustrated by the perversity of Peter Raynier [q. v.], the admiral in command on the Indian station, who declined to place the fleet at Wellesley's disposal without express orders from the admiralty. Both expeditions had in consequence to be abandoned, and the two French islands remained in possession of the French for eight years longer, greatly to the detriment of Indian commerce.

Very shortly afterwards, however, the force which had been collected, reinforced by a large contingent of troops from Bombay, was despatched, under orders from home, to Egypt for the purpose of turning the French out of that country; Wellesley remarking to General Baird, who was placed in command, and had commanded the storming party at Seringapatam, ‘that a more worthy sequel to the storm of Seringapatam could not be presented to his genius and valour.’ The object of this expedition was achieved without bringing the Indian contingent into action, the mere report of its approach, combined with the energetic measures of Sir John Hely-Hutchinson (afterwards second Earl of Donoughmore) [q. v.], who had succeeded Sir Ralph Abercromby [q. v.] in command of the English force, sufficing to drive the French general to capitulate.

The peace of Amiens shortly afterwards followed, and under its provisions Wellesley was instructed to restore to the French Pondicherry and other places which had been French possessions. It was a strong measure to disregard these instructions, but Wellesley did disregard them. He felt that the duration of the peace was very uncertain, and that if war broke out again the restoration of these places to the French would seriously imperil British interests in India. He accordingly instructed Lord Clive, the governor of Madras, to refuse the restoration of Pondicherry pending a reference to London. Before the answer came the war in Europe had been resumed, and Wellesley was ordered to recapture ‘any ports or possessions which the French may have in India.’ This had been rendered unnecessary by Wellesley's prescient refusal to act upon the previous orders.

About this time Wellesley received from the home government what he naturally regarded as a high honour, viz. the rank of captain-general and commander-in-chief of all the forces in the East Indies. It gratified his military instincts, which were very strong, and it gave great satisfaction to the army, to which he had endeared himself by his sagacious direction of the Mysore war, and by his generosity in refusing to accept, at the expense of the army, the donation of 100,000l. which had been offered to him out of the Seringapatam prize-money. During the greater part of this time Wellesley's relations with the court of directors were far from satisfactory. They resented his somewhat autocratic proclivities, and they especially disapproved of his mode of exercising his patronage. They overruled his appointment of Henry Wellesley as resident at Lucknow, and they refused to sanction his nomination of Major Kirkpatrick as political secretary. They insisted upon all such appointments being held by members of the covenanted civil service. They refused to sanction the staff salary which it was proposed to assign to Colonel Arthur Wellesley while serving in Mysore. Irritated by interference of this description, Wellesley in 1802 applied to be relieved, but the state of things in India compelled him to remain. Again in 1803, keenly resenting the attitude of the court, he requested that he might be relieved in the following year; but before his application could be complied with the discontent which had shown itself on the part of the rulers of the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/223

 Mahratta states compelled the directors to request him to remain at his post.

The five principal states in which the Mahrattas bore rule were Poona, Indore, Gwalior, Berár, and Baroda. The peshwa who ruled at Poona, although his position was only that of hereditary minister to the descendants of Sivaji, the nominal rulers of the Sattára state, was regarded as the chief of the Mahrattas. It was from the peshwa that Wellesley sought for co-operation when he was about to attack Mysore, although at this time (1802) Holkar and Sindia, the chiefs of Indore and Gwalior, were really the most powerful of the Mahratta rulers; and although the peshwa had been for some years a prisoner in the hands of Sindia, and more recently had been driven by Holkar a fugitive into British territory, still, looking to his legitimate position as peshwa, Wellesley again deemed it advisable to secure his co-operation. The result was the treaty of Bassein (31 Dec. 1802), by which the peshwa pledged himself to hold communications with no other power, European or native, and ceded districts to the company for the maintenance of a subsidiary force. This treaty, as might have been expected, gave great offence to the other Mahratta chiefs, who saw that the system of subsidiary alliances with the British power was fatal to the independence of native states. Thereupon followed the second Mahratta war, which lasted from 1802 to 1804. The immediate casus belli was the position taken up by the troops of Sindia and the Berár rájá on the confines of the nizam's territories. Wellesley resolved to attack the Mahrattas in Hindustan, in the Dekhan, in Guzerat, and in Cuttack. The command in Hindustan was entrusted to General Gerard Lake (afterwards Viscount Lake) [q. v.], then commander-in-chief of the Bengal army; that in the Dekhan to General Arthur Wellesley, and the commands in Guzerat and Cuttack to Colonels Woodington and Harcourt respectively. The operations were attended with brilliant success, especially in Hindustan and in the Dekhan, where at Laswári and at Assye and Argáum, the generals in command won the famous battles named after those places. Sindia and the rájá of Berár, commonly called the Bonsla, were speedily vanquished. The French-drilled troops under M. Perron were destroyed, Perron himself obtaining a safe-conduct from Lake. Considerable additions were made to British territory both in Central India and on the east coast, where the district of Cuttack was ceded by the Bonsla. Wellesley, however, was somewhat hasty in assuming that hostilities were at an end. In reply to an address presented to him by the inhabitants of Calcutta in 1803, he remarked that ‘the peace which has been concluded comprehends every object of the war with every practicable security for the continuance of tranquillity.’ Events speedily showed that this language was premature. Before the year 1803 had come to an end, Holkar, who had stood aloof during the previous hostilities, was preparing for war. In April 1804 orders were issued by Wellesley to begin it. Lake, who was in command, would seem to have under-estimated Holkar's strength. He sent Colonel William Monson (1760–1807) [q. v.] with a force of sepoys to keep Holkar in check, and to protect the city of Jaipur, which was threatened by him, and then marched back with his main force to Cawnpur. The commissariat arrangements were very inadequate. Jaipur was saved, and Monson followed Holkar, and eventually found himself in front of the whole of Holkar's force with only two days' supplies for the troops under his command. He then commenced to retreat. The rains set in, the retreat became a rout, and ended in a most grave disaster. The Duke of Wellington, then General Wellesley, pronounced it the greatest disaster and most disgraceful to our military character that had ever occurred. It was a serious blow to Wellesley, although he was in no way to blame for the unfortunate strategy which had led to it. For this Lake was mainly responsible in sending too small a force, and not seeing that it was properly supplied. Indeed Wellesley had urged Lake to send with Monson's detachment a small force of Europeans, but his advice had not been acted on. Wellesley, however, had to suffer the consequences. Both the court of directors and the board of control under Castlereagh had all along questioned the policy of the Mahratta war, and accordingly, when the intelligence of the disaster reached England, it was at once determined to recall Wellesley and to reverse his policy. Lord Cornwallis was sent out to relieve him, and reached Calcutta on 29 July 1805. Wellesley was not taken by surprise. Indeed from the time of Monson's disaster he had felt that the opponents of his policy in England would bring about his removal from his post. The result to India was disastrous. Cornwallis survived his return too short a time to do much; but his temporary successor, Sir George Hilaro Barlow [q. v.], with all the enthusiasm of a convert, did all he could to reverse the policy, to which as Wellesley's secretary, and afterwards as a


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/224

 member of his council, he had given a strong support. It was mainly by this reversal of Wellesley's policy that the third Mahratta war of 1817 and 1818 was brought about.

The leading feature of Wellesley's foreign policy in India was the system of subsidiary alliances which he introduced. It enabled the British government to establish a preponderating influence in the native states without actually annexing them; but it was not altogether free from objection. Sir Thomas Munro [q. v.], who was at first a warm supporter of the system, ended by deprecating its further extension. His deliberate opinion was that the presence of a British force in a native state, by supporting the prince on his throne against any foreign or domestic enemy, acted as an encouragement to misgovernment. Sir Arthur Wellesley also had doubts at one time as to the usefulness of the system. In June 1803 he wrote that such treaties entirely ‘annihilated the military power of the governments with which we contracted them,’ and that he would ‘preserve the existence of the state and guide its actions by the weight of British influence rather than annihilate it.’ A year later, however, he recognised that the subsidiary treaties conferred ‘enormous benefits’ upon the British government: ‘The consequences of them have been that in this war with the Mahrattas, which it is obvious must have occurred sooner or later, the company's territories have not been invaded, and the evils of war have been kept at a distance from the sources of our wealth and our power. This fact alone, unsupported by any others which could be enumerated as benefits resulting from these alliances, would be sufficient to justify them’ (, Selections from the Wellington Despatches, No. 259, p. 463).

Wellesley was by no means inattentive to the internal administration of the British provinces. At an early period he discerned the importance of improving the personnel of the civil service. He framed during 1800 an elaborate and comprehensive scheme for the establishment of a college in Fort William at Calcutta, in which the education of the young civil servants sent out from England should be completed. He pointed out that the members of the Indian civil service could no longer be regarded as the agents of a commercial concern; that they would have to discharge the functions of magistrates, judges, ambassadors, and governors of provinces, and would require to be educated in those branches of literature and science which form the basis of the education of persons destined to perform similar duties in Europe, added to which they should acquire an intimate acquaintance with the history, languages, and customs of the people of India, with the Muhammadan and Hindoo codes of law and religion, and with the political and commercial interests and relations of Great Britain in Asia. The scheme did not commend itself to the court of directors, who pronounced it to be too vast and too expensive; but it led some years later to the formation of a college in England for the education of Indian civil servants, which, established first at Hertford and afterwards transferred to Haileybury, was successfully maintained until the appointments to the service were thrown open to public competition under the act of 1853.

The refusal of the court to sanction his scheme was bitterly resented by Wellesley. It was one of several causes—the others being acts of interference with his patronage, some of a very offensive character—which on 1 Jan. 1802 led him to request that he might be relieved from his office in the following October.

Another method which Wellesley adopted for improving the civil service, although necessarily carried out on a very limited scale, was to gather round him some of the younger members of the service and employ them at government house in drafting despatches under his own orders and writing them to his own dictation. The late Lord Metcalfe was one of the assistants thus employed. Among the others were John Adam [q. v.], William Butterworth Bayley [q. v.], (Sir) Richard Jenkins [q. v.], and Henry Cole. Under such a man as Wellesley these young men enjoyed a splendid opportunity of learning how public affairs of the highest importance were carried on, and not one of them failed to profit by the experience. The despatches which were issued on the outbreak of the Mahratta war were among the documents which were thus prepared.

The observance of the Sunday in India was a matter to which Wellesley attached considerable importance, as tending to disabuse the natives of the idea that the English had no religion, and, with this view, shortly after his return from Madras he ordered a public and general thanksgiving for the successes which had attended the British arms. He also directed by a public notification the observance of Sunday as a day of rest.

The seditious character of many of the publications of the native press was a matter which then, as in more recent times, caused some anxiety. Wellesley dealt with it by introducing a mild censorship.

Wellesley was not himself a financier, but he speedily realised the importance of placing


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/225

 the finances in a sound condition. For this purpose he selected Henry St. George Tucker [q. v.], a Bengal civil servant, who performed the duty with marked success.

Wellesley sailed from India on 15 Aug. 1805, and arrived in England early in 1806. The change from the autocratic position which he had filled in India to that of a retired ruler but little known to the multitude caused him a degree of chagrin which he was unable to conceal. Shortly after his arrival his mortification was increased by learning that he was to be attacked in parliament in connection with his policy regarding Oudh. His accuser was James Paull [q. v.], who had made a fortune by trade in India and obtained a seat in parliament. Paull moved for papers in January 1806, and in May of that year formulated his charges, in which he accused Wellesley of having incited the subjects of the Nawáb Vazir of Oudh to rebel against him, and then by means of threats compelled the Náwab Vazir to give up a large portion of his territory. Paull having lost his seat at the general election in 1806, the charges which he had brought were taken up by Lord Folkestone; but it was not until 1808 that they were brought to a division. The result was that Wellesley's policy was approved by the House of Commons by a large majority (182 to 31), and a subsequent motion of impeachment made by Sir Thomas Turton was rejected by a still larger one. In the meantime Wellesley, a few days after his arrival, had been cordially received by his friend Pitt, then very near his end, and had been welcomed at a public dinner given at Almack's, at which the chair was taken by General Harris, the captor of Seringapatam, supported by some of the leading statesmen of the time. Wellesley spoke for the first time in the House of Lords on 8 Feb. 1808, when, in an eloquent and convincing speech, he supported the ministers in their refusal to produce papers relating to the seizure of the Danish fleet. In the following year (1809) Wellesley was despatched as ambassador-extraordinary to Seville to concert measures with the Spanish junta for carrying on the war in the Peninsula, his brother, Sir Arthur Wellesley, being entrusted with the command of the troops on 2 April. The course taken by the government in sending the expedition to Walcheren, to which Wellesley strongly objected as being certain to interfere with the efficiency of the army under his brother, led him to resign his appointment; but at the instance of Canning, then foreign secretary, he withdrew his resignation upon an assurance that the force under Arthur Wellesley should not be unduly weakened. At the end of July the victory of Talavera took place; but the British force was so ill-supplied, and the Spanish government so utterly failed to fulfil their promises, and their assertions proved to be so untrustworthy, that Wellesley was compelled to threaten the withdrawal of the British army into Portugal, which produced some improvement in the situation. Shortly afterwards the retirement of Canning from the ministry after his duel with Castlereagh resulted in Wellesley's appointment as foreign secretary under Perceval. Wellesley assumed this office at an important crisis. Every government in Europe was under the sway of Napoleon or was in alliance with him. England was absolutely isolated. Napoleon by his Berlin and Milan decrees had seriously threatened British trade. There were grave differences with the United States. The intercourse between the British envoy in America and the government of the United States had been suspended. The great work accomplished by Wellesley in India had not then been fully recognised. A large party in England doubted the policy of the Peninsular war, the success of which still hung in the balance. The cabinet at home was by no means unanimous. The ministry was so weak in debating power that both Lord Liverpool and Wellesley offered to vacate office to make room for Canning and Castlereagh; but neither of the latter would at that time join the government. Wellesley entertained but a poor opinion of the fitness of Perceval for the post of prime minister, and did not attempt to disguise it. Indeed his autocratic antecedents seriously affected his intercourse with his colleagues in the cabinet, whose meetings he seldom attended, managing his department without consulting them. During 1811 he seldom attended a cabinet council. At the same time he was so much affected by constitutional nervousness that, notwithstanding his great oratorical power, he seldom spoke in parliament. On one memorable occasion of a debate on the regency bill, when he had led his colleagues to suppose that he would give them a cordial and effective support, he maintained an absolute silence, the cause of which has never been fully explained. It is generally attributed to an invincible nervousness, and is said to have caused great annoyance to Wellesley himself.

On 16 Jan. 1812 Wellesley tendered his resignation to the prince regent, who, however, more than once pressed him to retain his office. On 18 Feb. he was offered, but refused, the lord-lieutenancy of Ireland, and


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/226

 on the following day he finally resigned. He was installed K.G. on 31 March, when he withdrew from the order of St. Patrick. On 11 May the assassination of Perceval caused a ministerial crisis. On the 22nd Wellesley was commissioned by the prince regent to ascertain whether a fusion could be brought about between the leaders of the two parties on the understanding that the Roman catholics were to be relieved from civil disabilities and that the war should be prosecuted with vigour. Canning was willing to join, but Lord Liverpool and some of his colleagues refused to become members of an administration to be founded by Lord Wellesley. He then communicated with Lords Grey and Grenville, who were quite prepared to support the removal of catholic disabilities, but did not share his views as to the urgency or possibility of a vigorous prosecution of the war. Up to this point Wellesley had been employed by the prince regent merely to ascertain and report to him the possibility of forming a government including representatives of the two great parties; but on 1 June he received authority to form an administration. In this, however, he failed, and on 3 June he announced in the House of Lords his resignation of the commission entrusted to him, observing that he had failed in consequence ‘of the most dreadful personal animosities and the most terrible difficulties arising out of complicated questions.’ He subsequently explained that in using the phrase ‘dreadful personal animosities’ he had had in his mind Lord Liverpool and some of his colleagues in the administration which came into office upon Wellesley's failure to form one. Lord Liverpool's government, which, it was supposed, would not last long, lasted for fifteen years. It met with reverses at an early period of its existence, but was saved by Lord Wellington's victory at Salamanca on 22 July 1812. From that time until the end of 1821 Wellesley remained out of office, but during the greater part of this period he showed an active interest in the political questions of the day. His views and those of his illustrious brother, whom he had so loyally supported both in India and in Spain, gradually drifted apart. He opposed the treaty of Fontainebleau, foreseeing that Napoleon would not observe it, and on Napoleon's return from Elba he opposed a renewal of the war, and was in favour of recognising Napoleon as a constitutional ruler on the throne of France. On two important domestic questions the views of the two brothers were absolutely discordant. Wellesley was in favour of removing the disabilities of the Roman catholics, while Wellington opposed any such measure until he and Peel felt compelled by the state of Ireland to adopt it in 1829. Wellesley was a free-trader, while Wellington supported a policy of protection to the end. On this question Wellesley was one of a small body of peers who signed a protest against a protective policy as imposing an unjust burden upon the consumer. This protest was directed against a recommendation made in 1814 by a committee of the House of Lords, that as long as the price of wheat should be under 80s. a quarter the ports should be closed against supplies from other countries.

But the most notable point upon which the two brothers differed was the foreign policy of the country. The man who as governor-general of India had done so much to extend and consolidate our Indian empire, and whose military policy had been essentially a forward policy in India and in Spain, and more recently as foreign secretary in London, was now all for a policy of peace and retrenchment. If it had rested with him there would have been no Waterloo campaign. After the war the military charges would have been at once reduced, and every effort would have been made to lighten the burdens of the people. He was not, however, prepared to oppose the government during the crisis in 1819 memorable for the ‘Peterloo massacre,’ when the peace of the country seemed to be actually in danger. On that occasion he supported the government in a vigorous speech. He still continued his efforts in favour of catholic emancipation and in support of a free-trade policy. In 1820 George III died, and in the following year Lord Grenville and some of his followers having joined the government, Wellesley was again offered, and on this occasion accepted, the post of lord lieutenant of Ireland. His wife, from whom he had been practically separated for some years, had died on 5 Nov. 1816, and was buried at Penkridge in Staffordshire.

Wellesley's appointment was received with acclamation. He was known to have been for many years in favour of Roman catholic emancipation, and was therefore acceptable to the Roman catholics. With the protestants, or with what of late years has been called the English garrison, he was popular on account of the brilliant public services which had been rendered by him and by his illustrious brother, and with Irishmen generally the fact of his being an Irishman by birth told in his favour. His first levée was numerously attended by members of all parties. At a meeting of Roman catholic