HERBERT, Henry John George, Lord Porchester (1800-1849), of Pixton, Som.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1820-1832, ed. D.R. Fisher, 2009
Available from Cambridge University Press



1831 - 1832

Family and Education

b. 8 June 1800, 1st s. of Henry George Herbert†, 2nd earl of Carnarvon, and Elizabeth Kitty, da. of John Dyke Acland† of Pixton; bro. of Hon. Edward Charles Hugh Herbert*. educ. Eltham, Kent (Rev. J. Smith) 1812; Streatham, Surr. (Rev. Reynold Davis) 1812;1 Eton 1814; Christ Church, Oxf. 1817. m. 4 Aug. 1830, Henrietta Anna, da. of Lord Henry Thomas Howard Molyneux Howard*, 3s. 2da. suc. fa. as 3rd earl of Carnarvon 16 Apr. 1833. d. 10 Dec. 1849.

Offices Held

Lt. W. Som. yeoman cav. 1823, maj. 1824, lt.-col. 1831.


Porchester seems to have caught a passion for continental travel from his father and, according to his heir, he inherited his mother’s ‘amiable and romantic, but rather unpractical temper’. He was also given an early introduction to politics by his father, with whom he attended debates in both Houses in 1812. Educated at private schools before going to Eton, he ‘had a natural power of words and a singularly correct taste in writing’, and his time at Christ Church was ‘marked by constant evidence of ability, but unfortunately without the continuous exertion necessary to success’.2 He gave up all thoughts of taking his degree because of ill health, but created quite a stir in the university with his verse Letter to the Oxford Spy from the Bigwig’s Friend (1818), in reply to James Shergold Boone’s Oxford Spy. It sold very well, being made ‘a complete party thing’, and Porchester wrote that ‘I have been accused of being the author but there is not the least well-founded suspicion of the truth, indeed I think all danger of discovery is pretty well passed’. Among his closest friends were Philip Pusey*, who later married his sister Emily, and Viscount Mahon, his future colleague at Wootton Bassett.3 His first tour, from 1819 to 1821, took him to France, Switzerland and Italy, and according to his son’s recollections

he gravitated by a sort of instinct towards the centres of political disturbance ... Nor was he content to remain a spectator. His interest and enthusiasm were aroused, and he more than once made himself an actor, even at the imminent risk of his life. At Nice he harangued on one occasion a revolutionary mob in French; at Genoa he nearly lost his life in the midst of an émeute.4

Travelling in the Peninsula in the early 1820s, when he considered himself ‘extremely fortunate in visiting it at this moment of fermentation’, he and Pusey were arrested by Catalan guerrillas as suspected government spies. John Nicholas Fazakerley* noted that, among other travellers’ disappointment with the Spanish ‘Liberales’, ‘I hear Lord Porchester’s reprehensions of their proceedings cited with loud exultation’. He exploited this incident in his historical poem The Moor, which was published in 1825 and reprinted in 1827. In a lengthy preface on the Spanish constitution, he dwelt on the need for the due representation of property, but laid the blame for the failure of the reforms of the Cortes on the ‘injudicious moment selected for carrying them into effect, the unjust and clumsy means by which they were effected and the contempt of circumstances that should regulate the application of all general rules’.5

He visited Scotland in 1825, and it was probably that year that his father suggested he should write a pamphlet on the Catholic question. Nothing came of rumours that a ‘ring-fence match’ would take place between Porchester and his cousin, a Miss Morton (probably one of the daughters of the 4th Baron Ducie), or of an engagement to Lady Georgiana North, daughter of the 3rd earl of Guilford.6 Sir Walter Scott described him as a ‘young man who lies on the carpet and looks poetical and dandyish ... fine lad too’. Mahon generally praised his verses, though he execrated some in 1829, and the poet Thomas Moore recorded that he had once dined next to Porchester, ‘whose modesty evidently prevented him from entering into conversation with me; a rare quality in a young lord, and imputable solely to his poetry’.7 His tragedy Don Pedro, King of Castile, which was allowed by the lord chamberlain, 16 Feb. 1828, opened at the Drury Lane theatre, 10 Mar., and according to one review

was heard throughout very favourably and was announced for repetition on Saturday, amidst mingled applause and disapprobation ... It is an extremely able production, exhibits considerable powers of thought and expression, and adds to the reputation which Lord Porchester’s literary and poetical talents have already so deservedly gained him.

The play’s success led his friends to publish it, though the author was in fact absent in southern Spain.8 A narrative of his travels there, 1827-8, was eventually published under the title Portugal and Galicia (1836), but the more immediate result was The Last Days of the Portuguese Constitution (1830), the costs of which he agreed to underwrite. This pamphlet, which Charles Greville thought was ‘very well done’, sought to defend the Portuguese attempt to establish a constitutional form of government, and condemned the interference of Britain which had contributed to its downfall:

The vehement denunciation of arbitrary principles, the eloquent advocacy of national rights and the enthusiastic cheers of our assenting Parliament are forgotten almost as soon as they are uttered, while the prayers of thousands, ruined by our vacillating policy, are heard with indifference or rejected with contempt.9

Porchester rejoiced at the acquittal of Queen Caroline in 1820.10 He was elected to Brooks’s, 24 Feb. 1824, sponsored by his father. In the autumn of 1825, when a dissolution was expected, he was rumoured to be a possible candidate for Southampton, but nothing came of this.11 He scrupulously opposed being returned to Parliament by one of Carnarvon’s friends, preferring to come in on some popular interest rather than risk any form of dependence. In spite of poor health, he was anxious to succeed at the general election of 1826, but hoped that the £2,200 put down by his father, whose financial resources were limited, was not going to be used to buy him a seat at Tiverton, where ‘I am so intimate with the Harrowbys and I cannot bear the appearance of turning on my friends the moment it becomes my interest’. He was also wary of accepting a seat through the influence of Lord Lansdowne:

I feel that in deference to my father’s opinions and the active part he takes in politics I can get only into the Commons on a Whig interest and though a borough from a friend, by giving me the power of resigning at pleasure, leaves me comparatively unfettered, still such an opportunity may not present itself. I trust in the actual state of parties I may be able to work well with the moderate opposition, but if I should be fettered beyond the line of conduct which I mention to you could not with credit to myself come so into Parliament.12

In the end he stood a contest against the Buller interest at East Looe, but was defeated, despite receiving the support of 41 householders who considered themselves entitled to vote, and his petition failed.13 Soon afterwards he was elected a burgess of Wilton, where his father was recorder, though he was not sworn until 1829.14

He approved Carnarvon’s decision to decline household office in Canning’s ministry in 1827, and wrote to his sister Harriet from Lisbon, 7 Feb. 1828, of the succeeding government that

after Lord Goderich’s first tremors the dissolution of the cabinet was not an event that could surprise me, though recent accounts rather led me to expect that the administration would have become more purely Whig. There appears to be something in the composition of a Whig which unfits him for office as this is their second trial and second failure, nor do they appear to have managed matters brilliantly while in power. This Navarino affair seems to have [been] sadly foolish and injurious to the foreign policy of England. It might probably have been altogether prevented if ministers had sent an overpowering instead of an equal force against the Turks. Poor Canning was a splendid but a dangerous politician and his Whiggish associates readily caught the mantle which he dropped.15

Porchester, whose allowance in 1830 was £1,000 per annum, sought a seat at the general election of that year, and Mahon informed Pusey that he seemed

to feel a little delicacy about pushing his parliamentary views from the idea that they would interfere with mine. Now it is very far from certain that we are nibbling at the same hook, but if even we are, you who have seen more of these things must see that his feeling however amiable is quite mistaken and unfounded, and I depend on your not allowing him to flag in his exertions.16

He evidently failed to gain an opening in one of Lord Grosvenor’s boroughs or at Chippenham.17 Instead, he again forced a contest on an independent interest, this time at Petersfield, where he opposed the dominance of Hylton Jolliffe*. Apart from agreeing to be liable for his expenses, all he was obliged to do was to declare in favour of reform. He advocated moderate changes, plus lower taxation and expenditure to relieve distress, 30 July; the following day he urged the electors to emancipate themselves from their proprietor. His chances were initially good, but his own pessimism proved to be justified when only six of his 163 votes were allowed and a petition was lodged.18 Meanwhile he was busy with his much delayed wedding, 4 Aug., when his father gave him the estate at Pixton, and with other election matters.19 George Agar Ellis* informed Lady Carlisle, 8 Aug., that Porchester stood for Hampshire (where the main family estates lay), ‘which with a dying father seems to me foolish’.20 He was in fact nominated in his absence and without his approval, but was certain to have been defeated; Sir Thomas Baring* relayed his refusal, and Sir James Macdonald* said that he had declined because it was ‘no joke for any man to stand forward as a candidate for the representation of a large and populous county, with the whole host of government influence against him’.21

In November 1830 Porchester fully sympathized with his father’s indignation at not being offered a position in the newly appointed Grey administration, and believed that he should have no connection with it and should ‘enter into a temperate opposition to government when he can do so without departing from his own political views’.22 Carnarvon, who was hostile to reform, advised his son not to commit himself too soon on the question and to be careful with whom he chose to sit in the House if he were elected. Yet Porchester, utterly opposed to any extensive alterations, signalled his further disillusionment with the Whigs in an apocalyptic letter to Mahon, 22 Jan. 1831:

Wherever I go I hear one pervading feeling of discontent towards existing institutions and I fear a restless desire for extensive changes. That the present administration has hurried on the march of events I have no doubt - moderate reforms would have satisfied the country for some time had they been dextrously proposed ... I question much whether the gale that will eventually sweep aristocracy from the face of this country has not set in. If the falling interest of the great borough holders can be transferred to the land in a great measure and not so much to the towns the balance may yet be maintained and we landed aristocrats may hope to preserve for a short time longer some share of our former influence but I think we are in imminent danger of shipwreck.23

He was unable to attend the Hampshire county meeting on reform, 17 Mar., because he had to attend the Petersfield election committee, which eventually decided against him, 22 Mar. His worries about the final expenses and the possibility, if seated, of being turned out in the near future, were shown to have been unnecessary. He responded to reports that ministers had intended to make him an offer of employment, and might yet do so, by siding with his father against them, though he claimed that Carnarvon had treated him badly.24 Mahon asked Pusey, 2 Apr., to use his influence to help Porchester, who was ‘very anxious about his prospect of getting into Parliament’. A story that he might stand in earnest for the county at the general election of 1831 proved to be false. Instead, by now (like his father) a stern opponent of the ministerial reform bill, he found a seat at Wootton Bassett on the interest of the Villiers family. It seems likely that Pusey, who was defeated at Rye, was the intermediary in the matter, since Henry Howard, Member for New Shoreham, reported to his sister, Lady Porchester, 25 May, that her husband should give up the seat ‘if Pusey chose to take advantage of it’, and there was evidently some disagreement between them over paying the £1,500 a year which it cost.25

Porchester’s literary expertise and continental experiences were used to great effect in his speech (which was later printed) against the second reading of the reintroduced reform bill, 4 July. In one typically rhetorical passage he declared:

I have no parliamentary interest to defend; I bring to the consideration of this great question no party animosity; I stand here a decided but a reluctant opponent of His Majesty’s ministers; for born and bred a Whig, every early sympathy, every political prejudice, every personal partiality was enlisted on their side; and between the period when ... ministers accepted office and pledged themselves to introduce a measure of reform, and the time when they actually redeemed that pledge, I did hope, most fervently did I hope, that if I had a seat in this House during the period of its discussion, I might be enabled to give it a humble, but a sincere and conscientious support. But to the measure which they did actually introduce, to the measure which they have shown themselves determined to carry through the House with no essential modifications, to this bill which will leave us little of our ancient constitution but the name, I must offer, however feebly, however unwillingly, my most unflinching opposition.

He condemned it as inexpedient, inconsistent and dangerous in its exclusion of men of property (including tenants-at-will) from the franchise, and of men of talent from the House. He instead commended the British constitution for its Burkean virtues of stability and the capacity for gradual evolution, in contrast to various experiments tried in Europe, where ‘they did not understand the secret but powerful influences which cement so many naturally discordant elements, and they overlooked the hidden springs which keep our machine in constant and comparatively harmonious movement’. His speech met with immediate and general acclamation: according to John Cam Hobhouse*, he was ‘rapturously cheered’ and was ‘applauded and congratulated by all’. Lord Ellenborough, who found Porchester ‘very intelligent but strangely awkward’, thought it ‘full of historical illustration and good reasoning, well delivered, fluent, correct to a fault in language, and eloquent’.26 Towards the conclusion of the debate (after which Porchester voted against the bill), 6 July, Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell both called it the best maiden speech they had ever heard, a sentiment which was widely echoed in private, including by the Speaker. Carnarvon gloried in his son’s triumph, and the 3rd earl of Clarendon wrote to ‘express the sincere gratification, which, on many accounts, I have felt in having been instrumental to your obtaining a situation in which you have already so eminently distinguished yourself’.27 He voted at least once with ministers against adjourning proceedings on the bill, 12 July. Ellenborough suggested that he should take an active part in attacking its details, but he generally gave it only a silent opposition, for instance by voting for using the census of 1831 to determine the disfranchisement schedules, 19 July.28 Defending the rights of the voters of Wootton Bassett, 26 July, he repeated his arguments against such an over-extensive and ruinous measure, and stated that he had ‘heard the successive extinction of the devoted boroughs with the same feeling with which I should hear a knell tolled over a parted friend’. He voted for postponing consideration of Chippenham’s case, 27 July, and made minor interventions against intemperate debate, 28, 30 July. He divided against the bill’s passage, 21 Sept., and the second reading of the Scottish bill, 23 Sept. He attended the opening day’s debate on the second reading of the bill in the Lords, 4 Oct., and began to doubt that it would be thrown out, which, however, it was, with Carnarvon voting in the majority, 7 Oct. He ‘tried to speak but could not’ on Lord Ebrington’s confidence motion, 10 Oct. 1831, and in a letter to Harriet the following day declared that ‘the Whigs still talk of perseverance in this blasted measure, the king is an ass and deserves the fate of Charles the 1st, and the people ought to be governed with a rod of iron’.29

At Peel’s request and with only a day’s notice, he moved the wrecking amendment against the second reading of the revised reform bill, 16 Dec. 1831.30 William Ord* called his speech a ‘tiresome declamation’, while Thomas Spring Rice* thought that, by being ‘long, tedious and discursive’, he had lost his former reputation.31 Yet his wife, who heard it from the ventilator, recorded that the House

gave him deep and continued attention, but his speech had not many of those claptraps for applause, which draw forth constant cheering, but was very well received, and I hear Peel’s attention was rivetted. There was certainly great novelty and strength in the argument, and many of the ministerialists said it was quite refreshing to hear a speech from those benches, so free from party spirit or bitterness. Lord Althorp paid him a handsome compliment, and I find all his own party were much pleased.32

Though welcoming some of the alterations, Porchester particularly condemned the unbalancing of the borough and county franchises, which he claimed would exacerbate the already perilous danger of property being overturned by revolution. He duly voted against the bill, 17 Dec. 1831, but the amendment was lost by 324-162. He voted against going into committee on the bill, 20 Jan., and the enfranchisement of Tower Hamlets, 28 Feb. 1832. He was a founder member of the Carlton Club, 10 Mar. In the last of his three major speeches in the Commons, 22 Mar., he forecast a continual struggle between the agricultural and the newly created urban interests, a succession of unstable ministries which would invariably be subject to fluctuations in popular opinion, and the likelihood of well-intentioned liberal reforms giving way to anarchy. He voted against the bill’s third reading that day. In early May he waited anxiously to see if his father, who had voted for Lyndhurst’s wrecking amendment, 7 May, would be offered a position under the duke of Wellington; he was, and Porchester might himself have been given one. His wife, who knew of his objections to that idea, wrote that

it is now understood, that the same bill is to be taken up by the Tories, so that anti-reform speech must be eat up forthwith, which Lord P. and Mr. [Edward Charles Hugh] Herbert think a most bitter dose, but Pusey House swallows it entire without one wry face.

She, who also lived ‘in dread of Lord Porchester’s getting into some quarrel’, as ‘men will not measure their language now’, noted that he was one of those who vainly endeavoured to persuade Peel to accept office.33 He rose to correct a misinterpretation of a comment made by his father the previous day in the Lords, 15 May, and divided against the second reading of the Irish bill, 25 May. He voted for going into committee on the bill to exclude insolvent debtors from Parliament, 27 June. His only other known votes were for the majority against the vestry bill, 23 Jan., and against the Russian-Dutch loan, 26 Jan. (when he told Ellenborough that 60 or 70 of ‘our friends’ were not present), 12 July 1832.34

Porchester declined to offer for Hampshire at the by-election in June 1832, when Baring’s success scuppered a plan to have him returned for the Northern division of the county in place of Charles Shaw Lefevre at the general election later that year. Porchester’s candidacy was approved by Wellington and other leading Tories, and Carnarvon had once suggested a similar plan, but, as he explained:

It would now be an act of aggression on his part provoking an almost certain contest, and his resources would not make it wise in him to provoke such a contest, and my father having been smarted by two Hampshire contests, besides one nearly as expensive at Cricklade, in the last years of his life left me with an entailed estate and no command of money.35

He decided to stand instead on Joseph Pitt’s* interest for Cricklade, the earl’s former seat, but thought his chances very doubtful.36 He issued an address, 3 Dec., against reform, alteration of the corn laws and extensive changes to the established church, and in favour of the abolition of slavery and further economies.37 However, the reformers were in the ascendant and the revising barristers came down heavily against his likely supporters. As Porchester told Mahon, 1 Dec., he withdrew on the day before the nomination because of his hopeless position, being

beaten after a most strenuous canvass of the hundreds and having entertained but four days before my resignation very sanguine hopes of success. Three fourths of the property of the hundreds were in my favour. My canvass through the country was very prosperous. We had a majority of the old rights with us but were swamped by the new £10 constituency in the towns, which were hostile to me almost to a man.

In a final address, 12 Dec. 1832, he repeated his claim that ‘by far the largest portion of the respectability and property of the hundreds is warmly exhibited in my cause’, but his ‘serio-comic lucubrations’ were ridiculed in an anonymous reply. According to his wife, it was the opposition of their relation Lord Suffolk which sealed his fate, and he recognized that the family interest there had entirely disappeared.38 Mahon, expressing his grief at the dismal general election results for the Conservatives, called Porchester’s a ‘melancholy failure’. He himself commented, on the West Somerset election, that Bickham Escott† was ‘beat by so immense a majority as fully to prove the inexpediency on his own account of coming forward’, especially since Escott was ‘weak in numbers not only because he was a Conservative, but because he was Escott’.39 Porchester inherited his father’s title and estates in April 1833, and resumed his travels, first in Italy and, in the late 1830s, in Greece.40 He continued to pursue his humanitarian interests, for instance as president of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and he spoke as a Conservative in the Lords, being described by Greville in 1846 as ‘one of the cleverest of the Protectionists’. He died, after a long period of declining health, in December 1849.41 He was succeeded as 4th earl of Carnarvon by his eldest son, Henry Howard Molyneux (1831-90), who remembered him as

refined, cultivated, poetical; words followed thoughts with remarkable facility, both on paper and in conversation; his fund of anecdote was unusual, and the charm of his graceful and unpremeditated conversation was, as I have often heard, very great ... His early friends seem always to have preserved an affection for him and to the hour of his death he influenced and drew strangers to him. It was in fact an eminently honourable, loyal and chivalrous character.42

Ref Volumes: 1820-1832

Author: Stephen Farrell


  • 1. Hants RO, Carnarvon mss 75M91/E1.
  • 2. Ibid. H3/4, 6; Earl of Carnarvon, Herberts of Highclere (1908), 54-57; Sir A. Hardinge, Life of 4th Earl of Carnarvon, i. 4-6.
  • 3. Add. 60993, ff. 27-32; Carnarvon mss E4/1-18; Carnarvon, 57-58.
  • 4. Add. 60993, ff. 37-56; Carnarvon mss E4/18-31; Carnarvon, 58-63; Hardinge, i. 6-7.
  • 5. Lord Porchester, The Moor (1825), pp. xxiv, lxxviii-lxxix, 320-34; JRL, Bromley Davenport mss, Fazakerley to Davenport, 24 July 1822; Add. 51831, Porchester to Holland, 19 Dec. 1821; Som. RO, Herbert mss DD/DRU/5/6; Carnarvon, 66.
  • 6. Carnarvon mss E4/32-40, 43; N9/1; Williams Wynn Corresp. 346; Add. 51690, Lansdowne to Lady Holland, 14 Mar. [1826].
  • 7. CP, iii. 47; Berks. RO, Pusey mss D/EBp C1/4; Moore Mems. v. 174.
  • 8. Add. 42889, f. 226; Lady Holland to Son, 78; The Times, 11 Mar. 1828; Lord Porchester, Don Pedro (1828), p. vii; Pusey mss C1/7; Carnarvon mss E4/59-69,73-76; E11/32.
  • 9. Add. 46611, f. 88; Greville Mems. i. 371; Lord Porchester, Last Days of Portuguese Constitution, 109-10.
  • 10. Add. 60993, f. 43.
  • 11. Southampton Herald, 26 Sept. 1825.
  • 12. Herbert mss 5/6, Porchester to Harriet Herbert, n.d. [1825], 25, 26 Mar. 1826; Carnarvon mss E4/46; H4/6.
  • 13. West Briton, 16 June 1826; Carnarvon mss E4/54, 56, 58; E10/1C.
  • 14. Carnarvon mss E3/1, 4; Wilts. RO, Wilton borough recs. G25/1/22, ff. 317, 323.
  • 15. Carnarvon mss B17/6, 7; H4/8.
  • 16. Cent. Kent. Stud. Stanhope mss U1590 C130/9, Mahon to Stanhope, 31 May 1830; Pusey mss C1/14.
  • 17. Add. 51578, Carlisle to Holland, 10 July; Stanhope mss C353, Porchester to Mahon, 17 Aug. 1830.
  • 18. Carnarvon mss E4/28-30, 92; F2/4; L12/2-4; Herbert mss 5/7, ‘Procs. at election at Petersfield’; Hants Telegraph, 2, 9 Aug. 1830.
  • 19. Hardinge, i. 11; Carnarvon mss H2/3-4; L27/2; Add. 27925, f. 129.
  • 20. Castle Howard mss.
  • 21. Hants Chron. 9 Aug.; Stanhope mss C353, Porchester to Mahon, 17 Aug. 1830; Carnarvon mss B10/1; E4/80; L17/1.
  • 22. Carnarvon mss B17/8-19; E4/85, 86A; E11/34; E12/1; J3/17.
  • 23. Ibid. E4/93; J3/18; Stanhope mss C353.
  • 24. Hants Chron. 21 Mar.; Carnarvon mss E4/81, 96, 99; E43/6; H4/12; L14/2, 3; M3, Lady Porchester to Lady H. Howard, 26 Mar. 1831.
  • 25. Carnarvon mss L3; L12/6, 7; Salisbury Jnl. 4 Apr.; Devizes Gazette, 28 Apr.; Pusey mss C1/38; Keele Univ. Lib. Sneyd mss, Mahon to Sneyd, 5 May 1831.
  • 26. Broughton, Recollections, iv. 119; Three Diaries, 99, 102.
  • 27. Wellington mss WP1/1187/50; Greville Mems. ii. 159; DNB; Add. 58992, f. 167; Herbert mss 5/6, Nosworthy to Lady Porchester, July; Clarendon to Porchester, 19 July 1831.
  • 28. Three Diaries, 106.
  • 29. Carnarvon mss L12/9, 10, 14.
  • 30. Stanhope mss C318/2, Mahon to Lady Stanhope, 16 Dec. 1831.
  • 31. Add. 51569, Ord to Lady Holland [16 Dec.]; 51573, Rice to same [16 Dec. 1831].
  • 32. Carnarvon mss M3, Lady Porchester to Lady H. Howard, 17 Dec. 1831.
  • 33. Ibid. H5/2-4.
  • 34. Three Diaries, 184.
  • 35. Carnarvon mss E4/99; Wellington mss WP1/1229/24; WP4/4/1/15; 2/58; 3/5, 11-17.
  • 36. Stanhope mss C353, Porchester to Mahon, 16 Aug. 1832.
  • 37. Herbert mss 1/37; Devizes Gazette, 6 Dec. 1832.
  • 38. The Times, 29 Nov., 15 Dec.; Devizes Gazette, 20 Dec. 1832, 3 Jan. 1833; Stanhope mss C353; Carnarvon mss B23; L12/15; M3, Lady Porchester to Lady H. Howard, n.d.
  • 39. Pusey mss C1/25; Carnarvon mss B8/19.
  • 40. Carnarvon, 63-67; Hardinge, i. 15, 18-25; Earl of Carnarvon, Athens and the Morea (1869).
  • 41. Hardinge, i. 25; Carnarvon mss E41; Herbert mss 1/19, 20; Greville Mems. v. 290; The Times, 11 Dec. 1849; Oxford DNB.
  • 42. Carnarvon, 53-54, 70, 75; Hardinge, i. 37-38.