's extraordinary speech and
declaration. Matuscewitz told me he never was so astonished, that
for the world he would not have missed it, and that he would
never have believed in it if he had not heard it.

[Page Head: THE KING'S SPEECH AT APSLEY HOUSE.]

Falck[3] gave me a delightful account of the speech and of Laval.
He thought, not understanding one word, that all the King was
saying was complimentary to the King of France and the French
nation, and he kept darting from his seat to make his acknowledgments,
while Esterhazy held him down by the tail of his coat, and the
King stopped him with his hand outstretched, all with great
difficulty. He said it was very comical.

[3] [Baron Falck, Dutch Minister at the Court of St.
James's. M. de Laval was the French Ambassador. This
dinner took place on the day after the publication of
the ordinances of July. Three days later Charles X. had
ceased to reign. M. de Laval instantly left London on
the receipt of the intelligence, leaving M. de
Vaudreuil as Charge d'Affaires.]

July 27th, 1830 {p.016}

Review in the morning (yesterday), breakfast at Apsley House,
chapter of the Garter, dinner at St. James's, party in the
evening, and ball at Apsley House. I don't hear of anything
remarkable, and it was so hot I could not go to anything, except
the breakfast, which I just looked in to for a minute, and found
everybody sweating and stuffing and the royalties just going
away. The Duke of Gloucester keeps up his quarrel with the Duke;
the Duke of Cumberland won't go to Apsley House, but sent the
Duchess and his boy. The Queen said at dinner the other day to
the Duke of Cumberland, 'I am very much pleased with you for
sending the Duchess to Apsley House,' and then turned to the Duke
of Gloucester and said, 'but I am not pleased with you for not
letting the Duchess go there.' The fool answered that the Duchess
should never go there; he would not be reconciled, forgetting
that it matters not twopence to the Duke of Wellington and a
great deal to himself.

I have been employed in settling half a dozen disputes of
different sorts, but generally without success, trifling matters,
foolish or violent people, not worth remembering any of them. The
Chancellor, who does not know his own business, has made an
attack on my office about the proclamations, but I have
vindicated it in a letter to Lord Bathurst.

July 28t