| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Greville Memoirs (Second Part) - A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1837 to 1852 - (Volume 1 of 3)
Author: Greville, Charles, 1794-1865
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Greville Memoirs (Second Part) - A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1837 to 1852 - (Volume 1 of 3)" ***
Transcriber's note:
In this work, all spellings and punctuation were
reproduced from the original work except in the very few
cases where an obvious typo occurred. These typos are
corrected without comment.
In the original work, monetary pounds were expressed as
an italicized "l." after the number. For the text
version, I am using the more conventional £100 form for
clarity.
In the original volumes in this set, each even-numbered
page had a header consisting of the page number, the
volume title, and the chapter number. The odd-numbered
page header consisted of the year of the diary entry, a
subject phrase, and the page number. In this set of
e-books, the year is included as part of the date (which
in the original volume were in the form reproduced here,
minus the year). The subject phrase has been converted to
sidenotes, usually positioned where it seemed most
logical but occasionally simply between two paragraphs of
the even-odd pair.
In the original book set, consisting of three volumes,
the master index was in Volume 3. In this set of e-books,
the index has been duplicated into each of the other
volumes. To make the index easier to use in this work,
the page number has been added to each Diary date.
* * * * *
The Greville Memoirs
(second part)
A JOURNAL OF THE REIGN
of
QUEEN VICTORIA
from 1837 to 1852
By the Late
CHARLES C. F. GREVILLE, Esq.
Clerk of the Council
IN THREE VOLUMES
VOL. I.
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
1885
'PLERAQUE EORUM, QUAE RETULI QUAEQUE REFERAM, PARVA
FORSITAN ET LEVIA MEMORATU VIDERI, NON NESCIUS SUM; SED
NEMO ANNALES NOSTROS CUM SCRIPTURA EORUM CONTENDERIT, QUI
VETERES POPULI ROMANI RES COMPOSUERE. INGENTIA ILLI
BELLA, EXPUGNATIONES URBIUM, FUSOS CAPTOSQUE REGES, AUT,
SI QUANDO AD INTERNA PRAEVERTERENT, DISCORDIAS CONSULUM
ADVERSUM TRIBUNOS, AGRARIAS FRUMENTARIASQUE LEGES, PLEBIS
ET OPTIMATIUM CERTAMINA, LIBERO EGRESSU MEMORABANT. NOBIS
IN ARTO ET INGLORIUS LABOR.... NON TAMEN SINE USU FUERIT,
INTROSPICERE ILLA, PRIMO ADSPECTU LEVIA, EX QUIS MAGNARUM
SAEPE RERUM MOTUS ORIUNTUR.'
TACITUS, _Ann. iv. cap._ 32.
PREFACE
OF THE EDITOR
TO THE SECOND PART OF THIS JOURNAL.
When the first portion of the Memoirs of the late Mr. Charles
Greville, consisting of a Journal of the Reigns of King George
IV. and King William IV., was given to the world in the autumn of
the year 1874, it was intimated that the continuation of the work
was reserved for future publication. Those volumes included the
record of events which Mr. Greville had noted in his Diary from
the year 1818 to the accession of Her Majesty Queen Victoria in
the year 1837, a period of nineteen years. As they were published
in 1874, an interval of thirty-seven years had elapsed between
the latest event recorded in them and the date at which they
appeared. The reigns of George IV. and William IV. already
belonged to the history of the past, and accordingly I did not
conceive it to be my duty to suppress or qualify any of the
statements or opinions of the Author on public men or public
events. I am still of opinion that this was the right course for
a person charged with the publication of these manuscripts to
pursue. I have seen it stated that the first edition of these
Journals contains passages which have been suppressed in the
later editions: but this is an error. The first edition contained
a good many mistakes, which were subsequently pointed out by
criticism, or discovered and corrected. Two or three sentences
relating to private individuals were omitted, but nothing which
concerns public personages or public events has been withdrawn.
Eight and forty years have now elapsed since the date at which
the narrative contained in the former volumes was suspended, and
I am led by several considerations to the opinion that the time
has arrived when it may be resumed. We are divided by a long
interval from the administrations of Lord Melbourne, Sir Robert
Peel, and Lord John Russell, and, with a very small number of
exceptions, no one survives who sat in the Cabinets of those
statesmen. Nearly half a century has elapsed since the occurrence
of the events recorded in the earlier pages of these volumes, and
in a few months from the publication of them, the nation and the
empire may celebrate with just enthusiasm the jubilee of the
reign of Queen Victoria. Those who have had the good fortune to
witness this long series of events, and to take any part in them,
may well desire to leave behind them some record of a period,
unexampled in the annals of Great Britain and of the world for an
almost unbroken continuance of progress, prosperity, liberty, and
peace. It is not too soon to glean in the records of the time
those fugitive impressions which will one day be the materials of
history. To us, veterans of the century, life is in the past, and
we look back with unfading interest on the generations that have
passed away.
As far as I am myself concerned, I am desirous to complete,
whilst I am able, the task allotted to me by Mr. Greville in his
last hours, which indeed I regard as a sacred duty, since I know
that in placing these Journals in my hands his principal motive
and intention was that they should not be withheld from
publication until the present interest in them had expired. The
advance of years reminds me that if this duty is to be performed
at all by me, it must not be indefinitely delayed, and if any
strictures are passed on the Editor of these volumes, I prefer to
encounter them in my own person rather than to leave the work in
other hands and to the uncertainty of the future.
If I turn to precedent and the example of other writers, it will
be found that the interval of time which has elapsed since the
latest date included in these volumes, embracing the period from
1837 to 1852, is considerably greater than that which marked the
publication of similar contributions to political history[1]. At
the head of these must be placed Bishop Burnet's 'History of His
Own Time.' Bishop Burnet had lived in confidential relations with
four Sovereigns and their Ministers, and it would be a mistake to
compare the position of Mr. Greville (who never filled any office
of a political nature, and who never lived in confidential
intercourse with the Court) with that of the bold adviser of
Charles II. and James II., and the trusted councillor of William
and Mary. Bishop Burnet finished his history of the reigns of
Charles II. and James II. about the year 1704; that of William
and Queen Anne between 1710 and 1713. In 1714 he died. The first
folio containing the earlier reigns was published by his son in
1724; the second in 1734, barely twenty years after the death of
Queen Anne. Many passages were, however, suppressed, and the text
was not restored in its integrity until the publication of the
Oxford edition in the present century.
[1] To look back as far as the Memoirs of the fifteenth
century, it may be noted that the first edition of the
Memoirs of Philippe de Comines, who had lived in the
confidential intimacy of King Louis XI. and King
Charles VIII. of France, was published in Paris in
1524, under a special privilege obtained for that
purpose. Louis XI. died in 1483, and his son Charles
VIII. in 1498. Comines himself died in 1511. These
Memoirs, therefore, were published at a time when many
of the persons mentioned in them, and most of their
immediate descendants, were still alive.
Lord Clarendon died in 1674, and the first edition of his
'History of the Rebellion and the Civil Wars' was published in
1702-4, with some alterations and omissions, which were supplied
by the publication of the complete text in 1826.
Lord Chesterfield died in 1773, and his 'Letters to his Son,' a
work abounding in keen and sarcastic observations on his
contemporaries, were published in the following year, 1774.
Sir Nathaniel Wraxall's 'Memoirs,' which contain the best account
extant of the debates at the time of the Coalition Ministry in
1783, and on the Regency Question in 1788, were published in
1815, about thirty years after those discussions.
But it is scarcely necessary to seek for remote precedents to
justify the publication of the materials of contemporary history.
Our own time has been fertile in great examples of it. For
instance, the 'Memoirs of Lord Palmerston,' by Lord Dalling and
Mr. Evelyn Ashley, are full of confidential correspondence on the
secret discussions and resolutions of the Cabinet. The 'Journal
of Lord Ellenborough,' recently published by Lord Colchester,
contains the private record of a Cabinet Minister on the events
of the day and the characters of his colleagues. The more recent
publication of Lord Malmesbury's 'Autobiography,' and of the
Croker Papers, has made public a large amount of correspondence
and information of great interest, with reference to the
ministerial combinations and political transactions of the
present century. And above all, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, by
placing the papers of the late Prince Consort, and her own
correspondence and journals, in the hands of Sir Theodore Martin,
for the purpose of composing from the most authentic materials a
full biography of that illustrious Prince, has shown that, far
from regarding with distrust or repugnance the records of
contemporary history, she has been graciously pleased to
contribute to it in the most ample manner by the publication of
an immense mass of documents relating to the interior of the
Court, the intercourse of the Sovereign with her Ministers, the
character of foreign monarchs, the less known transactions of her
reign, and even the domestic incidents of her life. No Sovereign
ever courted more fully and more willingly the light of publicity
on a reign which needs no concealment or disguise.
It would be presumptuous to compare the Journals of an individual
who never held any important office in the State, and who derived
his knowledge of public affairs entirely from the intercourse of
private friendship, with the correspondence and private records
of sovereigns, ministers, and statesmen of the highest rank,
which have been published with their sanction or with that of
their immediate successors. These Journals advance no such
pretension; but the production of so many confidential documents
of contemporary or recent history by such personages may be
fairly invoked to justify, _à fortiori_, the publication of notes
and memoranda of a humbler character.
The incidents and opinions which will be found in these volumes
derive their chief value from the fact that they are recorded by
a bystander and spectator, who was not, and did not aspire to be,
an actor in the occurrences he witnessed, but who lived on terms
of intimacy with many of the most active politicians of his
times, in both the leading parties in the State, although he
strictly belonged to neither of them, and was wholly indifferent
to mere party interests.
Mr. Greville himself, in communicating a portion of his
manuscripts to one of his friends, wrote of them in the following
terms:--
You will find the greater part political, not often
narrative; mostly allusions and comments on passing
events, the details of which were not notorious and
accessible; some miscellanea of a different description,
personal, social, official; you will find public
characters freely, flippantly perhaps, and frequently
very severely dealt with; in some cases you will be
surprised to see my opinions of certain men, some of
whom, in many respects, I may perhaps think differently
of now. Gibbon said of certain Pagan philosophers, that
'their lives were spent in the pursuit of truth and the
practice of virtue.' I cannot boast of having passed my
life in the practice of virtue, but I may venture to say
that I have always pursued truth; and you will see
evidence of the efforts I have made to get at it, and to
sum up conflicting statements of facts with a sort of
judicial impartiality.
But although I am of opinion that the time has arrived when a
further portion of these Journals may without impropriety be
published, yet I am sensible that as the narrative draws nearer
to the present time, and touches events occurring during the
reign of the Sovereign who still happily occupies the throne,
much more reticence is required of an Editor than he felt in
speaking of the two last reigns, which belong altogether to past
history. There were in the records of those reigns topics of
scandal and topics of ridicule, already familiar to the world,
which cast a shadow over those pages, and the more so as they
were true. In narrating the earlier passages of the reign of
Queen Victoria, no such incidents occur. The Court was pure; the
persons of the Sovereign and her Consort profoundly respected.
The monarchy itself has been strengthened in the last forty-eight
years by a strict adherence to the principles of moral dignity
and constitutional government. Nothing is to be found in any part
of these Journals to impugn that salutary impression; and they
will afford to future generations no unworthy picture of those
who have played the most conspicuous part in the last half
century.
Nevertheless, the delicacy and caution which ought to be observed
in recording the language and the actions of eminent persons,
some of whom are still alive, appear to me to prescribe the
omission, at the present time, of some passages that may more
fitly be published hereafter. Accordingly, I have exercised to
some extent the discretionary powers entrusted to me by the
Author with these manuscripts; and I have withheld from
publication details which appeared to be of a strictly
confidential character, or which related the conversations of
living persons. In this respect I have again followed the example
set by the illustrious precedents to which I have already
referred. Lord Clarendon's 'History of the Great Rebellion,'
Bishop Burnet's 'History of His Own Time,' the Duc de Saint-
Simon's 'Memoirs,' were all first published with large omissions
from the text; and it is only in our own age--one or two
centuries after the death of the writers--that these works have
been made known to the world in their integrity from the original
manuscripts. I know not if these Journals are destined to so long
a life; they certainly do not lay claim to so great and lasting
an historical and literary fame; but it is probable they will be
read and referred to hereafter as a portion of the materials of
history of England in this century.
The alternative lay between the entire suppression of the work
for an indefinite period, and the publication of by far the
larger portion of it with the omission of a few passages which
touched too nearly on our contemporaries. Upon the whole, the
latter course appears to me the most consistent with the duty I
accepted from the Author, and which I owe to the public. It must
not be supposed, however, that the passages which are omitted in
this edition contain anything which it would be thought
discreditable for the Author to have written or for the Editor to
publish, or that they are of considerable extent or importance.
These passages are simply withheld at the present time from
motives of delicacy to persons still alive, or to their immediate
descendants. I adhere to the opinion previously expressed by me,
that the public conduct of those who, by their station or their
offices must be regarded as public characters, needs no reticence
or concealment.
An observation occurs in one of the later volumes of these
Journals (which had previously escaped my notice) in which the
Author remarks that much that he has written appears to him to be
extremely dull, and that to avoid dullness the manuscript should
be carefully revised before it is made public. I have not the
same dread of dullness which affected Mr. Greville. A passage may
be found to contain something of interest hereafter, though it is
not amusing, and at the worst the reader can pass it by. Nor do I
attach importance to the amusement the public may derive from
this work. The volumes now published may be less attractive to
some readers than those which preceded them, for they relate to
less dissipated and distracted times; but they are, I think, more
instructive because they are marked by a deeper insight into
political history.
In conclusion, I may remark that the present publication embraces
a period of fourteen years, extending from the accession of Her
Majesty Queen Victoria in 1837 to the _coup d'état_ of Napoleon
III. in 1851. The latest events recorded in these pages are
separated from us by an interval of about thirty-four years. The
occurrences which took place after the close of 1851, the
subsequent establishment of the Imperial power in France, the
formation of the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen, followed in 1853 by
the Crimean War, mark an important epoch in the history of this
country and of Europe. I have therefore thought that this date is
the appropriate conclusion of this portion of the work. Mr.
Greville continued his Journal for nine years more, until the
close of 1860, though in his later years he was less conversant
with public affairs than he had been in the more active period of
his life. Should life and health be vouchsafed to me, I shall
endeavour to complete the task he confided to my care by the
publication of one or two concluding volumes at no distant
period.
HENRY REEVE.
.'. The notes in brackets are by the Editor, those without
brackets by the Author.
CORRECTIONS
The following inaccuracies have been remarked whilst these sheets
were passing through the press:--
Vol. ii, p. 37, the Duke of Wellington sate in Sir
Robert Peel's Cabinet of 1841 without
office. Sir E. Knatchbull was
Paymaster-General with a seat in the
Cabinet.
Vol. ii, p. 60, line 18, for _Emerson Tennent_ read _Tennant_.
Vol. ii, p. 72, for Sir _George_ Grey in the text and
note read Sir _Charles_ Grey.
Vol. ii, p. 113, the Rev. William Capel was Vicar, not
Rector, of Watford, and Rector of
Raine. Vol. ii, p. 126, last line but
two, for _any_ read _my_.
Vol. ii, p. 194, last two lines, for _Moore O'Farrell_
read _More O'Ferrall_.
Vol. ii, p. 372, the battles of Moodkee and Ferozeshah
were fought in December 1845, _before_,
not _after_, the battle of Aliwal.
Vol. iii, p. 108, line 12, for _Machale_ read _MacHale_. Vol.
iii, p. 218, note 1, line 2, for
_Gotto_ read _Goito_.
CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME
CHAPTER I.
The New Reign--Character of William IV--Political Effects of the
King's Death--Candidates for Office--Lord Durham--The King's
Funeral--The Elections--The Whigs and O'Connell--First
Impression of a Railroad--Lord Stanley at Knowsley--The King of
Hanover--Return to London--Result of the Elections--Liberality
of the Queen--Princess Lieven's Audiences--Conservative
Reaction in the Counties--The Queen and Lord Munster--State of
Parties in the New Parliament--The Corn Laws--The Poor Laws--
Tory-Radicals--Promise of the Queen's Character--Her Self-
Possession--Queen Victoria and Queen Adelaide--The Queen and
Lord Melbourne--Mango wins the St. Leger--Racing Reflexions--
Death of Lord Egremont--The Court of Victoria--Conservatism of
the Whigs--Radical Discontent--Irish Policy of the Government--
Mr. Disraeli's First Speech--Lord Brougham's Isolation--Radical
Politics--Lord Melbourne and Lord Brougham--The Canada
Debates--The Use of a Diary--Duke of Wellington on Canada--On
his own Despatches--On the Battle of Salamanca--King Ernest in
Hanover--English Manor Houses--Festivities at Belvoir Castle--
Life at Belvoir--Reflexions--Beaudesert--Death of Lord Eldon.
Page 1
CHAPTER II.
Debates on the Canada Bill--Moderation of the Duke of
Wellington--State of Canada--Lord Durham's Position--Weakness
of the Government--Parallel of Hannibal and the Duke of
Wellington--The Ballot--Lord Brougham on the Ballot--Position
of the Government--Policy of Sir Robert Peel--Death of Mr.
Creevey--Knighthood of General Evans--Lord Brougham's
Conversation--A Skirmish in the House of Commons--Defeat of
Government--Skirmish in the House of Lords--Annoyance of Peel
at these Proceedings--Brougham's Anti-Slavery Speech--
Opposition Tactics--Brougham on the Coolie Trade--Ministerial
Success--Sir Robert Peel's Tactics--Composition of Parties--A
Dinner at Buckingham Palace--Men of Science--The Lord Mayor at
a Council--The Queen at a Levée--The Guiana Apprentices--Small
_v._ Attwood reversed--Character of the Queen--Wilkie's Picture
of the 'First Council'--Small _v._ Attwood--Immediate
Emancipation--Birthday Reflexions--Lord Charles Fitzroy turned
out--Vote on Lord Durham's Expenses--Lord Durham's Irritation--
Wolff the Missionary--Newmarket--The Coronation--Lord
Brougham's Reviews.
Page 51
CHAPTER III.
A Ball at the Palace--Aspect of Foreign Affairs--Irish Tithe
Bill--Debate on Sir T. Acland's Motion--Death of Prince
Talleyrand--Death and Character of Lady Harrowby--Government
defeated on Emancipation of Slaves--Dispute of Mr. Handley and
Lord Brougham--Dinner at Lambeth--Arrangement of Irish
Questions--Settlement of Irish Questions--O'Connell declines
the Rolls--Naval Intervention in Spain--Duke of Wellington's
Moderation--Marshal Soult arrives--Preparations for the
Coronation of Queen Victoria--The Wellington Statue--The
Coronation--Coleridge and John Sterling--Lord Durham's Mission
to Canada--Lord Brougham contrasted with the Duke--Macaulay on
his return from India--Soult in London--Duke of Sussex quarrels
with Ministers--Lord Burghersh's Opera--High Church Sermons--
Lord Palmerston and Mr. Urquhart--The Ecclesiastical Discipline
Bill--The Duke's Despatches--Macaulay's Plan of Life--Lord
Durham's Canada Ordinance--Mr. Barnes--Canada Indemnity Bill--
Lord Durham's Ordinance disallowed--Irish Corporation Bill--
Review of the Session
Page 91
CHAPTER IV.
The Queen and Lord Melbourne--The Battersea Schools--A Council at
Windsor--A Humble Hero--Lord Durham's Resignation--Duke of
Wellington's Campaigns--The Grange--Lord Durham's Return--Death
of Lord Sefton--Lord Durham's Arrival--His Reception in the
Country--Position of the Radicals--A Visit to Windsor Castle--
Lord Brougham's 'Letter to the Queen'--Lord Durham repudiates
the Radicals--A Lecture at Battersea--Dinner at Holland House--
Curran and George Ponsonby--Prospect of the New Year--The
Petition of the Serjeants-at-Law--Reconciliation with Lord
Durham--Murder of Lord Norbury--The Corn Laws attacked--Lord
Palmerston and the 'Portfolio'--The Serjeants' Case--Brougham
and Lyndhurst 'done up'--Opening of the Session--Resignation of
Lord Glenelg--State of Parties--Lord Durham's Report--Lord
Glenelg's Retirement--Lord Normanby, Colonial Minister--Corn
Law Repeal--Sir Francis Bond Head--Gore House--Lady Blessington
Page 130
CHAPTER V.
Opening of the Session--Lady Flora Hastings--Bulwer's
'Richelieu'--Changes at the Colonial Office--Attack on Lord
Normanby's Irish Administration in the Lords--General Aspect of
Affairs--The 'Morning Chronicle'--Death of Lord de Ros--
Precarious Position of the Government--Views of Lord John
Russell--A doubtful Question--Conciliatory Conversation with
Sir James Graham--Attitude of the Whig Party--Peel's cold
Reception of the Proposal--Result of the Debate--Attitude of
Lord John Russell--Language of the Radical Party--
Conciliation--Change of Feeling in the Country--Duke of
Newcastle dismissed from the Lord Lieutenancy--Lord John
Russell's Letter--Jamaica Bill--Defeat of the Jamaica Bill--
Resignation of Ministers--The Queen retains the Ladies of her
Household--Conduct of the Whigs--End of the Crisis--The Truth
of the Story
Page 170
CHAPTER VI.
The Whigs retain the Government--Motives of the Queen--Decision
of Ministers--Lord Brougham's Excitement--Ministerial
Explanations--State of Affairs in Parliament--Lord Brougham's
great Speech on the Crisis--Duke of Wellington's Wisdom and
Moderation--Visit of the Grand Duke Alexander--Macaulay returns
to Parliament--Disappointment of the Radicals--The Radicals
appeased--Visit to Holland House--Anecdotes of George Selwyn--
False Position of the Whigs--Downton Castle--Payne Knight--
Malvern--Troy House--Castles on the Wye--Tintern Abbey--Bath--
Salisbury Cathedral--Death of Lady Flora Hastings--Violent
Speech of the Duke--Conversation with the Duke of Wellington--
Lord Clarendon's _début_ in the House of Lords--Lord Brougham
attacks Lord Normanby--His fantastic Conduct--Pauper School at
Norwood
Page 207
CHAPTER VII.
Review of the Session--Ministerial Changes--Effect of Changes in
the Government--A Greenwich Dinner--Dover Dinner to the Duke of
Wellington--A Toast from Ovid--Decay of Tory Loyalty--
Unpopularity of Government--Brougham's Letter to the Duke of
Bedford--Character of John, Duke of Bedford--Brougham at the
Dover Dinner--Brougham and Macaulay--The Duke's Decline--Duke
of Wellington consulted on Indian and Spanish Affairs--Baron
Brunnow arrives in England--False Reports of Lord Brougham's
Death--Insulting Speeches of the Tories--Holland House--Lord
Brougham and Lord Holland--The Queen's Marriage is announced--
Remarkable Anecdote of the Duke of Wellington--The Mayor of
Newport at Windsor--Ampthill--Lord John Russell's Borough
Magistrates--Lord Clarendon's Advice to his Colleagues--
Prospects of the Government--Opening of the Session--Duel of
Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Horsman--Lord Lyndhurst's View of
Affairs--Prince Albert's Household--The Privilege Question--
Prince Albert's Allowance--Precedence of Prince Albert--Lord
John Russell and Sir Robert Peel--Judgement on the Newport
Prisoners--A Vote of Want of Confidence moved--The Newport
Prisoners--Prince Albert's Precedency--Sir Robert Peel and his
Party--Sir Robert Peel's Speech and Declaration--Precedence
Question--The Queen's Marriage--Illness of the Duke of
Wellington--The Precedence Question settled--The Duke opposed
to Peel on the Privilege Question--Change in the Health of the
Duke--Prince Albert's Name in the Liturgy--Success of Pamphlet
on Precedence--Judicial Committee Bill--Lord Dudley's Letters--
Amendment of Judicial Committee--King's Sons born Privy
Councillors, other Princes sworn--The Duke returns to London--
Lord Melbourne's Opinion on Journals
Page 231
CHAPTER VIII.
The ex-King of Westphalia--The Duke of Wellington at Court--
Failure of the Duke's Memory--Dinner at Devonshire House to
Royalties--Government defeated on Irish Registration Bill--The
King of Hanover's Apartments--Rank of Foreign Ministers--The
Duchess of Inverness--War with China--Murder of Lord William
Russell--Duke of Wellington on the China War--Weakness of
Government--Duke of Wellington's Conduct towards the
Government--The Queen shot at--Examination of the Culprit--
Retrospect of Affairs--Conciliatory Policy--Advantages of a
Weak Government--The Eastern Question--Lord Palmerston's Daring
and Confidence--M. Guizot and Mr. Greville--Pacific Views of
Louis Philippe--M. Guizot's Statement of the Policy of France--
Growing Alarm of Ministers--Alarm of Prince Metternich--Lord
John Russell disposed to resist Palmerston--History of the
Eastern Negotiation--A Blunder of M. Guizot--Important
Conversation with Guizot--Conflict between Lord John Russell
and Lord Palmerston--Energetic Resolution of Lord John--Lord
Palmerston holds out--Conciliatory Proposals of France--
Interview with Lord Palmerston and Lord John
Page 277
CHAPTER IX.
The Cabinet meets--The Government on the verge of Dissolution--
The Second Cabinet--Palmerston lowers his Tone in the Cabinet--
But continues to bully in the Press--Taking of Beyrout--
Deposition of Mehemet Ali--Lord John acquiesces--Total Defeat
of Peace Party--Lord John Russell's False Position--His Views--
Lord Granville's Dissatisfaction--Further Attempts at
Conciliation--Prevarication of Lord Ponsonby--Newspaper
Hostilities--Discussion of the French Note of the 8th October--
Guizot's Opinion of the Note of the 8th October--Louis
Philippe's Influence on the Crisis--Summary of Events--Death of
Lord Holland--Lord Clarendon's Regret for Lord Holland--M.
Guizot's Intentions as to France--Effects of the Queen's
Partiality for Melbourne--Resignation of Thiers--Bickerings in
the Ministry--Lord John Russell's Dissatisfaction with Lord
Palmerston--Lord John resigns--Lord John demands the Recall of
Lord Ponsonby--Lord Palmerston defends Lord Ponsonby--M.
Guizot's Policy--Conciliatory Propositions fail--Attitude of
Austria--Asperity of Lord Palmerston--Operations in Syria--
Success of Lord Palmerston and his Policy--Baron Mounier's
Mission to London--Birth of the Princess Royal--Results of the
Success of Lord Palmerston's Measures--The Tories divided in
Opinion as to the Treaty--Retrospect of the Year--Lord Holland
Page 320
CHAPTER X.
Successes in India, China, and Syria--The Hereditary Pashalik of
Egypt--Lord Palmerston's Hostility to France--Lord Palmerston
and the Tories--His extraordinary Position--A Communication
from M. Guizot--Death of the Duchess of Cannizzaro--Her
History--Dinner with Lady Holland--Macaulay's Conversation--
Opening of the Session--A Sheriffs' Dinner--Hullah's Music
Lecture--Tory Successes--Duke of Wellington ill--Irish
Registration Bill--Opposed by the Conservatives--Conservative
Government of Ireland--Petulance of Lord Palmerston--Double
Dealing of Lord Palmerston--Ill Temper of the French--M.
Dedel's account of the State of Affairs--M. Dedel's account
corrected--Termination of the Disputes with France--Bad News
from China--Hostility of the United States--The Sultan's Hatti-
sherif--The Hatti-sherif disapproved by some Ministers--Peel's
Liberality--The Hatti-sherif disavowed--The Bishop of Exeter
left in the lurch--Poor Law Amendment Bill--Lord Granville's
Illness--Death of Mrs. Algernon Greville--Loss of 'The
President'--Government defeated--China Troubles--Danger of the
Government
Page 360
APPENDIX.
The Royal Precedency Question
Page 395
A JOURNAL
of the
REIGN OF QUEEN VICTORIA
from 1837 to 1852.
CHAPTER I.
The New Reign--Character of William IV.--Political Effects of the
King's Death--Candidates for Office--Lord Durham--The King's
Funeral--The Elections--The Whigs and O'Connell--First
Impression of a Railroad--Lord Stanley at Knowsley--The King of
Hanover--Return to London--Result of the Elections--Liberality
of the Queen--Princess Lieven's Audiences--Conservative
Reaction in the Counties--The Queen and Lord Munster--State of
Parties in the New Parliament--The Corn Laws--The Poor Laws--
Tory-Radicals--Promise of the Queen's Character--Her Self-
Possession--Queen Victoria and Queen Adelaide--The Queen and
Lord Melbourne--Mango wins the St. Leger--Racing Reflexions--
Death of Lord Egremont--The Court of Victoria--Conservatism of
the Whigs--Radical Discontent--Irish Policy of the Government--
Mr. Disraeli's First Speech--Lord Brougham's Isolation--Radical
Politics--Lord Melbourne and Lord Brougham--The Canada
Debates--The Use of a Diary--Duke of Wellington on Canada--On
his own Despatches--On the Battle of Salamanca--King Ernest in
Hanover--English Manor Houses--Festivities at Belvoir Castle--
Life at Belvoir--Reflexions--Beaudesert--Death of Lord Eldon.
June 25th, 1837 {p.001}
I remember when George IV. died, seven years ago, having been
struck by the small apparent sensation that his death created.
There was, however, at that time a great deal of bustle and
considerable excitement, which were caused by the activity of the
new Court, and the eccentricities of the King; but in the present
instance the Crown has been transferred to the head of the new
Queen with a tranquillity which is curious and edifying. The
first interest and curiosity to see the young Queen and observe
her behaviour having passed off, there appears nothing more to do
or to think about; there are no changes, and there is no talk of
change. Her Majesty has continued quietly at Kensington, where
she transacts business with her Ministers, and everything goes on
as if she had been on the throne six years instead of six days.
Animated panegyrics were pronounced upon the late King in both
Houses of Parliament by those who had served him; and Peel
repeated in the House of Commons, in more set phrases, the
expressions of his admiration of the conduct of the Queen on her
first public appearance, which he uttered to me when I saw him
after the Council on Tuesday. Melbourne's funeral oration over
William IV. was very effective because it was natural and hearty,
and as warm as it could be without being exaggerated. He made the
most of the virtues the King undoubtedly possessed, and passed
lightly over his defects.
[Page Head: CHARACTER OF WILLIAM IV.]
King William IV., if he had been born in a private station, would
have passed unobserved through life like millions of other men,
looked upon as possessing a good-natured and affectionate
disposition, but without either elevation of mind or brightness
of intellect. During many years of his life the Duke of Clarence
was an obscure individual, without consideration, moving in a
limited circle, and altogether forgotten by the great world. He
resided at Bushey with Mrs. Jordan, and brought up his numerous
children with very tender affection: with them, and for them, he
seemed entirely to live. The cause of his separation from Mrs.
Jordan has not been explained, but it probably arose from his
desire to better his condition by a good marriage, and he wanted
to marry Miss Wykeham, a half-crazy woman of large fortune, on
whom he afterwards conferred a Peerage. George IV., I believe,
put a spoke in that wheel, fortunately for the Duke as well as
for the country. The death of the Princess Charlotte opened to
him a new prospect, and the lack of royal progeny made his
marriage as desirable an event to the public as it was convenient
to himself. The subsequent death of the Duke of York, which made
him heir to the throne, at once exalted him into a personage of
political importance, and when the great Tory schism took place,
upon the death of Lord Liverpool, Mr. Canning thought the Duke of
Clarence's appointment to the office of Lord High Admiral would
strengthen his Government, and at the same time relieve him from
some of the difficulties which beset him; and he accordingly
prevailed upon the King to revive the office in his person. Soon
after the Duke of Wellington's elevation he found it necessary to
remove the Duke of Clarence, and it is an excellent trait in the
character of the latter that, notwithstanding his vexation at the
time, which was very great, he harboured no resentment against
the Duke of Wellington, and never seems to have hesitated about
retaining him as his Minister when he came to the throne. His
exaltation (for the moment) completely turned his head, but as
his situation got familiar to him he became more composed and
rational, if not more dignified in his behaviour. The moral and
intellectual qualities of the King, however insignificant in
themselves, now became, from their unavoidable influence, an
object of great interest and importance, and in the early part of
his reign he acquired no small share of popularity. People liked
a King whose habits presented such a striking contrast to those
of his predecessor. His attention to business, his frank and
good-humoured familiarity, and his general hospitality, were
advantageously compared with the luxurious and selfish indolence
and habits of seclusion in the society of dull and grasping
favourites which characterised the former reign.
The King seemed to be more occupied with the pleasing novelty of
his situation, providing for his children, and actively
discharging the duties of his high function, than in giving
effect to any political opinions; and he took a correct view of
his constitutional obligations, for although he continued his
confidence to the Duke of Wellington unabated to the last, he
transferred it as entirely to Lord Grey when the Whigs came in.
He went on with his second Ministry as cordially as he had done
with his first, nor does it appear that he took fright at their
extensive plans of reform when they were first promulgated. He
was probably bit by the popularity which the Reform Bill procured
him, and it was not until he had gone too far to recede with
safety that he was roused from his state of measureless content
and unthinking security. The roar of the mighty conflict which
the Reform Bill brought on filled him with dismay, and very soon
with detestation of the principles of which he had unwittingly
permitted himself to be the professor and the promoter; and as
these feelings and apprehensions were continually stimulated by
almost all the members of his family, legitimate and
illegitimate, they led him into those unavailing struggles which
embroiled him with his Ministers, rendered him obnoxious to the
Liberal party, compromised the dignity of the Crown and the
tranquillity of the country, and grievously embittered the latter
years of his life. But although King William was sometimes weak,
sometimes obstinate, and miserably deficient in penetration and
judgement, he was manly, sincere, honest, and straightforward.
The most painful moment of his life, and the greatest humiliation
to which a king ever submitted, must have been when he again
received the Whig Ministers in 1835; but it is to the credit of
Lord Melbourne, as well as of the King, that their subsequent
personal intercourse was not disagreeable to either, and greatly
to the King's honour that he has never been accused or suspected
of any underhand or indirect proceeding for the purpose of
emancipating himself from a thraldom so galling. Of political
dexterity and artifice he was altogether incapable, and although,
if he had been false, able, and artful, he might have caused more
perplexity to his Whig Government and have played a better party
game, it is perhaps fortunate for the country, and certainly
happy for his own reputation, that his virtues thus predominated
over his talents. The most remarkable foible of the late King was
his passion for speechifying, and I have recorded some of his
curious exhibitions in this way. He had considerable facility in
expressing himself, but what he said was generally useless or
improper. He never received the homage of a Bishop without giving
him a lecture; and the custom he introduced of giving toasts and
making speeches at all his dinners was more suitable to a tavern
than to a palace. He was totally deficient in dignity or
refinement, and neither his elevation to the throne nor his
association with people of the most distinguished manners could
give him any tincture of the one or the other. Though a good-
natured and amiable man, he was passionate and hasty, and thus he
was led into those bickerings and quarrels with the Duchess of
Kent and with his own children, which were a perpetual source of
discomfort or disgrace to him, and all of which might have been
avoided by a more consistent course of firmness and temper on his
part. His sons generally behaved to him with great insolence and
ingratitude, except Adolphus. Of the daughters I know nothing.
[Page Head: POLITICAL EFFECTS OF THE KING'S DEATH.]
The various political hopes, fears, and expectations which his
death has raised may be very shortly summed up. Nobody can deny
that it has given the Whig Government a great advantage over the
Tories. Hitherto the Government have been working against the
stream, inasmuch as they had the influence of the Crown running
dead against them; the tide has now turned in their favour, and
to a certain degree they will be able to convert the Tory
principle to their own advantage. The object of the Whigs is to
remain in office, to put down the Radicals and Radicalism, and go
on gradually and safely reforming; above all to proceed as fast
as the innumerable difficulties which impede their course will
let them, in bringing Ireland into a state of quiet and
contentment, and to pave the way for some definite settlement of
the great questions which distract that country. This I believe
to be the object of Lord Melbourne and Lord John Russell, but at
the same time they have colleagues and supporters who have more
extensive and less moderate views, and who would like to see the
Government more cordially allied to the Radicals than it is, and
who are so animated against the Tories that they would do
_anything_ to prevent their return to power.[1]
[1] [A list of Lord Melbourne's second Administration will
be found in the first part of this work, vol. iii.
p. 256. It had undergone no change since 1835, except
that the Great Seal, which had been put in commission,
was now held by Lord Cottenham.]
The great body of the Tories, on the other hand, are thirsting
for office: they are, or pretend to be, greatly alarmed at the
Radical tendencies of the Government, but they are well aware
that in the actual state of the House of Commons they have the
power of keeping the Government in check and of defeating every
Radical scheme while _in opposition_, but that it would be
dangerous to attempt to turn them out and take their places. So
far from being satisfied with this position of exceeding strength
and utility, they are chafing and fuming that they can't get in,
and would encounter all the hazards of defeat for the slightest
chance of victory. It is only the prudent reserve of Peel (in
which Stanley and Graham probably join) that restrains the
impatience of the party within moderate bounds. The Radicals are
few in number, and their influence is very low; they are angry
with the Government for not making greater concessions to them,
but as they still think there is a better chance of their views
being promoted by the Whigs remaining in, they continue to vote
with them in cases of need, though there are some of them who
would prefer the dissolution of the Ministry and war with a Tory
Government rather than the present imperfect alliance which
subsists between themselves and the Whigs. The Whigs then expect
to gain by the new elections and to obtain an accession of
strength to their Government. They think the popularity of a new
reign, and the partial neutrality of the Tory principle, will be
of material advantage to their cause. The Tories, though they
maintain that they shall not lose at the elections, evidently
feel that they take the field under a great disadvantage, and do
not deny that the King's death has been a heavy blow to them as a
party.
June 29th, 1837 {p.006}
All the accounts continue to report well of the young Queen, of
her quickness, sense and discretion, and the remarkable facility
with which she has slid into her high station and discharges its
duties. The Duchess of Kent never appears at Kensington, where
the Queen occupies a separate range of apartments, and her
influence is very silently exercised, if at all. The town is rife
with reports of changes and appointments, some very natural and
others very absurd; all agree that the power vested in
Melbourne's hands is unbounded, and that (as far as Court
appointments are concerned) he uses it with propriety. The great
topic of interest is the question of Lord Hill's removal,[2]
which the Radicals and violent Whigs have been long driving at,
but to which it is believed Melbourne is himself adverse. So Lord
Stanley told me the other day as his belief; and when I said that
though this might be so, it was doubtful how far he would be
induced to fight the battle in his own Cabinet if it was mooted
there, he said that from what he heard, he thought Melbourne was
lord and master in his own Cabinet.
[2] [Lord Hill held the office of Commander-in-Chief from
1828 till 1842, when he resigned it.]
[Page Head: LORD DURHAM.]
The eternal question in everybody's mouth is what is Lord Durham
to have, or if it is indispensable that he should have anything.
When Durham left England, he was the elected chief of the
Radicals, and he was paving the way to future Court favour
through a strict alliance with the Duchess of Kent and Sir John
Conroy. At St. Petersburg his language was always moderate; now
that he is returned, the Radicals, still regarding him as their
chief, look anxiously to his introduction into the Cabinet.
Charles Buller, whom I met the other day, said, in reply to my
asking him if Government would gain at the elections, 'I think
they will gain anyhow, but _if they are wise_ they will gain
largely.' I said, 'I wonder what you call being wise?' He said,
'Take in Lord Durham.' But they want Durham to be taken in as a
pledge of the disposition of the Government to adopt their
principles,[3] whereas Melbourne will receive him upon no such
terms; and if Durham takes office, he must subscribe to the
moderate principles upon which both Melbourne and John Russell
seem disposed to act. After all, it appears to me that a mighty
fuss is made about Durham without any sufficient reason, that his
political influence is small, his power less, and that it is a
matter of great indifference whether he is in office or out.
[3] After this was written, a letter of Durham's appeared
couched in vague but conservative language, and without
any allusion to the Ballot or the Radical desiderata.
July 9th, 1837 {p.008}
Yesterday I went to the late King's funeral, who was buried with
just the same ceremonial as his predecessor this time seven
years. It is a wretched mockery after all, and if I were king,
the first thing I would do should be to provide for being
committed to the earth with more decency and less pomp. A host of
persons of all ranks and stations were congregated, who 'loitered
through the lofty halls,' chattering and laughing, and with
nothing of woe about them but the garb. I saw two men in an
animated conversation, and one laughing heartily at the very foot
of the coffin as it was lying in state. The chamber of death in
which the body lay, all hung with black and adorned with
scutcheons and every sort of funereal finery, was like a scene in
a play, and as we passed through it and looked at the scaffolding
and rough work behind, it was just like going behind the scenes
of a theatre. A soldier's funeral, which I met in the morning--
the plain coffin slowly borne along by his comrades, with the cap
and helmet and sword of the dead placed upon it--was more
impressive, more decent, more affecting than all this pomp with
pasteboard crowns, and heralds scampering about, while idleness
and indifference were gazing or gossiping round about the royal
remains. I would rather be quietly consigned to the grave by a
few who cared for me (if any such there might be) than be the
object of all this parade and extravagance. The procession moving
slowly through close ranks of Horse and Foot Guards holding
tapers and torches in their hands, whilst at intervals the bands
played a dead march, had, however, a very imposing effect. The
service was intolerably long and tedious, and miserably read by
the Dean of Windsor. The Queen Dowager, with the King's daughters
and her ladies, were in the Royal Closet, and the FitzClarences
in the one adjoining. At twelve o'clock she was to depart for
Bushey, and a bitter moment it must have been when she quitted
for ever the Castle where she had spent seven years of prosperous
and happy splendour.
[Page Head: THE ELECTIONS.]
We continue to hear of the young Queen's admirable behaviour, but
all other subjects are swallowed up in the interest of the
approaching elections. There will be more contests than ever were
known, and it is amusing to see both parties endeavouring to
avail themselves of the Queen's name, the Tories affecting to
consider her as a prisoner in the hands of the Whigs, and the
Whigs boasting of the cordiality and warmth of her sentiments in
their favour. The Whigs have the best of this, as they have some
evidence to show in support of their assertions, and the
probability really is that she is well enough contented with
them, as they naturally take care she should be. Of the probable
changes, one of the most important is the defeat of Sir James
Graham in Cumberland, an event which the Whigs hail with extreme
satisfaction, for they hate him rancorously. I am under personal
obligations to Graham, and therefore regret that this feeling
exists; but it is not unnatural, and his political conduct is
certainly neither creditable nor consistent. He is now little
better than a Tory, a very high Churchman, and one of the least
liberal of the Conservative leaders. In Lord Grey's Government he
was one of the most violent, and for going to greater lengths
than the majority of his colleagues. When the Reform Bill was
concocted by a committee consisting of John Russell, Duncannon,
Durham, and Graham, Graham earnestly advocated the Ballot, and
Lord Durham says he has in his possession many letters of
Graham's, in which he presses for a larger measure of reform than
they actually brought forward. In his address he says he has not
changed, and talks of 'having belonged to the Whig Government
before they had made the compact by which they are now bound to
O'Connell.' Tavistock[4] said to me yesterday that this was too
bad, because he knew very well that the only understanding the
Government had with O'Connell was one of mutual support in the
Irish elections, the same which existed when he was in office;
and, moreover, that at that time the majority of the Cabinet
(Graham included) wanted to confer office upon O'Connell, and
that they were only induced to forego that design by the
remonstrances of Lord Lansdowne and the Duke of Richmond, who
insisted upon a further probation before they did so. O'Connell
got nothing, and soon after took to agitating and making violent
speeches. This exasperated Lord Grey, who, in his turn, denounced
him in the King's Speech, and hence that feud between O'Connell
and the Whigs, which was only terminated by the attempt of the
Tories to retake office in 1835. This led to the imperfect
alliance between them, half denied by the Whigs, which exposed
the Government to as much obloquy as if they had concluded an
open and avowed alliance with him, and perhaps to greater
inconvenience. It was a great blunder not securing O'Connell in
the first instance, and certainly a curious thing that such men
as Lord Lansdowne, and still more the Duke of Richmond, should
have influenced so important a matter and have overborne the
opinions of the whole Cabinet. After all this, it is not
extraordinary that his old associates should be disgusted at
seeing Graham become a Tory champion, and at hearing him more
bitter against them than any man on the Opposition benches. The
Tories, on the other hand, rejoice in him, and his bigotry about
all Church matters cancels in their minds all his former
Liberalism in that and every other respect.
[4] [Francis, Marquis of Tavistock, afterwards seventh Duke
of Bedford; born 12th May 1788, died 14th May 1861. He
was one of Mr. Greville's most intimate friends. They
agreed in the main in politics, and had a common
amusement--the turf. Lord Tavistock preferred a life of
retirement, and he refused office, but he kept up an
enormous correspondence with the leading statesmen of
the day. He was consulted by them on all occasions, and
not infrequently by the Queen, and he exercised a
considerable, though inostensible, influence on public
affairs.]
Knowsley, July 18th, 1837 {p.010}
[Page Head: FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF A RAILROAD.]
Tired of doing nothing in London, and of hearing about the Queen,
and the elections, I resolved to vary the scene and run down here
to see the Birmingham railroad, Liverpool, and Liverpool races.
So I started at five o'clock on Sunday evening, got to Birmingham
at half-past five on Monday morning, and got upon the railroad at
half-past seven. Nothing can be more comfortable than the vehicle
in which I was put, a sort of chariot with two places, and there
is nothing disagreeable about it but the occasional whiffs of
stinking air which it is impossible to exclude altogether. The
first sensation is a slight degree of nervousness and a feeling
of being run away with, but a sense of security soon supervenes,
and the velocity is delightful. Town after town, one park and
_château_ after another are left behind with the rapid variety of
a moving panorama, and the continual bustle and animation of the
changes and stoppages make the journey very entertaining. The
train was very long, and heads were continually popping out of
the several carriages, attracted by well-known voices, and then
came the greetings and exclamations of surprise, the 'Where are
you going?' and 'How on earth came you here?' Considering the
novelty of its establishment, there is very little embarrassment,
and it certainly renders all other travelling irksome and tedious
by comparison. It was peculiarly gay at this time, because there
was so much going on. There were all sorts of people going to
Liverpool races, barristers to the assizes, and candidates to
their several elections. The day was so wet that I could not see
the town of Liverpool.
This is a very large place, the house immense, with no good room
in it but the dining room. The country is generally flat, but
there are fine trees and thriving plantations, so that it is
altogether sufficiently enjoyable. It is a strange thing to see
Stanley here; he is certainly the most natural character I ever
saw; he seems never to think of throwing a veil over any part of
himself; it is this straightforward energy which makes him so
considerable a person as he is. In London he is one of the great
political leaders, and the second orator in the House of Commons,
and here he is a lively rattling sportsman, apparently devoted to
racing and rabbit-shooting, gay, boisterous, almost rustic in his
manners, without refinement, and if one did not know what his
powers are and what his position is, it would be next to
impossible to believe that the Stanley of Knowsley could be the
Stanley of the House of Commons.
Just before I left London, the Proclamation of the King of
Hanover appeared, by which he threw over the new Constitution.
Lyndhurst told me of it, before I had seen it, with many
expressions of disappointment, and complaining of his folly and
of the bad effect it would produce here. The Government papers
have taken it up, though rather clumsily, for the purpose of
connecting this violent measure with the Tory party; but it is a
great folly in the Opposition, and in the journals belonging to
them, not to reject at once and peremptorily all connexion with
the King of Hanover, and all participation in, or approbation of,
his measures. Lyndhurst told me that the King had all along
protested against this Constitution, and refused to sign or be a
party to it; that he contended it was illegal, inasmuch as the
States by which it had been enacted had been illegally convoked;
that he was _able_ to do what he has done by his independence in
point of finance, having a great revenue from Crown lands. The
late King was very anxious to give this up, and to have a Civil
List instead; but when this was proposed, the Duke of Cumberland
exerted his influence successfully to defeat the project, and it
was accordingly thrown out in the Senate (I think the Senate) by
a small majority. Though we have nothing to do with Hanover, this
violence will, no doubt, render him still more odious here than
he was before, and it would be an awful thing if the Crown were,
by any accident, to devolve upon him. The late King's desire to
effect this change affords an indisputable proof of the sincerity
of his constitutional principles, and it is no small praise that
he was satisfied with a constitutional sovereignty, and did not
hanker after despotic power.
July 25th, 1837 {p.012}
[Page Head: RESULT OF THE ELECTIONS.]
I remained at Knowsley till Saturday morning, when I went to
Liverpool, got into the train at half-past eleven, and at five
minutes after four arrived at Birmingham with an exact
punctuality which is rendered easy by the great reserved power of
acceleration, the pace at which we travelled being moderate and
not above one half the speed at which they do occasionally go;
one engineer went at the rate of forty-five miles an hour, but
the Company turned him off for doing so. I went to Kenilworth,
and saw the ruins of Leicester's Castle, and thence to Warwick to
see the Castle there, with both of which I was very much
delighted, and got to town on Sunday to find myself in the midst
of all the interest of the elections, and the sanguine and
confident assertions and expectations of both parties. The first
great trial of strength was in the City yesterday; and though
Grote beat Palmer at last, and after a severe struggle, by a very
small majority, it is so far consolatory to the Conservative
interest that it shows a prodigious change since the last general
election, when the Conservative candidate was 2,000 behind his
opponents.
July 28th, 1837 {p.013}
The borough elections in England, as far as they have gone, and
they are nearly over, have disappointed the Government, who
expected to gain in them.[5] The contests have been numerous,
often very close, and in some instances very costly. Norwich, won
with the greatest difficulty by Lord Douro and Scarlett, is said
to have cost £50,000. A compromise was offered at Yarmouth and at
Norwich, but the parties could not come to terms, and the result
has been the same as if it had taken place--two Tories in one
place and two Whigs in the other. There have been a vast number
of changes, and, as always happens, results very different from
what were expected in particular places. The balance is slightly
in favour of the Tories, but the best sign of the times is the
defeat of the Radicals in various places. Grote nearly beaten in
the City, and probably will be turned out on a scrutiny;[6]
Roebuck and Palmer were defeated at Bath, Ewart at Liverpool,
Wigney at Brighton, Thompson at Hull. It was clear enough before
from the Conservative language which was put into the Queen's
mouth by her Ministers, and by that which they held themselves,
that it was the only tone which would be palatable to the
country, and the event of the elections confirms this impression.
This is, after all, the essential point, to which the gains of
either party are entirely subordinate. If the Government keeps
together without internal dissensions, and nothing particular
occurs to produce a change, these Ministers cannot well be turned
out, because, though their majority is small, they have the
undoubted support of the House of Commons, and in my opinion they
will be all the stronger from the Radicals being so reduced in
numbers, as those who remain must support them, and cannot expect
any concessions in return. It is quite impossible to doubt that
there is in the country a strong Conservative reaction, and it is
the more valuable from not being more strongly pronounced. It is
great enough to prove that our institutions are safe, but not
great enough to bring the Tories back into power and to turn
their heads, ready as they always are to be puffed up with every
returning gale of success. The Tories have made one good exchange
in the article of whippers-in, for they have got Planta and
Holmes instead of Bonham and Ross.
[5] [It was found that the Liberals replaced by Tories
amounted to 66, and the Tories replaced by Liberals to
53. The Government therefore lost 13 seats in the
boroughs.]
[6] [Mr. Grote was returned by a majority of only six, but
he was not turned out.]
Everything that could be said in praise of the Queen, of her
manners, conduct, conversation, and character, having been
exhausted, we now hear no more of her. It is an interesting
speculation to conjecture how soon she will begin to think and to
act for herself upon higher matters, as she has at once done on
all minor points connected with her domestic arrangements. It is
generally believed that she is perfectly independent of any
influence in these things, and while in all political concerns
she has put herself implicitly in Melbourne's hands, in all
others she is her own mistress. From the beginning she resolved
to have nothing to do with Sir John Conroy, but to reward him
liberally for his services to her mother. She began by making him
a baronet, and she has given him a pension of £3,000 a year; but
he has never once been invited to the Palace, or distinguished by
the slightest mark of personal favour, so that nothing can be
more striking than the contrast between the magnitude of the
pecuniary bounty and the complete personal disregard of which he
is the object. The Queen has been extremely kind and civil to the
Queen Dowager, but she has taken no notice of the King's
children, good, bad, or indifferent. Lord Munster asked for an
audience to deliver up the keys of the Castle which he had, and
was very graciously received by her, but she did not give him
back the keys. Adolphus FitzClarence has lost his Lordship of the
Bedchamber, but then they only retained Peers, and he keeps the
command of the Royal yacht. He has had no intimation whether his
pension and his Rangership of Windsor Park are to be continued to
him. [In the end, however, they retained everything, and the
Queen behaved with equal liberality and kindness towards them
all.]
July 29th, 1837 {p.015}
The loss of Leeds, news which arrived last night, is a great blow
to the Tories, and the only important Radical triumph that has
occurred. George Byng[7] told me yesterday that all the
applications from the country for candidates sent to the Reform
Club desired that Whigs and not Radicals might be supplied to
them, which affords an additional proof of the decline of Radical
opinions. He owned that they are disappointed at the result of
the borough contests, having lost many places when they had no
idea there was any danger.
[7] [The Hon. George Byng, born 8th June 1806; succeeded
his father the Earl of Stafford, 3rd June 1860.]
July 30th, 1837 {p.015}
[Page Head: PRINCESS LIEVEN'S AUDIENCES.]
Madame de Lieven told me yesterday that she had an audience of
the Queen, who was very civil and gracious, but timid and
embarrassed, and talked of nothing but commonplaces. Her Majesty
had probably been told that the Princess was an _intrigante_, and
was afraid of committing herself. She had afterwards an interview
with the Duchess of Kent, who (she told me) it was plain to see
is overwhelmed with vexation and disappointment. Her daughter
behaves to her with kindness and attention but has rendered
herself quite independent of the Duchess, who painfully feels her
own insignificance. The almost contemptuous way in which Conroy
has been dismissed must be a bitter mortification to her. The
Duchess said to Madame de Lieven, 'qu'il n'y avait plus d'avenir
pour elle, qu'elle n'était plus rien;' that for eighteen years
this child had been the sole object of her life, of all her
thoughts and hopes, and now she was taken from her, and there was
an end of all for which she had lived heretofore. Madame de
Lieven said that she ought to be the happiest of human beings, to
see the elevation of this child, her prodigious success, and the
praise and admiration of which she was universally the object;
that it was a triumph and a glory which ought to be sufficient
for her--to which she only shook her head with a melancholy
smile, and gave her to understand that all this would not do, and
that the accomplishment of her wishes had only made her to the
last degree unhappy. King William is revenged, he little
anticipated how or by what instrumentality, and if his ghost is
an ill-natured and vindictive shade, it may rejoice in the sight
of this bitter disappointment of his enemy. In the midst of all
her propriety of manner and conduct, the young Queen begins to
exhibit slight signs of a peremptory disposition, and it is
impossible not to suspect that, as she gains confidence, and as
her character begins to develope, she will evince a strong will
of her own. In all trifling matters connected with her Court and
her palace, she already enacts the part of Queen and mistress as
if it had long been familiar to her.
August 8th, 1837 {p.016}
[Page Head: CONSERVATIVE REACTION.]
At Goodwood since this day week till Saturday, when I went to
Petworth;--to town yesterday. The county elections have produced
an endless succession of triumphs to the Conservatives, of which
the greatest was that over Hume in Middlesex. The Whigs are
equally astonished and dismayed at this result, for they had not
a notion of being bowled down as they have been one after
another. If the others had known their own strength, they might
have done a great deal more; Bingham Baring[8] could have brought
in another man with him for Staffordshire; Henry Windham could
have won Sussex had he chosen it, and was very near being brought
in without his own consent, and against the wishes of Lord
Egremont, who, having renounced politics, could not endure the
idea of his son being member for the county. Had Lord Egremont
lifted up his finger, Windham would have come in. The most
extraordinary of all these elections is that of Bingham Baring.
He could not stand again with any chance of success for
Winchester, and he went with £5,000 in his pocket to Stafford,
from time immemorial a corrupt borough; there he was beat, and he
was about to return after spending about one half of his cash,
when Lord Sandon pressed him to allow himself to be proposed for
Staffordshire, asserting that nothing was requisite but a
candidate, so much stronger was the Conservative feeling in the
county than people were aware of. Without much hope of success,
his family having never resided in the county, though his father
has some property in it, and being personally unknown to the
electors, he consented to stand, and, though he had no committee,
and nothing was previously organised or arranged, he was carried
by a prodigious majority to the head of the poll. The elections
in which the Conservatives have failed have, nevertheless,
exhibited a vast change in the public mind, for they have
generally been very severe contests, and in Yorkshire, with
nearly twice the constituency that there was at the last
election, John Wortley was within a few hundreds of his
opponents, when on the former occasion he was in a miserable
minority.
[8] [William Bingham Baring, afterwards second Baron
Ashburton, born June 1799, died March 1864. He sat for
North Staffordshire in this Parliament.]
Lord Munster has got back his keys of the Round Tower. Melbourne
found out that the place was held for life, and he sent for
Munster, and told him he had been hasty in disposing of it, that
it was his own doing and not the Queen's, who had acted entirely
by his advice, and that in his situation it was impossible for
him to do otherwise than bestow any vacant appointment upon a
person connected with his own party, but that he was extremely
glad in the present instance to find that he was not at liberty
to deprive Munster of the office. Munster afterwards saw the
Queen, who was exceedingly gracious, and told him she was very
glad to restore the keys to him. The Queen and Melbourne appear
to have both evinced kindness and good feeling on this occasion.
August 25th, 1837 {p.018}
Nothing of any moment has occurred for some time past, and all
the world has been occupied with the elections as long as they
lasted. After much disputing between the two parties as to the
actual result, it appears by an impartial examination of the
returns that the Ministers will have a majority of 30, and
possibly a little more. As the Government members always attend
better than their opponents, the working majority will probably
be usually greater than this. The Conservatives are exceedingly
triumphant at the result, and not without reason. The English
counties have made a very important demonstration in their
favour; they have not lost in the towns, and the Radicals have
been almost everywhere defeated. This latter circumstance is
exceedingly satisfactory, but the Radicals themselves do not
admit that this election affords any proof that their principles
are on the decline throughout the country. There cannot, however,
be a doubt that questions of organic change are not at present in
any degree of public favour. Charles Villiers, one of the
Radicals with whom I sometimes converse, insists upon it that the
Ballot has made great progress, but he also declares that, if
carried, it would prove a Conservative measure, and that better
men would be chosen. He predicts, however, with greater
appearance of reason, that the question of the Corn Laws will,
before long, become of paramount interest and importance, and I
am induced to think that the next great struggle that takes place
will be for their repeal.
[Page Head: TORY OPPOSITION TO THE POOR LAW.]
The Tories behaved exceedingly ill in one respect during the late
contest, and that was in availing themselves as much as possible
of the cry that has been raised against the Poor Law. No measure
of the Whig Government deserved greater credit than this, or
obtained so much unqualified praise and general support. Inasmuch
as the Tories are the largest landed proprietors, they are the
greatest gainers by the new system, and if a Tory Government
should be in power at the period of the expiration of the Act,
they will not hesitate to renew it. Nevertheless when they found
that some odium was excited in various parts of the country
against the new Poor Law and its administration, many of them did
not scruple to foment the popular discontent, and all watched its
progress with satisfaction when they saw that it was exclusively
directed against their political antagonists. It has been
remarked with truth, that Peel has observed an almost invariable
silence upon this head. During the discussion of the Bill he
seldom took any part; never opposed it; but, if appealed to,
expressed his acquiescence by silent nods. Of late, when a great
clamour has been raised against the Act, and language bordering
on sedition has been used, he has never said a word in favour of
the system, which it would have been more generous, manly, and
honourable to do than to cover himself with a cautious and
mysterious reserve on so important a subject. The Duke of
Wellington took part in the original measure very frankly; but at
the end of last year, when Lord Stanhope got up a discussion in
the House of Lords on the subject, though appealed to by Lord
Tavistock, the Duke would not say a word. This was not like him,
for with reference to mere party tactics, it is to his praise
that he is generally 'too fond of the right to pursue the
expedient.' It is this behaviour of the Tories which has shown me
that there may be such a thing as a 'Tory-Radical;' for though I
had heard the appellation, I thought they were contradictory
terms which did not admit of a conjunction. A Tory-Radical is,
however, a politician who for Tory party purposes endeavours to
influence the minds of the people against the laws and their
administration, not because he thinks those laws either ill-
contrived or ill-executed, but because he thinks that the
consequences of such popular discontent will fall upon his
opponents, and that he can render the angry feeling instrumental
to his own selfish or ambitious designs.
August 30th, 1837 {p.020}
All that I hear of the young Queen leads to the conclusion that
she will some day play a conspicuous part, and that she has a
great deal of character. It is clear enough that she had long
been silently preparing herself, and had been prepared by those
about her (and very properly) for the situation to which she was
destined. The impressions she has made continue to be favourable,
and particularly upon Melbourne, who has a thousand times greater
opportunities of knowing what her disposition and her capacity
are than any other person, and who is not a man to be easily
captivated or dazzled by any superficial accomplishments or mere
graces of manner, or even by personal favour. Melbourne thinks
highly of her sense, discretion, and good feeling; but what seem
to distinguish her above everything are caution and prudence, the
former to a degree which is almost unnatural in one so young, and
unpleasing, because it suppresses the youthful impulses which are
so graceful and attractive.
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S SELF-POSSESSION.]
On the morning of the King's death, the Archbishop of Canterbury
and Lord Conyngham arrived at Kensington at five o'clock, and
immediately desired to see 'the Queen.' They were ushered into an
apartment, and in a few minutes the door opened and she came in
wrapped in a dressing-gown and with slippers on her naked feet.
Conyngham in a few words told her their errand, and as soon as he
uttered the words 'Your Majesty,' she instantly put out her hand
to him, intimating that he was to kiss hands before he proceeded.
He dropped on one knee, kissed her hand, and then went on to tell
her of the late King's death. She presented her hand to the
Archbishop, who likewise kissed it, and when he had done so,
addressed to her a sort of pastoral charge, which she received
graciously and then retired. She lost no time in giving notice to
Conroy of her intentions with regard to him; she saw him, and
desired him to name the reward he expected for his services to
her parents. He asked for the Red Riband, an Irish peerage, and a
pension of £3,000 a year. She replied that the two first rested
with her Ministers, and she could not engage for them, but that
the pension he should have. It is not easy to ascertain the exact
cause of her antipathy to him, but it has probably grown with her
growth, and results from divers causes. The person in the world
she loves best is the Baroness Lehzen, and Lehzen and Conroy were
enemies. There was formerly a Baroness Spaeth at Kensington,
lady-in-waiting to the Duchess, and Lehzen and Spaeth were
intimate friends. Conroy quarrelled with the latter and got her
dismissed, and this Lehzen never forgave. She may have instilled
into the Princess a dislike and bad opinion of Conroy, and the
evidence of these sentiments, which probably escaped neither the
Duchess nor him, may have influenced their conduct towards her,
for strange as it is, there is good reason to believe that she
thinks she has been ill-used by both of them for some years
past.[9] Her manner to the Duchess is, however, irreproachable,
and they appear to be on cordial and affectionate terms. Madame
de Lehzen is the only person who is constantly with her. When any
of the Ministers come to see her, the Baroness retires at one
door as they enter at the other, and the audience over she
returns to the Queen. It has been remarked that when applications
are made to Her Majesty, she seldom or never gives an immediate
answer, but says she will consider of it, and it is supposed that
she does this because she consults Melbourne about everything,
and waits to have her answer suggested by him. He says, however,
that such is her habit even with him, and that when he talks to
her upon any subject upon which an opinion is expected from her,
she tells him she will think it over, and let him know her
sentiments the next day.
[9] [The Queen, in a letter to her uncle, King Leopold,
published with Her Majesty's sanction, speaks
significantly of what she terms 'my sad childhood.']
The day she went down to visit the Queen Dowager at Windsor, to
Melbourne's great surprise she said to him that as the flag on
the Round Tower was half-mast high, and they might perhaps think
it necessary to elevate it upon her arrival, it would be better
to send orders beforehand not to do so. _He_ had never thought of
the flag, or knew anything about it, but it showed her knowledge
of forms and her attention to trifles. Her manner to the Queen
was extremely kind and affectionate, and they were both greatly
affected at meeting. The Queen Dowager said to her that the only
favour she had to ask of her was to provide for the retirement,
with their pensions, of the personal attendants of the late King,
Whiting and Bachelor, who had likewise been the attendants of
George IV.; to which she replied that it should be attended to,
but she could not give any promise on the subject.
She is upon terms of the greatest cordiality with Lord Melbourne,
and very naturally. Everything is new and delightful to her. She
is surrounded with the most exciting and interesting enjoyments;
her occupations, her pleasures, her business, her Court, all
present an unceasing round of gratifications. With all her
prudence and discretion she has great animal spirits, and enters
into the magnificent novelties of her position with the zest and
curiosity of a child.
No man is more formed to ingratiate himself with her than
Melbourne. He treats her with unbounded consideration and
respect, he consults her tastes and her wishes, and he puts her
at her ease by his frank and natural manners, while he amuses her
by the quaint, queer, epigrammatic turn of his mind, and his
varied knowledge upon all subjects. It is not therefore
surprising that she should be well content with her present
Government, and that during the progress of the elections she
should have testified great interest in the success of the Whig
candidates. Her reliance upon Melbourne's advice extends at
present to subjects quite beside his constitutional functions,
for the other day somebody asked her permission to dedicate some
novel to her, when she said she did not like to grant the
permission without knowing the contents of the work, and she
desired Melbourne to read the book and let her know if it was fit
that she should accept the dedication. Melbourne read the first
volume, but found it so dull that he would not read any more, and
sent her word that she had better refuse, which she accordingly
did. She seems to be liberal, but at the same time prudent with
regard to money, for when the Queen Dowager proposed to her to
take her band into her service, she declined to incur so great an
expense without further consideration, but one of the first
things she spoke to Melbourne about was the payment of her
father's debts, which she is resolved to discharge.
October 23rd, 1837 {p.023}
[Page Head: MANGO WINS THE ST. LEGER.]
Since August 30th, nearly two months, I have written not a line,
for I have had nothing to record of public or general interest,
and have felt an invincible repugnance to write about myself or
my own proceedings. Having nothing else to talk of, however, I
shall write my own history of the last seven weeks, which is very
interesting to me inasmuch as it has been very profitable. Having
asked George Bentinck to try my horse 'Mango' before Doncaster,
we went down together one night to Winchester race-course and saw
him tried. He won the trial and we resolved to back him. This we
accomplished more successfully than we expected, and ten days
after he won the St. Leger, and I won about £9,000 upon it, the
first _great_ piece of good fortune that ever happened to me.
Since Doncaster, I have continued (up to this time) to win at
Newmarket, so that my affairs are in a flourishing condition,
but, notwithstanding these successes, I am dissatisfied and
disquieted in my mind, and my life is spent in the alternations
of excitement from the amusement and speculation of the turf and
of remorse and shame at the pursuit itself. One day I resolve to
extricate myself entirely from the whole concern, to sell all my
horses, and pursue other occupations and objects of interest, and
then these resolutions wax faint, and I again find myself buying
fresh animals, entering into fresh speculations, and just as
deeply engaged as ever. It is the force of habit, a still
unconquered propensity to the sport, and a nervous apprehension
that if I do give it up, I may find no subject of equal interest.
November 14th, 1837 {p.023}
[Page Head: CHARACTER OF LORD EGREMONT.]
Yesterday morning I heard of the death of Lord Egremont, who died
after a week's illness of his old complaint, an inflammation in
the trachea, being within a month of eighty-six years old.[10] He
was a remarkable man, and his death will be more felt within the
sphere of his influence (and that extended over the whole county
of Sussex) than any individual's ever was. He was immensely rich
and his munificence was equal to his wealth. No man probably ever
gave away so much money in promoting charitable institutions or
useful undertakings, and in pensioning, assisting, and supporting
his numerous relations and dependants. His understanding was
excellent, his mind highly cultivated, and he retained all his
faculties, even his memory, unimpaired to the last. He was
remarkably acute, shrewd, and observant, and in his manner blunt
without rudeness, and caustic without bitterness. Though he had
for some years withdrawn himself from the world, he took an eager
interest and curiosity in all that was passing in it, and though
not mixed up in politics, and sedulously keeping aloof from all
party conflicts, he did not fail to think deeply and express
himself strongly upon the important questions and events of the
times. In his political principles and opinions he was anti-
Liberal, and latterly an alarmist as well as a Conservative. He
had always opposed Catholic Emancipation, which it is difficult
to account for in a man so sagacious and benevolent, except from
the force of prejudices early instilled into a mind of tenacious
grasp which was not exposed to the changeful influence of worldly
commerce and communication. It is probable that Lord Egremont
might have acted a conspicuous part in politics if he had chosen
to embark on that stormy sea, and upon the rare occasions when he
spoke in the House of Lords, he delivered himself with great
energy and effect; but his temper, disposition, and tastes were
altogether incompatible with the trammels of office or the
restraints of party connexions, and he preferred to revel
unshackled in all the enjoyments of private life, both physical
and intellectual, which an enormous fortune, a vigorous
constitution, and literary habits placed in abundant variety
before him. But in the system of happiness which he marked out
for himself, the happiness of others formed a large and essential
ingredient; nor did old age, as it stole upon him with gradual
and insensible steps, dull the brightness of his intellect or
chill the warmth of his heart. His mind was always intent upon
providing for the pleasure or the benefit of those around him,
and there was nothing in which he so keenly delighted as the
rural festivals with which he celebrated his own birthday, when
thousands of the surrounding villagers were assembled in his park
to eat, drink and be merry. He was passionately fond of children,
and animals of every description found favour in his sight. Lord
Egremont was a distinguished patron of artists, and it was rarely
that Petworth was unvisited by some painter or sculptor, many of
whom he kept in almost continual employment, and by whom his loss
will be severely felt. He was extremely hospitable, and Petworth
was open to all his friends, and to all their friends if they
chose to bring them, provided they did not interfere with his
habits or require any personal attention at his hands: from any
such obligation he considered that his age and infirmities
released him. He received his guests with the utmost urbanity and
courtesy, did the honours of his table, and in every other
respect left them free to abide as long as they pleased, but to
amuse themselves as they could. Petworth was consequently like a
great inn. Everybody came when they thought fit, and departed
without notice or leave-taking. He liked to have people there who
he was certain would not put him out of his way, especially those
who, entering into his eccentric habits, were ready for the
snatches of talk which his perpetual locomotion alone admitted
of, and from whom he could gather information about passing
events; but it was necessary to conform to his peculiarities, and
these were utterly incompatible with conversation or any
prolonged discussion. He never remained for five minutes in the
same place, and was continually oscillating between the library
and his bedroom, or wandering about the enormous house in all
directions; sometimes he broke off in the middle of a
conversation on some subject which appeared to interest him and
disappeared, and an hour after, on a casual meeting, would resume
it just where he had left off. But this habitual restlessness,
which was so fatal to conversation, served perhaps to exhibit the
vivacity of his mind and its shrewd and epigrammatic turn in a
more remarkable manner: few persons visited Petworth without
being struck with astonishment at the unimpaired vigour of his
intellectual powers. To have lived to a great age in the practice
of beneficence and the dispensation of happiness, and to die
without bodily suffering or mental decay, in the enjoyment of
existence up to the instant of its close, affords an example of
human prosperity, both in life and in death, which has fallen to
the lot of few, but which may well excite the envy and admiration
of all.[11]
[10] [See for descent of Lord Egremont, p. 337, vol. ii. of
the First Part of Mr. Greville's Journals.]
[11] The substance of this character of the Earl of Egremont
was inserted in the _Times_ newspaper of Saturday, 18th
November 1837.
November 3rd, 1837 {p.026}
At Court yesterday when the Queen received the Address of the
Commons. She conducts herself with surprising dignity: the
dignity which proceeds from self-possession and deliberation. The
smallness of her stature is quite forgotten in the majesty and
gracefulness of her demeanour.
[Page Head: RADICAL DISCONTENT.]
The Session has opened merrily with an angry squabble between
Lord John Russell and the Radicals, at which the Tories greatly
rejoice. Upon the Address, Wakley and others thought fit to
introduce the topic of the Ballot and other reforms, upon which
John Russell spoke out and declared he would never be a party to
the Ballot, and would not reform the Reform Bill. They were
indignant, and attacked him in no measured terms. The next night
Charles Buller returned to the charge with equal violence, when
Lord John made (by the agreement of all parties) an incomparable
speech vindicating his own consistency, explaining his motives
for making the declaration which he did the first night, and
repelling with great dignity the charges with which he was
assailed.[12] Of course opinions vary as to the expediency and
propriety of his conduct on this occasion, but I do not see that
he could have acted otherwise, and it is much more manly,
straightforward, and honourable to declare at once what his
sentiments and intentions are than to endeavour to evade the
subject for a time, and to raise hopes and expectations which he
has no design of realising, and which, whenever he does declare
himself, as eventually he must, would only excite the bitterer
disappointment and resentment. However, whether he acted wisely
or not, the immediate effect has been to enrage the Radical
section of his party exceedingly, and those who want the
Government to be turned out fondly hope that this split among
them will bring about the consummation. This is not probable, for
angry as they may be, they will still prefer Melbourne to Peel,
and O'Connell (who is all moderation) will throw Ireland into the
scale and entreat them for Ireland's sake to lay aside their
resentment. Such questions as the Ballot can only be carried by
the desire for them gaining ground largely throughout the
country, and this many assert to be the case. At this moment it
is pretty clear that the people care very little about
speculative questions, and want only peace and tranquillity. It
is also said that there is a growing anti-Catholic and anti-Irish
spirit which the Conservatives do their best to excite and
extend. It would be a curious speculation, supposing both these
influences to operate widely, to anticipate the result of their
action upon the great antagonist parties in the country, and see
which would gain most by a coalition of Radical and sectarian
principles. A state of things might by possibility arise when
they would act as mutual checks.
[12] [It was to this debate that Mr. Disraeli referred in
his maiden speech, delivered a few days later, when he
spoke of the 'passion and recrimination of the noble
Tityrus of the Treasury Bench and the learned Daphne of
Liskeard,' and added that 'these _amantium irae_ had
resulted in an _amoris redintegratio_.' The orator was
laughed down before he concluded the sentence.]
* * * * *
[The Editor of these Journals may here be permitted to say, that
it was at this time that his acquaintance with Mr. Greville
began, as he was appointed to an office in the Privy Council on
November 17, 1837. This acquaintance speedily ripened into
confidential friendship, which was uninterrupted for a single day
in the course of the next eight-and-twenty years. Indeed Mr.
Greville's kind offices to his young acquaintance began
immediately; for the appointment of Mr. Reeve having been
attacked with great bitterness by Lord Brougham, who was then
extremely hostile to every department of the Government, Mr.
Greville exerted himself with his usual energy to defend it.
It may not be out of place, though it is out of date, to insert
here, as a memorial of this long friendship, a note written to
the Editor of these Journals by Mr. Greville, on May 6, 1859,
when he had just resigned the office of Clerk of the Council. It
is in the following terms:--
My dear R.,--I will not delay to thank you warmly for
your kind note. Your accession to the Privy Council
Office gave me a friendship which I need not say how much
I have valued through so many years of happy intercourse,
which I rejoice at thinking has never been clouded or
interrupted and which, I hope, will last the same as long
as I last myself. It is always painful to do anything for
the last time, and I cannot without emotion take leave of
an office where I have experienced for so many years so
much kindness, consideration, and goodwill; but I hope
still to be considered as _amicus curiae_ and to be
applied to on every occasion when I can be of use to the
Office. Between you and me there has been, I think, as
much as possible between any two people the 'idem velle,
idem nolle, et idem sentire de republicâ,' and, in
consequence, the 'firma amicitia.'
God bless you, and believe me always
Yours most sincerely and faithfully,
C.C.G.]
* * * * *
November 26th, 1837 {p.028}
It is still a matter of general discussion and speculation
whether Lord John Russell's bold declaration will have the effect
of breaking up the Government by disgusting the Radicals to such
a degree as to make them in spite withdraw their aid on some
important occasion. Those gentry are still very irate and sulky,
but I do not expect they will connive at the overthrow of the
Government; they know better than to open the doors of office to
the Tories. Lord Brougham has taken the field with a violent
Radical speech, and he seized an occasion to set his tongue
wagging against the Chancellor; in short he seems bent on
mischief. He has written word to Lord Granville that he would not
be gagged this Session; he will be glad to lead anybody who will
be led by him; and as the post of general of the Radicals appears
to be vacant, he may aspire to that. His actual position as
contrasted with his vast abilities is indeed calculated to 'point
a moral.'
December 8th, 1837 {p.029}
[Page Head: COMMITTEE ON THE PENSION LIST.]
The notion of a break-up of the Government has gradually faded
away, and though the Radicals have not forgiven John Russell for
his speech, they appear to have no intention of altering their
conduct towards the Government, and some concessions have already
been made partly for the purpose of mollifying them. Government
have given up the Pension List, and it is believed that the
Ballot is to be made an open question. This will be considered
more than an equivalent for the discouraging effect of John
Russell's speech. Peel and the Tories oppose the Committee on the
Pensions,[13] but it is remarkable that on the Civil List
Committee the other day, when Rice proposed that £75,000 should
be granted for pensions, and Grote moved to suspend the grant
till after the Pensions Committee had reported, Peel and his
people (Goulburn, Harding, Fremantle, &c.) supported Grote, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a minority of one. This
too was an accident, for Francis Baring was absent from the
division on account of the following circumstance. In a speech in
the House of Lords the night before on the Post Office, Lord
Lichfield[14] had attacked Mr. Wallace with great severity, and
immediately after Wallace sent him a message which was tantamount
to a challenge. Alvanley was employed to settle the quarrel,
which he did, but it became necessary to instruct Baring to say
something on the subject in the House of Commons, where Wallace
was going to allude to it. Alvanley detained Baring so long that
he was too late for the division in the Committee; had he been
there and made the numbers even, Rice, as chairman, must have
given the casting vote for or against his own proposition, either
of which would have been very awkward, but it is not very clear
why Peel voted as he did.
[13] [The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved for a Select
Committee to inquire how far pensions granted under the
Acts of the last reign, and charged on the Civil List
or the Consolidated Fund, ought to be continued. The
motion was carried by 293 to 233 votes.]
[14] [The Earl of Lichfield was Postmaster General.]
Lord Roden brought on the Irish question in the House of Lords,
when Mulgrave[15] made a very triumphant vindication of himself
and utterly discomfited the Orangemen. The Duke of Wellington
made a very clever speech, and availed himself of the
contradictory returns of crimes and convictions skilfully enough,
but he had the candour to give Mulgrave ample credit for the
vigour with which he had caused the law to be enforced, and, as
for months past the Orangemen had been clamouring against the
Irish Government for neglecting to enforce the law and for
depriving Protestants of its protection, it was a very
magnanimous admission on the Duke's part, and such a one as few
of his political opponents would have made. It is the peculiar
merit of the Duke that he is never disposed to sacrifice truth
for a party purpose, and it is this manliness and
straightforwardness, this superiority to selfish considerations
and temporary ends, which render him the object of universal
respect and admiration, and will hereafter surround his political
character with unfading honour. Not content with the defeat which
they sustained in the House of Lords, the Orangemen had the folly
to provoke another contest in the House of Commons, and Colonel
Verner brought forward 'the Battle of the Diamond,' giving
Morpeth an opportunity of another triumph as signal as Mulgrave's
in the House of Lords. The Irish Orangemen were left to their
fate on this occasion, for none of their English associates came
to their relief.
[15] [Constantine Henry, second Earl of Mulgrave, created in
the following year Marquis of Normanby. He was at this
time Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. Lord Morpeth was Chief
Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant.]
[Page Head: MR. DISRAELI'S FIRST SPEECH.]
Mr. Disraeli made his first exhibition the other night, beginning
with florid assurance, speedily degenerating into ludicrous
absurdity, and being at last put down with inextinguishable
shouts of laughter.[16]
[16] [Mr. Disraeli's first speech was made on the motion
with reference to what was called 'the Spottiswoode
Gang.' An association had been formed in London for the
purpose of collecting money to test the validity of the
Irish elections wholesale. Mr. Spottiswoode, one of the
Queen's printers, was the president of this
association, which was denounced by the Radicals and
the Irish Members as 'the Spottiswoode Gang,' and
attacked in Parliament by Mr. Blewitt, who moved five
resolutions condemning the institution of the
Spottiswoode fund. Lord John Russell, however,
discouraged the attack, on the ground that the number
of election petitions in the present year was not such
as to warrant any extraordinary measures in regard to
them. Mr. Blewitt withdrew four of his resolutions and
left the House without moving the fifth. _Solvuntur
risu tabulae_.]
The new House of Commons does not promise to be a more business-
like or more decorous assembly than its immediate predecessor.
Already two whole nights have been consumed in the discussion of
two topics so unprofitable as 'the Battle of the Diamond' and
'the Spottiswoode Gang,' and it is said that such a scene of
disorder and such a beargarden never was beheld. The noise and
confusion are so great that the proceedings can hardly be heard
or understood, and it was from something growing out of this
confusion and uproar that the Speaker thought it necessary to
address the House last night and complain that he no longer
enjoyed its confidence, and if he saw any future indication that
such was the case he should resign the Chair. His declaration was
taken very quietly, for nobody said a word.
Brougham made a great speech on education the other night, but it
was so long, tedious, and digressive that he drove everybody
away. He is in a very bitter state of mind, scarcely speaking to
any of his former friends and colleagues, and having acquired no
new friends of any party. He courts the Radicals, and writes
letters and makes speeches directly at variance with all his
former professions and opinions; but the Radicals, though they do
not object to make use of him, will by no means trust him.
I asked Charles Buller if they would have Lord Brougham for their
leader, and he said 'certainly not,' and added that 'Durham had
done nothing as yet to forfeit their confidence.' He enlightened
me at the same time about his own Radical opinions and views and
the extent of them, together with those of the more moderate of
his party, complaining that they were misrepresented and
misunderstood; although for the Ballot and extension of the
suffrage, he is opposed to reform of the House of Lords or any
measure directly affecting the Constitution. He does not admit
that the measures he advocates do affect the Constitution
directly or indirectly.[17] I told him if he repudiated the
violent maxims of Molesworth and others, he should not let these
ultra-Radicals be the organs of the party, as the world did not
and could not distinguish between them, especially as the
Moderates took no steps to clear themselves and establish juster
notions of the character and tendency of their principles. He did
not deny this, but they dread an appearance of disunion; so, as
always happens when this is the case, the most exalted and
exaggerated of the party, who will not be silenced and are
reckless of consequences, take the lead and keep it.
[17] [It cannot fail to strike the reader that all the
measures which were regarded as the tests of Radicalism
in 1837 have long since been carried, and have now the
general assent of the nation.]
December 12th, 1837 {p.032}
On the debate about Pensions the other night Whittle Harvey
outdid himself; by all accounts it was inimitable, dramatic to
the greatest degree, and acted to perfection. Peel was heavy,
Stanley very smart, the Ministers were beaten hollow in the
argument, but got a respectable division, of which they make the
most; but it proves nothing as to their real strength, which has
not yet been tested. John Russell made a wretched speech, being
obliged to vote in the teeth of his former opinions and conduct.
December 14th, 1837 {p.032}
[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM AND LORD MELBOURNE.]
There was a grand breeze in the House of Lords the night before
last between Melbourne and Brougham. The latter is said to have
been in a towering passion, and he vociferated and gesticulated
with might and main. Jonathan Peel was in the Lobby, and being
attracted by the noise, ran to the House, and found Brougham not
only on his legs, but on tip-toes in the middle of his indignant
rejoinder. Melbourne's attack upon him seemed hardly called for,
but I heard he had declared he would not much longer endure the
continual twittings and punchings that Brougham every day dealt
out to some one or other of the Ministers. The Chancellor, Lord
Lansdowne, and Glenelg, had all suffered in their turns, and so
when Brougham taunted him with his courtly habits, he could not
restrain himself, and retorted savagely though not very well.
What he said was nothing but a _tu quoque_, and only remarkable
for the bitter tone in which it was uttered and the sort of
reproach it conveyed. Probably Melbourne thought it as well to
put an end at once to the half hostile, half amicable state of
their mutual relations, to their 'noble friendship,' and real
enmity, and to bring matters to a crisis, otherwise he might have
had some indulgence for his old friend and colleague, have made
allowance for the workings of deep disappointment and
mortification on his excitable temperament, and have treated him
with forbearance out of reverence for his rare acquirements and
capacity. But the fact is, that Brougham has ostentatiously
proclaimed the dissolution of all his former ties, and has
declared war against all his ancient connexions; he has abandoned
his friends and his principles together, and has enrolled himself
in a Radical fellowship which would have been the object of his
scorn and detestation in his calmer moods and in more prosperous
days.
Le Marchant, who was his secretary for four years, and knows him
well, told me that no man was a greater aristocrat in his heart
than Brougham, from conviction attached to aristocracy, from
taste desirous of being one of its members. He said that Dugald
Stewart, when talking of his pupils, had said though he envied
most the understanding of Horner (whom he loved with peculiar
affection), he considered Brougham the ablest man he had ever
known, but that even then (forty years ago) he considered his to
be a mind that was continually oscillating on the verge of
insanity. Le Marchant said that Brougham's powers of application
exceeded what he had believed possible of any human being. He had
known him work incessantly from nine in the morning till one at
night, and at the end be as fresh apparently as when he began. He
could turn from one subject to another with surprising facility
and promptitude, in the same day travelling through the details
of a Chancery cause, writing a philosophical or mathematical
treatise, correcting articles for the 'Library of Useful
Knowledge,' and preparing a great speech for the House of Lords.
When one thinks of the greatness of his genius and the depth of
his fall, from the loftiest summit of influence, power, and fame
to the lowest abyss of political degradation, in spite of the
faults and the follies of his character and conduct, one cannot
help feeling regret and compassion at the sight of such a noble
wreck and of so much glory obscured.
December 24th, 1837 {p.034}
[Page Head: THE INSURRECTION IN CANADA.]
News of the insurrection in Canada arrived the day before
yesterday, and produced a debate of some animation in the House
of Commons, in which the Radicals principally figured, making
speeches of such exceeding violence that it was only justifiable
to pass them over, because those who uttered them are not worth
notice. Gladstone spoke very well, and Lord John Russell closed
the discussion with an excellent speech just such as a Minister
ought to make, manly, temperate, and constitutional. He is a
marvellous little man, always equal to the occasion, afraid of
nobody, fixed in his principles, clear in his ideas, collected in
his manner, and bold and straightforward in his disposition. He
invariably speaks well when a good speech is required from him,
and this is upon every important question, for he gets no
assistance from any of his colleagues, except now and then from
Howick. This is a fine occasion for attacking the Government and
placing them between two fires, for the Radicals abuse them for
their tyrannical and despotic treatment of the Canadians, and the
Tories attribute the rebellion to their culpable leniency and
futile attempts at conciliation by concessions which never ought
to have been made, and only were made out of complaisance to the
Radicals here. As generally happens when there are charges of an
opposite nature, and incompatible with one another, neither of
them is true.
Since Brougham and Melbourne's set-to in the House of Lords, the
former has been speaking every day and entering a protest about
every other day. He is in a state of permanent activity, and
means to lead such of the Radicals as will enlist under his
ragged banner. He was quite furious about the Civil List, and
evidently means to outbid everybody for popularity. He goes on
belabouring and 'befriending' the Government Lords, but the
effect he produces (if any) is out of doors, for he usually
wastes his rhetoric on empty benches.
The Queen went to the House yesterday without producing any
sensation. There was the usual crowd to look at the finery of
carriages, horses, Guards, &c., but not a hat raised nor a voice
heard: the people of England seem inclined to hurrah no more.
December 30th, 1837 {p.035}
Since the receipt of Colborne's despatches,[18] the alarm about
Canada has subsided, and if Ministers had been aware that matters
were no worse, probably Parliament would have had longer
holidays. Nobody doubts that the insurrection will be easily put
down, but the difficulty will be how to settle matters
afterwards. It does not appear that this Government has been more
to blame than any other, for the same system seems to have been
pursued by all. They might indeed have adopted decisive measures
at an earlier period, and as soon as they found that the Assembly
was invincibly obstinate and deaf to the voice of reason, they
ought to have put an end to the humiliating contest by an
assertion of Imperial power. All that can be said is, that they
tried the conciliatory power too long.
[18] [Sir John Colborne was Lieutenant-Governor of Canada at
the time the insurrection broke out, and the
suppression of it was mainly due to the vigorous
measures taken by him on the spot. For these services
he was raised to the peerage by the title of Lord
Seaton. He died in 1863 at the age of eighty-four.]
Burghley, January 2nd, 1838 {p.035}
Among other changes of habit, it has occurred to me why should
not I begin the New Year by keeping a regular diary? What I do
write are merely fragments of memoirs with passing events briefly
alluded to, and the odds and ends collected from different
sources recorded and commented on. It is not the first time I
have had thoughts of keeping a more regular journal, in which not
only my doings should be noted down and my goings, but which
would also preserve some record of my thoughts and feelings, if
ever indeed I really do think and feel. The reason I have never
done anything of this sort is partly that I have been too idle,
and the result partly of modesty and partly of vanity. A journal
to be good, true, and interesting, should be written without the
slightest reference to publication, but without any fear of it;
it should be the transcript of a mind which can bear
transcribing. I do not in sincerity believe that my mind, or
thoughts, or actions, are of sufficient importance or interest to
make it worth while (for the sake of others) to take this
trouble. I always contemplate the possibility that hereafter my
journal will be read by the public, always greedy of such things,
and I regard with alarm and dislike the notion of its containing
a heap of twaddle and trash concerning matters appertaining to
myself which nobody else will care three straws about. If
therefore I discard these scruples and do what I meditate (and
very likely after all I shall not, or only for a very short
time), the next thing is, Why? It seems exceedingly ridiculous to
say that one strong stimulus proceeds from reading Scott's
Diary--which he began very late in life and in consequence of
reading Byron's--not because I fancy I can write a diary as
amusing as Scott's or Byron's, but because I am struck by the
excessive pleasure which Scott appeared to derive from writing
his journal, and I am (and this is the principal cause) struck
with the important use to which the habit may be turned. The
habit of recording is first of all likely to generate a desire to
have something of some interest to record; it will lead to habits
of reflexion and to trains of thought, the pursuit of which may
be pleasing and profitable; it will exercise the memory and
sharpen the understanding generally; and though the thoughts may
not be very profound, nor the remarks very lively or ingenious,
nor the narrative of exceeding interest, still the exercise is, I
think, calculated to make the writer wiser, and perhaps better.
If I do this I shall read over all I write long before anyone
else will have an opportunity of doing so, and I am not likely to
be over-indulgent if I find myself a bore.
Yesterday morning I left town, slept at Newmarket, saw the
horses, rode out on the Warren Hill, and came here to dinner,
where I find twenty-two people--the Duke of Wellington and Lord
Aberdeen, the Salisburys, Wiltons, and a mob of fine people; very
miserable representatives of old Lord Burleigh, the two
insignificant-looking Marquesses, who are his lineal descendants,
and who display no more of his brains than they do of his beard.
The Duke of Wellington is in great force, talked last night of
Canada, and said he thought the first operations had been a
failure, and he judged so because the troops could neither take
the rebel chief, nor hold their ground, nor return by any other
road than that by which they came; that if Colborne could hold
Montreal during the winter it would do very well, but he was not
sure that he would be able to do so; that the Government ought to
exhibit to the world their determination to put this revolt down,
and that to do so they must seal the St. Lawrence[19] so as to
prevent the ingress of foreigners, who would flock to Canada for
employment against us; that the Queen could not blockade her own
ports, so that they must apply to Parliament for power to effect
this, and they ought to bring in a Bill forthwith for the
purpose. This morning he got a letter (from a man he did not
know) enclosing the latest news, which he thought very good, and
promising better and more decisive results. After breakfast they
went shooting.
[19] The Duke expressed no such opinion in either of his
speeches on Canada (February 4th).
[Page Head: THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON AT BURLEIGH.]
I walked out and joined the Duke, who talked to me for I dare say
an hour and a half about his Spanish campaigns, and most
interesting it was. I told him that the other day Allen[20] had
asked me to find somebody, a military man, to review the
Wellington Despatches in the 'Edinburgh Review,' and that he had
suggested Sir George Murray as the fittest person if he would
undertake it; that I had accordingly spoken to Fitzroy Somerset,
who had agreed to apply to Murray; and, if Murray would not do
it, I begged him to turn in his mind what officer could be found
equal to such a task, and I then asked the Duke if he knew of
anybody. He seemed amazingly pleased at the idea, said he knew
nobody, but Murray was the fittest man. From this he began to
talk, and told me a great deal of various matters, which I wish I
could have taken down as it fell from his lips. I was amused at
the simplicity with which he talked of the great interest of
these Despatches, just as he might have done if they had been the
work of any other man; said he had read them himself with
considerable astonishment and great interest, and that everybody
might see that there was not one word in them that was not
strictly and literally true. He said of his generals, 'that in
the beginning they none of them knew anything of the matter, that
he was obliged to go from division to division and look to
everything himself down to the minutest details.' I said, 'What
on earth would have happened if anything had befallen you?' He
laughed and said, 'I really do not know. There was a great deal
of correspondence about my successor at the time Sir Thomas
Graham went home.[21] I was against having any second in command,
which was quite useless, as nobody could share the responsibility
with me. However, afterwards Graham came back, and then there was
Hope next to him.' He said, 'Hill had invariably done well,
always exactly obeyed my orders, and executed them successfully.'
The fall of Badajoz was a great blow to him, but he did not know
that it was by an act of treachery. The Spanish Government
perhaps did not believe that he was approaching to relieve the
place, but it was a most curious fact, that whereas it was agreed
that the Spanish army should march out over the breach with the
honours of war, they were obliged, after the capitulation, to
make a breach for them to go over, none having been made by the
besiegers. The General, with whom he finds much fault (in the
ninth volume) for disobeying his orders and making false
movements, was Victor Allen, but he said he treated him with
great leniency, and so he did his officers on all occasions, and
was as forbearing and indulgent with them as it was possible to
be.
[20] [Mr. Allen, an accomplished literary inmate of Holland
House, the author of a work on the 'Royal Prerogative,'
and himself an occasional contributor to the 'Edinburgh
Review.']
[21] [The intention of the Government was that if any
accident befell the Duke of Wellington, General Sir
Thomas Graham, afterwards Lord Lynedoch, should take
the command of the British forces in Spain. This
appears from the _Memoir of Lord Lynedoch_, published
in 1880, by Captain Alexander Delavoye.]
[Page Head: THE BATTLE OF SALAMANCA.]
All the movements and operations before the battle of Salamanca
were to the last degree interesting. The Duke was anxiously
waiting for some advantageous occasion to attack Marmont, and at
last it arrived; he saw it happen, and took his resolution on the
spot. He was dining in a farm-yard with his officers, where (when
he had done dinner) everybody else came and dined as they could.
The whole French army was in sight, moving, and the enemy firing
upon the farmyard in which he was dining. 'I got up,' he said,
'and was looking over a wall round the farm-yard, just such a
wall as that' (pointing to a low stone wall bounding the covert),
'and I saw the movement of the French left through my glass. "By
God," said I, "that will do, and I'll attack them directly." I
had moved up the Sixth Division through Salamanca, which the
French were not aware of, and I ordered them to attack, and the
whole line to advance. I had got my army so completely in hand
that I could do this with ease, and in forty minutes the battle
was won--'quarante mille hommes battus en quarante minutes.' I
asked him if it was true that he and Marmont had subsequently
talked over the event of the battle, and that Marmont had
asserted that his orders had been disobeyed, or that this
movement of which the Duke took advantage would not have been
made. He said he believed there had been some conversation on the
subject, and that Marmont had said he was wounded before this
movement took place; he said he did not know if this was true,
but it might be, as there had been continual fighting for some
time previous. I asked him why Bonaparte had not himself come to
Spain to attack him; and if he had with a great force, whether he
would have driven him out. He replied that he thought Napoleon
had satisfied himself that it would be a work of great
difficulty, and what was more, of great length, and he had no
mind to embark in it; and that the French certainly would not
have driven him out: he should have taken up some position, and
have been enabled to baffle the Emperor himself just as he had
done his marshals. He thinks that Napoleon's military system
compelled him to employ his armies in war, when they invariably
lived upon the resources of the countries they occupied, and that
France could not have maintained them, as she must have done if
he had made peace: peace, therefore, would have brought about
(through the army itself) his downfall. He traces the whole
military system of France from its first organisation during the
Reign of Terror, in a letter in the tenth volume of the
Despatches. I asked him how he reconciled what he had said of the
extraordinary discipline of the French army with their unsparing
and habitual plunder of the country, and he said that though they
plundered in the most remorseless way, there was order and
discipline in their plundering, and while they took from the
inhabitants everything they could lay their hands upon, it was
done in the way of requisition, and that they plundered for the
army and not for themselves individually, but they were reduced
to great shifts for food. At the battle of Fuentes d'Onor he saw
the French soldiers carry off horses that were killed to be
cooked and eaten in another part of the field. 'I saw
particularly with my own eyes one horse put upon a cart drawn by
two bullocks (they could not afford to kill the bullocks), and
drawn off; and I desired a man to watch where the cart went, and
it was taken to another French division for the horse to be
eaten. Now we never were reduced to eat horseflesh.' I remarked
that he alluded in one of his letters to his having been once
very nearly taken, and he said it was just before the battle of
Talavera in consequence of some troops giving way. He was on a
ruined tower from which he was obliged to leap down; and if he
had not been young and active, as he was in those days, he should
certainly have been taken.
He talked a great deal of the Spanish character, unchanged to
this day; of the vast difficulties he had had to contend with
from both Spanish and Portuguese Governments, the latter as bad
as the former; of their punctilios and regard to form and
ceremony. 'At the time of the battle of the Pyrenees[22] I had
occasion to send O'Donnel to advance, and he was mightily
affronted because he did not receive the order by an officer from
head-quarters. I was living under hedges and ditches, and had not
been to head-quarters for several days, and so I told him, but
that he should have an order if he pleased in the proper form.' I
asked him if it was not then that he found the troops in full
retreat. He said they were beginning to retreat when he arrived,
'then they threw up their caps and made a most brilliant affair
of it.'
[22] [This expression occurs more than once in these
Journals. No battle is known in history as the 'battle
of the Pyrenees,' but the expression doubtless relates
to the actions which were fought in the Pyrenees, after
Soult took the command of the French army in July
1814.]
It is impossible to convey an idea of the zest, eagerness,
frankness, and _abundance_ with which he talked, and told of his
campaigns, or how interesting it was to hear him. He expressed
himself very warmly about Hill, of all his generals, and said,
'When I gave him my memorandum about Canada the other day I said,
Why it looks as if we were at our old trade again.' He added that
he 'always gave his opinion when it was required on any subject.'
Belvoir Castle, January 4th, 1838 {p.041}
[Page Head: A PARTY AT BELVOIR CASTLE.]
Came here yesterday, all the party (almost) migrating, and many
others coming from various parts to keep the Duke of Rutland's
birthday. We are nearly forty at dinner, but it is no use
enumerating the people. Last night the Duke of Wellington talked
of Hanover, said he really did not know much of the matter; that
neither William IV. nor George IV. had ever talked to him on the
subject or he must have made himself acquainted with it; that the
Duke of Cumberland had written him word that he had never had any
notion of adopting the measures he has since done till he was
going over in the packet with Billy Holmes.[23] The Duke wrote
him word that he knew nothing of his case, and the only advice he
could give him was to let the affair be settled as speedily as
possible. When the late King had evidently only a few days to
live, the Duke of Cumberland consulted the Duke as to what he
should do. 'I told him the best thing he could do was to go away
as fast as he could: Go instantly,' I said, 'and take care that
_you don't get pelted_.' The Duke, Aberdeen, and FitzGerald all
condemned his proceedings without reference to their justice or
to his legal and constitutional right as regards Hanover, but on
account of the impression (no matter right or wrong) which they
are calculated to produce in this country, where it ought to be a
paramount interest with him to preserve or acquire as good a
character as he can. They all declared that Lyndhurst was equally
ignorant with themselves of his views and intentions, with which
in fact the Conservatives had no sort of concern. The Duke also
advised him not to take the oaths as Privy Councillor, or those
of a Peer in the House of Lords, because he thought it would do
him an injury in the eyes of his new subjects, that he, a King,
should swear fealty as her subject to the Queen as his Sovereign;
but somebody else (he thought the Duke of Buckingham) overruled
this advice, and he had himself a fancy to take the oaths.
[23] [The first act of Ernest, King of Hanover, on his
accession, was to suspend the Hanoverian Constitution,
and to prosecute the liberal Professors of Göttingen.]
[Page Head: MR. GREGORY'S HOUSE AND ESTATE.]
To-day we[24] went to see the house Mr. Gregory is building, five
miles from here. He is a gentleman of about £12,000 a year, who
has a fancy to build a magnificent house in the Elizabethan
style, and he is now in the middle of his work, all the shell
being finished except one wing. Nothing can be more perfect than
it is, both as to the architecture and the ornaments; but it
stands on the slope of a hill upon a deep clay soil, with no park
around it, very little wood, and scarcely any fine trees. Many
years ago, when he first conceived this design, he began to amass
money and lived for no other object. He travelled into all parts
of Europe collecting objects of curiosity, useful or ornamental,
for his projected palace, and he did not begin to build until he
had accumulated money enough to complete his design. The grandeur
of it is such, and such the tardiness of its progress, that it is
about as much as he will do to live till its completion; and as
he is not married, has no children, and dislikes the heir on whom
his property is entailed, it is the means and not the end to
which he looks for gratification. He says that it is his
amusement, as hunting or shooting or feasting may be the objects
of other people; and as the pursuit leads him into all parts of
the world, and to mix with every variety of nation and character,
besides engendering tastes pregnant with instruction and curious
research, it is not irrational, although he should never inhabit
his house, and may be toiling and saving for the benefit of
persons he cares nothing about. The cottages round Harlaxton are
worth seeing. It has been his fancy to build a whole village in
all sorts of strange fantastic styles. There are Dutch and Swiss
cottages, every variety of old English, and heaps of nondescript
things, which appear only to have been built for variety's sake.
The effect is extremely pretty. Close to the village is an old
manor house, the most perfect specimen I ever saw of such a
building, the habitation of an English country gentleman of
former times, and there were a buff jerkin and a pair of jack
boots hanging up in the hall, which the stout old Cavalier of the
seventeenth century (and one feels sure that the owner of that
house was a Cavalier) had very likely worn at Marston Moor or
Naseby.
[24] The Duke and Duchess of Sutherland, Lady Salisbury,
Lord Exeter, Lord Wilton, Lady Adeliza Manners, Lords
Aberdeen, FitzGerald, J. Manners, and myself.
[Page Head: LIFE AT BELVOIR.]
To-day (the cook told me) nearly four hundred people will dine in
the Castle. We all went into the servants' hall, where one
hundred and forty-five retainers had just done dinner and were
drinking the Duke's health, singing and speechifying with
vociferous applause, shouting, and clapping of hands. I never
knew before that oratory had got down into the servants' hall,
but learned that it is the custom for those to whom 'the gift of
the gab' has been vouchsafed to harangue the others, the palm of
eloquence being universally conceded to Mr. Tapps the head
coachman, a man of great abdominal dignity, and whose Ciceronian
brows are adorned with an ample flaxen wig, which is the peculiar
distinction of the functionaries of the whip. I should like to
bring the surly Radical here who scowls and snarls at 'the
selfish aristocracy who have no sympathies with the people,' and
when he has seen these hundreds feasting in the Castle, and heard
their loud shouts of joy and congratulation, and then visited the
villages around, and listened to the bells chiming all about the
vale, say whether 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number'
would be promoted by the destruction of all the feudality which
belongs inseparably to this scene, and by the substitution of
some abstract political rights for all the beef and ale and music
and dancing with which they are made merry and glad even for so
brief a space. The Duke of Rutland is as selfish a man as any of
his class--that is, he never does what he does not like, and
spends his whole life in a round of such pleasures as suit his
taste, but he is neither a foolish nor a bad man, and partly from
a sense of duty, partly from inclination, he devotes time and
labour to the interest and welfare of the people who live and
labour on his estate. He is a Guardian of a very large Union, and
he not only attends regularly the meetings of Poor Law Guardians
every week or fortnight, and takes an active part in their
proceedings, but he visits those paupers who receive out-of-door
relief, sits and converses with them, invites them to complain to
him if they have anything to complain of, and tells them that he
is not only their friend but their representative at the assembly
of Guardians, and it is his duty to see that they are nourished
and protected. To my mind there is more 'sympathy' in this than
in railing at the rich and rendering the poor discontented,
weaning them from their habitual attachments and respects, and
teaching them that the political quacks and adventurers who
flatter and cajole them are their only real friends.
We had a great ball last night, opened by the Duke of Rutland and
Duchess of Sutherland, who had to sail down at least a hundred
couple of tenants, shopkeepers, valets, and abigails. The Duke of
Newcastle gave the Duke's health at dinner instead of the Duke of
Wellington, who generally discharges that office. He made a
boggling business of it, but apologised in sufficiently handsome
terms for being spokesman instead of the Duke of Wellington. The
Duke of Rutland made a very respectable speech in reply, and it
all went off swimmingly. To-day I went to see the hounds throw
off; but though a hunter was offered to me would not ride him,
because there is no use in risking the hurt or ridicule of a fall
for one day. A man who goes out in this casual way and hurts
himself looks as foolish as an amateur soldier who gets wounded
in a battle in which he is tempted by curiosity to mingle. So I
rode with the mob, saw a great deal of galloping about and the
hounds conveniently running over hills and vales all in sight,
and then came home. They said a thousand people were out, many
attracted by the expectation of the Duke of Wellington's
appearing, but he was rheumatic and could not come out. He is
incessantly employed in writing military statements and
memoranda, having been consulted by the Government, or probably
by Lord Hill on behalf of the Government, both on this Canadian
question, and on the general government of the army, and he will
take as much pains to give useful advice to Melbourne's
Government as if he and Peel were in office. There never was a
man who so entirely sank all party considerations in national
objects, and he has had the glory of living to hear this
universally acknowledged. Brougham said of him, 'That man's first
object is to serve his country, with a sword if necessary, or
with a pick-axe.' He also said of the Duke's Despatches, 'They
will be remembered when I and others (mentioning some of the most
eminent men) will be forgotten.' Aberdeen told the Duke this, and
he replied with the greatest simplicity, 'It is very true: when I
read them I was myself astonished, and I can't think how the
devil I could have written them.' This is very characteristic,
very curious from a man who has not one grain of conceit in his
disposition; but really great men are equally free from undue
vanity or affected modesty, and know very well the value of what
they do.
Last night I sat next to Lord FitzGerald at dinner, who said that
if ever his memoirs appeared (he did not say that any existed)
they would contain many curious things, and among them the proofs
that the events which were supposed to have been the proximate
cause of the Catholic question being carried were not the real
cause, and that the resolution of the Duke of Wellington is
traceable to other sources, which he could not reveal.
Melton, January 7th, 1838 (Lord Wilton's house) {p.046}
I came here to-day from Belvoir. Last night the Duke of
Wellington narrated the battle of Toulouse and other Peninsular
recollections. All the room collected round him, listening with
eager curiosity, but I was playing at whist and lost it all.
FitzGerald said to me that he had a great mind to write upon
Ireland, and make a statement of the conduct of England towards
Ireland for ages past; that he had mentioned his idea to Peel,
who had replied, 'Well, and if you do, I am not the man to object
to your doing so.' This he meant as a trait of his fairness and
candour; but the fact is that it is Peel's interest that all
Irish questions should be settled, and he would rejoice at
anything which tended to accelerate a settlement, and I am no
great believer in his fairness. I was struck with a great
admiration for Peel during his hundred days' struggle, when he
made a gallant fight; but this has very much cooled since that
time.
FitzGerald said one thing in conversation with me of which I
painfully felt the truth, that an addiction to worthless or
useless pursuits did an irretrievable injury to the mental
faculties. It is not only the actual time wasted which might have
been turned to good account; the slender store of knowledge
acquired on all subjects instead of the accumulation which there
might have been; but, more than these, the relaxation of the
mental powers till they become incapable of vigorous exertion or
sustained effort:--
Quoniam medio de fonte leporum
Surgit amari aliquid, quod in ipsis floribus angat:
Aut quum conscius ipse animus se forte remordet
Desidiose agere aetatem, lustrisque perire.
Or, as Dryden nobly translates it--
For in the fountain where these sweets are sought
Some bitter bubbles up, and poisons all the draught.
First guilty conscience does the mirror bring,
Then sharp remorse shoots out the angry sting,
And anxious thoughts, within themselves at strife,
Upbraid the long misspent, luxurious life.
[Page Head: REFLEXIONS.]
I feel myself a miserable example of this species of injury, both
as relates to the defects and omissions of my early education and
the evil of my subsequent habits. From never having studied hard
at any time, no solid foundation of knowledge has ever been laid,
my subsequent reading has been desultory and very nearly useless.
I have attacked various subjects as I have been prompted thereto
by curiosity, or vanity, or shame, but I have never mastered any
of them, and the information I have obtained has been like a
house built without a foundation, which the first gust of wind
would blow down and scatter abroad. Really to master a subject,
we should begin at the beginning, storing the memory with
consecutive facts, reasoning and reflecting upon them as we go
along, till the whole subject is digested, comprehended, made
manageable and producible at will; but then, for this process,
the mind must be disciplined, and there must be a power of
attention undiverted, and of continuous application; but if the
eyes travel over the pages of a book, while the mind is far away
upon Newmarket Heath, and nothing but broken fragments of
attention are bestowed upon the subject before you, whatever it
may be, the result can only be useless imperfect information,
crude and superficial ideas, constant shame, and frequent
disappointment and mortification. Nothing on earth can make up
for the valuable time which I have lost, or enable me to obtain
that sort of knowledge, or give me those habits which are only to
be acquired early in life, when the memory is fresh and vigorous,
and the faculties are both lively and pliant; but that is no
reason why I should abandon the design of improvement in despair,
for it is never too late to mend, and a great deal may yet be
done.
Beaudesert,[25] January 12th, 1838 {p.048}
On Monday went to Sutton; nobody there but Mr. Hodgson, formerly
my tutor at Eton, the friend of Byron, author of a translation of
Juvenal--a clever, not an agreeable man. The house at Sutton is
unfinished, but handsome enough. Came here on Wednesday; a
magnificent place indeed, and very comfortable house. A good many
people, nobody remarkable; very idle life. Read in the newspaper
that Colburn gave Lady Charlotte Bury £1,000 for the wretched
catchpenny trash called 'Memoirs of the Time of George IV.,'
which might well set all the world what Scott calls
'gurnelising,' for nobody could by possibility compile or compose
anything more vile or despicable. Since I came here, a world of
fine thoughts came into my head which I intended to immortalise
in these pages; but they have all evaporated like the baseless
fabric of a vision.
[25] [The seat of the Marquess of Anglesey near Burton-on-
Trent.]
Beaudesert, January 17th, 1838 {p.048}
To Sandon on Monday, and returned here yesterday; go away to-
morrow. It has been a dreadfully idle life all day long, _facendo
niente_, incessant gossip and dawdle, poor, unprofitable talk,
and no rational employment. Brougham was here a little while ago
for a week. He, Lord Wellesley, and Lord Anglesey form a
discontented triumvirate, and are knit together by the common
bond of a sense of ill-usage and of merit neglected. Wellesley
and Anglesey are not Radicals, however, and blame Brougham's new
tendency that way. Anglesey and Wellesley both hate and affect to
despise the Duke of Wellington,[26] in which Brougham does not
join. They are all suffering under mortified vanity and thwarted
ambition, and after playing their several parts, not without
success and applause, they have not the judgement to see and feel
that they forfeit irretrievably the lustre of their former fame
by such a poor and discreditable termination of their career.
Douro is here, _une lune bien pâle auprès de son père_, but far
from a dull man, and not deficient in information.
[26] Lord Wellesley became good friends with his brother
before his death, and Anglesey has long been the Duke's
enthusiastic admirer and most attached and devoted
comrade.--1850.
Badminton, January 23rd, 1838 {p.049}
The debate in the Lords the other night was very interesting and
creditable to the assembly.[27] Brougham delivered a tremendous
philippic of three hours. The Duke of Wellington made a very
noble speech, just such as it befitted him to make at such a
moment, and of course it bitterly mortified and provoked the
Tories, who would have had him make a party question of it, and
thought of nothing but abusing, vilifying, and embarrassing the
Government. This was what Peel showed every disposition to do in
the House of Commons, where he made a poor, paltry half-attack,
which was much more to the taste of his party than the Duke's
temperate and candid declaration.
[27] [Parliament reassembled on the 16th January. This
debate was on the Address to the Queen on the Canadian
Rebellion. A Bill was at once brought in to give
extended powers to Lord Durham, who was sent out as
Governor General. Mr. Roebuck, as the Agent for Canada,
was heard against the Bill at the bar of both Houses.
The Bill passed, but Lord Durham soon exceeded his
powers under it.]
[Page Head: DEATH OF LORD ELDON.]
Lord Eldon died last week full of years and wealth. He had for
some time past quitted the political stage, but his name was
still venerated by the dregs of that party to whom consistent
bigotry and intolerance are dear. Like his more brilliant
brother, Lord Stowell, he was the artificer of his own fortune,
and few men ever ran a course of more unchequered prosperity. As
a politician, he appears to have been consistent throughout, and
to have offered a determined and uniform opposition to every
measure of a Liberal description. He knew of no principles but
those (if they merit the name of principles) of the narrowest
Toryism and of High Church, and as soon as more enlarged and
enlightened views began to obtain ascendency, he quitted (and for
ever) public life. I suppose he was a very great lawyer, but he
was certainly a contemptible statesman. He was a very cheerful,
good-natured old man, loving to talk, and telling anecdotes with
considerable humour and point. I remember very often during the
many tedious hours the Prince Regent kept the Lords of the
Council waiting at Carlton House, that the Chancellor used to
beguile the time with amusing stories of his early professional
life, and anecdotes of celebrated lawyers, which he told
extremely well. He lived long enough to see the overthrow of the
system of which he had been one of the most strenuous supporters,
the triumph of all the principles which he dreaded and abhorred,
and the elevation of all the men to whom, through life, he had
been most adverse, both personally and politically. He little
expected in 1820, when he was presiding at Queen Caroline's
trial, that he should live to see her Attorney-General on the
Woolsack, and her Solicitor-General Chief Justice of England.
CHAPTER II.
Debates on the Canada Bill--Moderation of the Duke of
Wellington--State of Canada--Lord Durham's Position--Weakness
of the Government--Parallel of Hannibal and the Duke of
Wellington--The Ballot--Lord Brougham on the Ballot--Position
of the Government--Policy of Sir Robert Peel--Death of Mr.
Creevey--Knighthood of General Evans--Lord Brougham's
Conversation--A Skirmish in the House of Commons--Defeat of
Government--Skirmish in the House of Lords--Annoyance of Peel
at these Proceedings--Brougham's Anti-Slavery Speech--
Opposition Tactics--Brougham on the Coolie Trade--Ministerial
Success--Sir Robert Peel's Tactics--Composition of Parties--A
Dinner at Buckingham Palace--Men of Science--The Lord Mayor at
a Council--The Queen at a Levée--The Guiana Apprentices--Small
_v._ Attwood reversed--Character of the Queen--Wilkie's Picture
of the 'First Council'--Small _v._ Attwood--Immediate
Emancipation--Birthday Reflexions--Lord Charles Fitzroy turned
out--Vote on Lord Durham's Expenses--Lord Durham's Irritation--
Wolff the Missionary--Newmarket--The Coronation--Lord
Brougham's Reviews.
London, January 28th, 1838 {p.051}
I came to town on Wednesday night, and have been laid up with the
gout ever since. Found all things prepared for a fight in the
House of Commons on Thursday, upon Peel's two amendments to the
Canada Bill. The Tories had mustered in large force, and the
Irishmen had not arrived, so that there was a very good chance of
the Government being beaten. In this emergency Edward Ellice made
a very convenient and dexterous speech, in which he begged Lord
John Russell, for the sake of unanimity, to give way. Lord John
said he would consult his colleagues and give an answer the next
day. It was clear enough what he would do, and accordingly he
came down the next day, and amidst shouts of triumph, and what
was intended for ridicule from the Tory mob, announced his
intention to accept both amendments. Peel next fell upon the
Instructions to Durham, which he treated very scornfully, and
predicted that they would be compelled to withdraw them. The
Tories were in high dudgeon with the Duke at his speech in the
House of Lords, which they showed in a sort of undergrowl and
with rueful faces, for they stand in awe of the great man, and
don't dare openly to remonstrate with him or blame his actions.
There is no doubt that his speech was essentially serviceable to
the Government, and upset one of the most promising topics of its
opponents. Francis Egerton came up from the Carlton Club to his
own home after it, and said with deep melancholy that 'the Duke
had floored the coach,' and he described the consternation and
mortification which were prevalent throughout that patriotic and
disinterested society. They were in consequence the more anxious
to urge on Peel to make an attack of some sort upon the Ministers
in the House of Commons, and he gratified them by moving these
amendments, and vilipending the Instructions.[1] It may be
questionable whether it was right to attack the Government upon
the details of their measures when no difference exists between
the opposite parties as to the principle; but granting that it
was, he acted with great skill as a party tactician. He was
certainly right upon every point. The Bill will be improved by
his alterations, and it was equally unnecessary and ill-judged to
lay the Instructions on the table of the House. The result has
been a very clamorous triumph on the part of the Tories, and a
somewhat unlucky exposure of themselves by the Government; as one
of their own friends (in office) acknowledged to me to-day, they
have had 'to eat humble pie.'
[1] [Lord John Russell adopted amendments proposed by Sir
R. Peel by striking out of the preamble of the Bill the
words recognising Lord Durham's council of advice and
the clause empowering the Queen to suspend the Act by
Order in Council.]
February 5th, 1838 {p.052}
[Page Head: MODERATION OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.]
Another debate in the House of Lords on Friday, and a good one,
which will probably finish the Canadian discussion. Upon this
occasion Brougham fired off another fierce philippic, and was
bitterly answered by Melbourne, who declared war against him once
for all. Aberdeen made an attack on the Government which he had
intended to make on the first debate; but as the Duke then said
'Shall I speak?' he said, 'Oh yes, do,' expecting the Duke would
make one instead, but was bitterly disappointed when he heard
that moderate speech which gave such offence to his friends and
such comfort to his foes. So on Friday Aberdeen said what he had
intended to say before, and to do him justice, he made some
strong points against the Government, which told well. He accused
them of unnecessary delay in bringing in this Bill last year,
after they had passed their Resolutions, and asserted that they
shuffled it off for fear they should be inconvenienced thereby in
the election contests which were approaching. I incline to
believe this accusation is well founded, and if so, it was very
paltry conduct, and not an inapt illustration of the Duke of
Wellington's famous question during the Reform Bill, 'How is the
King's Government to be carried on?' The King's Government was
not carried on; its interests were neglected or postponed to the
more pressing interest (as they thought, and I believe thought
erroneously) of the party in their election contests. The Duke of
Wellington was expected upon this occasion to make some amends to
his party by explaining away the exculpatory remarks with which
he had before assisted his opponents. But not a bit: he repeated
the same thing, and made a second speech quite as moderate as his
first. The Duke is therefore incorrigible. My mother told him the
other day how angry they were with him for what he had said, and
he only replied, 'Depend upon it, it was true.'
[Page Head: WEAKNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT.]
I saw a letter yesterday with a very bad account of the state of
Canada.[2] It was to Lord Lichfield from his Postmaster there, a
sensible man, and he describes the beaten Canadians as returning
to their homes full of sullen discontent, and says we must by no
means look upon the flame as extinguished; however, for the time
it has been smothered. On the other hand, there are the English
victorious and exasperated, with arms in their hands, and in that
dangerous state of mind which is the result of conscious
superiority, moral and intellectual, military and political, but
of (equally conscious) physical--that is, numerical--inferiority.
It is the very state which makes men insolent and timid,
tyrannical and cruel; it is just what the Irish Orangemen have
been, and it is very desirable that nothing like them should
exist elsewhere. All this proves that Durham will have no easy
task. It is a curious exhibition of the caprice of men's opinions
when we see the general applause with which Durham's appointment
is hailed, and the admiration with which he is all at once
regarded. Nobody denies that he is a man of ability, but he has
not greatly distinguished himself, perhaps from having had no
fair opportunity to do so. He has long been looked upon as a man
of extreme and dangerous opinions by the Conservatives, and he
never could agree with the Whigs when he was their colleague; to
them generally he was an object of personal aversion. Latterly he
has been considered the head of the Radical party, and that
party, who are not rich in Lords, and who are not insensible to
the advantage of rank, gladly hailed him as their chief; but for
the last year or two, under the alterative influence of Russian
Imperial flattery, Durham's sentiments have taken a very
Conservative turn, and, though he and the Radicals have never
quarrelled, they could not possibly consider him to be the same
man he was when they originally ranged themselves under his
banner. In public life the most that can be said for him is, that
he cut a respectable figure. When in office he filled the obscure
post of Privy Seal, and spoke but seldom. He was known, however,
to have had a considerable share in the concoction of the Reform
Bill. The only other public post he has held was that of
Ambassador to Russia, where nobody knows but the Minister who
employed him whether he did well or ill. Now everybody says he is
the finest fellow imaginable, and that he alone can pacify
Canada. Nor do I mean to say he is unequal to the task he has
undertaken, but the opinion of the world seems oddly produced,
and to stand upon no very solid foundation. If he had continued
plain John Lambton I doubt if he ever would have been thought of
for Canada, or that the choice (if he had been sent there) would
have been so approved. Why on earth is it that an Earldom makes
_any_ difference?
[2] [The actual disturbances in Canada, which had broken
out in November of the preceding year, were terminated
in about a month, by the military operations of Sir
John Colborne and Sir Francis Head. The debates which
ensued in England related to the treatment of the
prisoners and the future government of the Canadian
provinces.]
To return to the Canadian discussions. The Ministers have on the
whole come out of them discreditably. Peel has worried and mauled
them sadly, and taken a tone of superiority, and displayed a real
superiority, which is very pernicious to a Government, as it
tends to deprive them of the respect and the confidence of the
country. Brougham's harangues in the House of Lords have not done
them half the mischief that Peel's speeches have done them in the
House of Commons, because Peel has a vast moral weight and
Brougham has none. In the conduct of the business and in their
Parliamentary proceedings they committed errors, especially in
the latter, and Peel availed himself of both with great dexterity
and power. The front Treasury Bench is in a deplorable state.
John Russell is without support; Rice is held cheap and is
ineffective; Palmerston never utters except on his own business;
Thomson and Hobhouse never on any business; and Howick alone
ventures to mix in the fight. The Tories render ample justice to
Lord John under these overwhelming difficulties. Francis Egerton
(one of the keenest of the party) writes to my brother an account
of their recent successes, full of scorn and triumph, and proud
comparisons between the Government and the Opposition, and he
says, 'John Russell is alone--a host in himself I admit; but Rice
and Howick, the only colleagues who did assist him, are gone down
in the Parliamentary estimation a hundred degrees. I certainly
admire the spirit and dexterity of John Russell, and give him
credit for great ability.' There is no doubt that the Tories have
put themselves in a better position for getting office, and the
Whigs in a worse for keeping it, than they were in before,
because impartial men who look at these debates will say that
Peel and his people are the abler practical men, and as time
settles the great questions in dispute, and renders the public
mind more indifferent about those which still remain, there will
be a growing opinion that the direction of affairs ought to be
entrusted to those who display the greatest capacity to conduct
them. The Conservatives besides have the inestimable advantage of
an alliance with the 'Times,' the most vigorous and powerful
agent which the press ever produced. The effect of its articles,
stinging as they are, is irresistible on the public mind, and the
Government have nothing to oppose to such a torrent. It is
impossible however, while admiring the dexterity of Peel in the
elaboration of his offensive measures, to overlook the selfish
and unpatriotic spirit which the great body of the Tories have
manifested throughout the proceedings. If they could have
foregone the bitter pleasure of achieving a party triumph, and
shown themselves ready not only to support the Government in
suppressing the rebellion, but to join with them in rendering the
necessary legislative measures as conducive to the great object
of pacification as they could be made, they would have covered
themselves with honour, and acquired a credit for noble and
public-spirited conduct, which, as it is, the Duke of Wellington
has alone obtained, and which none of them share with him. Nor do
I believe if Peel had exerted his dexterity and astuteness in
another way that he would have failed to acquire the same moral
superiority over the Ministers by pacific and moderate behaviour,
that he has acquired by hostile motions and taunting language.
But his tail was in a state of furious agitation, and so angry
and dejected at the Duke's forbearance, that he felt himself
compelled to give them the gratification of a triumph of some
sort. To the majority of his followers the Canadian insurrection
was a very pleasing occurrence, and they would have been
overjoyed if the troops had been defeated and Montreal captured
by the rebels. This would indeed have been a fine case against
the Government, and have paved the way for the return of the
Tories to office--all that they care about.
February 8th, 1838 {p.057}
I have just conducted to a successful termination a negotiation
(through Allen) between Sir George Murray and Macvey Napier, and
Murray is to write the article on the Duke's Despatches in the
'Edinburgh Review.'[3] I am rather surprised at their persuasion
that Murray will execute the task so well, and I hope it may turn
out so. They have employed the handsomest language in praise of
the Duke and towards Murray. [He did it very ill: his articles
(he wrote two) were very poor performances.]
[3] [Mr. Macvey Napier was at this time editor of the
'Edinburgh Review.']
February 11th, 1838 {p.057}
[Page Head: HANNIBAL AND THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.]
I suppose all great generals have necessarily some qualities in
common; even Vendôme, an indolent and beastly glutton and
voluptuary, was capable of prodigious exertions and of activity
not to be surpassed. There is a great deal in the character of
Hannibal (as drawn by Livy) which would apply to the Duke of
Wellington; only, instead of being stained with the vices which
are ascribed to the Carthaginian general, the Duke is
distinguished for the very opposite virtues.
'Nunquam ingenium idem ad res diversissimas, 1. _parendum_ atque
_imperandum_, habilius fuit, itaque haud facile discerneres,
utrum imperatori, an exercitui, carior esset: 2. Neque Hasdrubal
alium quemquam praeficere malle, ubi quid fortiter ac strenuè
agendum esset, neque milites alio duce plus confidere aut audere.
3. Plurimum audaciae ad pericula capessenda, plurimum consilii
inter ipsa pericula erat: 4. Nullo labore aut corpus fatigari aut
animus vinci poterat: caloris ac frigoris patientia par: cibi
potionisque desiderio naturali, non voluptate, modus finitus:
vigiliarum somnique nec die nec nocte discriminata tempora. Id,
quod gerendis rebus superesset, quieti datum: ea neque molli
strato neque silentio arcessita. 5. Multi saepe militari sagulo
opertum, humi jacentem inter custodias stationesque militum
conspexerunt. 6. Vestitus nihil inter aequales excellens: arma
atque equi conspiciebantur. Equitum peditumque idem longè primus
erat: princeps in proelium ibat: ultimus conserto proelio
excedebat. 7. Has tantas viri virtutes ingentia vitia aequabant;
inhumana crudelitas, perfidia plus quàm Punica, nihil veri, nihil
sancti, nullus Deûm metus, nullum jusjurandum, nulla
religio.'[4]...
[4] [This passage is cited from Livy, lib. xxi. c. iv.]
1. Nothing is more remarkable in the Duke than his habit of
prompt obedience to his superiors and employers, and this shines
forth as much when the triumphant Commander-in-Chief of the
Allied armies at the end of the Spanish war, as in his early
campaign in India. He was always ready to serve when, where, and
how his services were required, and so I believe he is now.
2. In India he was employed by Lord Wellesley and Lord Lake in
all the most important and difficult military enterprises and
civil transactions.
3. Napier says some of Wellington's operations were daring to
extravagance, some cautious to the verge of timidity, all founded
as much upon keen and nice perceptions of the political measures
of his adversaries as upon pure military considerations--and 'he
knew how to obey as well as to command.'
4. He told me himself that he was obliged to do everything in
person. His despatches show that he thought of everything, wrote
of everything, directed everything.
5. During the battles of the Pyrenees he slept wrapped in a
cloak, under a thick bush, and the shot fell so near him that he
was urged to remove to a less exposed place.
6. He was always dressed in his plain blue coat; he rode very
good horses.
7. Here ends the parallel and begins the contrast. No general
ever exhibited to the world a nobler example of mildness and
humanity, of the most perfect and invariable good faith, of
severe truth, of inflexible justice, of scrupulous honesty, of
reverence for religion, and regard to the precepts of morality.
Cruelty is not a modern vice; no general is cruel in these days.
I doubt if there has been any great deed of cruelty committed
since the Thirty Years' War, the sack of Magdeburg, and the
exploits of Tilly and Pappenheim. Turenne ravaged the Palatinate,
but that was Louvois' cruelty, not Turenne's. There were no
military cruelties perpetrated in the revolutionary wars that I
remember.
February 18th, 1838 {p.059}
[Page Head: THE BALLOT.]
On Thursday night came on the Ballot, and its advocates divided,
as they said they should, 200. Lord John Russell, though ill,
came down and spoke against it. Peel made a good speech, and
complimented John on his conduct. All the Cabinet Ministers voted
against it except Poulett Thomson, who stayed away. The result is
the creation of a strong impression that the Ballot will
eventually be carried; Brougham says in five years.[5] There can
be no doubt that if the Government had declared a neutrality,
perhaps if John Russell had not so deeply committed himself
against it, it would have been carried now. Some men in office,
many others closely connected with Ministers, did vote for it; a
great number stayed away, and of those who followed John many did
so very reluctantly, and some certainly will never vote against
it again. Then it is indubitable that the Ballot is getting more
popular in the country, and it is not regarded with much
apprehension by many of those who are altogether opposed to
Radical principles: by such as Fazakerley for instance, a
sensible man and moderate Whig, who did not vote at all on this
occasion.
[5] [It was carried, but in _thirty-four_ years from this
time. It is possible to foresee and predict political
events with considerable certainty, but very difficult
to foretell when they will arrive. The division on this
occasion, on Mr. Grote's motion in favour of the
Ballot, was 305 to 198.]
On Friday night Brougham announced to the Lords that they must
make up their minds to the Ballot after the division of the
preceding night, and yesterday morning, when we were assembled in
my room before going into court (Parke, Erskine, Bosanquet, and
himself) he gave us his speech in high glee. Parke, who is an
alarmist, had just before said that he had never doubted when the
Reform Bill had passed that England would become a republic, and
when Brougham said that he gave the Ballot five years for its
accomplishment, Parke said, 'And in five years from that we shall
have a republic,' on which Brougham gave him a great cuff, and,
with a scornful laugh, said, 'A republic! pooh, nonsense! Well,
but what if there is? _There are judges_ in a republic, and very
well paid too.' 'Well paid!' said the other in the same tone,
'and no.' 'Yes, they are; they have £350 a year. But, never mind,
you shall be taken care of; I will speak to Grote about you.'
This is the way he goes on. He sits every day at the Judicial
Committee, but pays very little attention to the proceedings; he
is incessantly in and out of the room, giving audience to one
odd-looking man or another, and while in court more occupied with
preparing articles for the 'Edinburgh Review' or his
Parliamentary tirades than with the cases he is by way of
hearing. The day after the Lord Advocate's attack upon him in the
matter of the Glasgow cotton-spinners, he received Wakley, and as
he returned (through my room) from the interview, he said, 'Do
you know who that was? It was Wakley. He would have felt your
head if he had stopped, for he is a great phrenologist. He
examined all the heads of the Glasgow men, and he said they had
none of them the organ of destructiveness except one.' 'Oh,' said
I, 'then that man would have committed murder.' 'No,' said he,
'for the organ of benevolence was also strongly developed.' He is
in extraordinary good humour; in a state of furious mental
activity, troubled neither with fear nor shame, and rejoicing in
that freedom from all ties which renders him a sort of political
Ishmael, his hand against everybody, and everybody against him,
and enables him to cut and slash, as his fancy or his passion
move him, at Whig or Tory, in the House of Lords.
[Page Head: LORD JOHN OPPOSES THE BALLOT.]
To return from Brougham to the Ballot. It is not so much the
number of 200 who voted for it that demonstrates the greatness of
its progress as the circumstances which attended the discussion.
There can be no doubt that John Russell's strenuous declaration,
besides annoying the Radicals, greatly embarrassed the Whigs, who
had either wholly or partially committed themselves on the
hustings to its support, and the consequence has been to place
the Government in a false position, for while the opposition to
the Ballot has been called a Government measure (and William
Cowper told me the evening before the division that nobody could
keep his place and vote for Ballot), and many have been induced
to sacrifice their opinions or act against their professions upon
the ground of the necessity of supporting the Government; many
others in office, who were too deeply pledged to, or too much
afraid of their constituents to vote against it, either voted
with Grote, or, what is very nearly the same thing, absented
themselves, and will have done so with impunity, for the
Government cannot turn people out for voting or non-voting on
such a question as this; the proscription would be too numerous
as well as too odious. They are much too weak for any such
stretch of authority and severity; besides, the Cabinet itself is
probably neither unanimous nor decided in its opposition to the
Ballot. John Russell had, however, spoken out with such
determination, that his honour was irretrievably committed
against it, and accordingly the most strenuous efforts were made,
the most urgent entreaties and remonstrances were employed, to
induce people to support him on this occasion, but with a success
not at all commensurate with these exertions. Vivian offered to
resign, but could not be prevailed on not to vote.[6] So
disgusted was John Russell with the result of this division, that
it was with the greatest difficulty he was prevented from
resigning; and yesterday it was reported all over the town that
he had resigned. It is remarkable that in contemplation of his
resignation, Morpeth is the man talked of as his successor as
leader of the House of Commons, a man young enough to be the son
of half the Cabinet Ministers, and not in the Cabinet; but in
such low estimation are all Lord John's colleagues, that not one
of them is deemed capable of taking his place in the event of his
giving it up. However, there is not much use in speculating about
Lord John's successor if he secedes, for the whole concern would
in that case inevitably fall to the ground. Indeed, it is not
likely that it will, under any circumstances, go on much longer.
When once the leader of the House of Commons has become
thoroughly disgusted and dissatisfied with his position, either a
change or a dissolution of the Government may be anticipated, and
in this case any attempt at change can scarcely fail to break up
this rickety firm.
[6] Vivian's Cornish petition was signed by 2,100 or 2,200
freeholders, the same number who had voted for him at
the election, but of these there were 200 who had voted
for Eliot.
[Page Head: POLICY OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.]
The circumstances which enable them to go on at all I take to be
these: the extreme repugnance of the Queen to any change, and the
necessity in which Melbourne finds himself on her account to go
on as long as he possibly can; and on the other hand, the
reluctance of Peel to assault the Government in front. I know no
more of Peel's opinions and designs than what I can gather from
his conduct and what he is likely to entertain under present
circumstances; but it must be his object to delay coming into
office till he can do so as a powerful Minister, and till it is
made manifest to Parliament and the country that he is demanded
by a great public exigency, and is not marching in as the result
of a party triumph. If the resignation of the present Government
should take place under any circumstances which admitted of a
reunion of the Whigs and the Radicals, and of the whole re-united
party being held together in opposition to a Conservative
Government, Peel would be little more secure, and not more able
to act with efficiency and independence than he was in 1835, and
this is what he never will submit to. It is also a great object
to him that the Irish questions should be settled before he comes
into office. Nothing would gladden his heart more than to have
the Government in Ireland established on a footing from the
practice of which he could not deviate, and that once effected up
to a certain point (as far as the Whigs can go) he would be
enabled to go a good deal farther; and as the man who covers in a
building has always more credit and is considered the artificer
more than he who lays the foundations, so Peel would obtain all
the credit of measures which would in fact have been rendered
easy or practicable by the long-continued toils and perseverance
of others. His interest therefore (and consequently I suppose his
design) is to restrain the impatience of his followers; to let
the Government lose ground in public estimation gently and
considerately, not violently and rancorously; to assist in
putting them in a contemptible or inefficient point of view; to
render their places as uneasy as possible; and to give them time
to crumble to pieces, so that his return to power may be more in
appearance the act of the Whig Ministry than any act of his own.
Then he may demand, and would probably obtain, as the condition
of his acceptance of office, the support of a large proportion of
the moderate of the Whig party, and the necessity of conciliating
such men and of acquiring their support could afford him an
excuse for adopting those Liberal maxims which, though far from
palatable to the Conservatives, would be indispensable to the
formation of a strong Government, as without their adoption no
Whig could with honour and consistency support him. I care not
who is Minister, but I want to see a strong Government, one which
may have a power of free action and not be obliged to pick its
steps through doubtful divisions, living from day to day, and
compelled to an incessant calculation as to the probable success
of every measure, whether of principle or detail, on which it
ventures in the House of Commons. Things are not yet ripe for
such a consummation, and before the fresh fusion of parties takes
place which is necessary to bring it about, it must be made
manifest that there is no other alternative, for there is always
a considerable amount of party violence and selfish interest
which reluctantly sacrifice themselves, no matter how desperate
the position they hold or how great the good which may ensue.
Though the adherents of Government put on as bold a front as they
can, there is a very considerable impression that the days of the
Whig Cabinet are numbered; however, I don't think they will go
just yet.
February 20th, 1838 {p.063}
[Page Head: MR. CREEVEY'S PAPERS.]
I made no allusion to the death of Creevey at the time it took
place, about a fortnight ago, having said something about him
elsewhere. Since that period he had got into a more settled way
of life. He was appointed to one of the Ordnance offices by Lord
Grey, and subsequently by Lord Melbourne to the Treasurer ship of
Greenwich Hospital, with a salary of £600 a year and a house. As
he died very suddenly, and none of his connexions were at hand,
Lord Sefton sent to his lodgings and (in conjunction with Vizard,
the solicitor) caused all his papers to be sealed up. It was
found that he had left a woman who had lived with him for four
years as his mistress, his sole executrix and residuary legatee,
and she accordingly became entitled to all his personalty (the
value of which was very small, not more than £300 or £400) and to
all the papers which he left behind him. These last are
exceedingly valuable, for he had kept a copious diary for thirty-
six years, had preserved all his own and Mrs. Creevey's letters,
and copies or originals of a vast miscellaneous correspondence.
The only person who is acquainted with the contents of these
papers is his daughter-in-law, whom he had frequently employed to
copy papers for him, and she knows how much there is of delicate
and interesting matter, the publication of which would be painful
and embarrassing to many people now alive, and make very
inconvenient and premature revelations upon private and
confidential matters.... Then there is Creevey's own
correspondence with various people, especially with Brougham,
which evidently contains things Brougham is anxious to suppress,
for he has taken pains to prevent the papers from falling into
the hands of any person likely to publish them, and has urged
Vizard to get possession of them either by persuasion, or
purchase, or both. In point of fact they are now in Vizard's
hands, and it is intended by him and Brougham, probably with the
concurrence of others, to buy them of Creevey's mistress, though
who is to become the owner of the documents, or what the
stipulated price, and what their contemplated destination, I do
not know. The most extraordinary part of the affair is, that the
woman has behaved with the utmost delicacy and propriety, has
shown no mercenary disposition, but expressed her desire to be
guided by the wishes and opinions of Creevey's friends and
connexions, and to concur in whatever measures may be thought
best by them with reference to the character of Creevey, and the
interests and feelings of those who might be affected by the
contents of the papers. Here is a strange situation in which to
find a rectitude of conduct, a moral sentiment, a grateful and
disinterested liberality which would do honour to the highest
birth, the most careful cultivation, and the strictest principle.
It would be a hundred to one against any individual in the
ordinary rank of society and of average good character acting
with such entire absence of selfishness, and I cannot help being
struck with the contrast between the motives and disposition of
those who want to get hold of these papers, and of this poor
woman who is ready to give them up. They, well knowing that, in
the present thirst for the sort of information Creevey's journals
and correspondence contain, a very large sum might be obtained
for them, are endeavouring to drive the best bargain they can
with her for their own particular ends, while she puts her whole
confidence in them, and only wants to do what they tell her she
ought to do under the circumstances of the case.
General Evans's appointment as K.C.B. has made a great stir at
the United Service Club, and is blamed or ridiculed by everybody.
It is difficult to conceive why the Government gave it him, and
if he had not been a vain coxcomb, he would not have wished for
it; but they say he fancies himself a great general, and that he
has done wonders in Spain.[7]
[7] [Sir De Lacy Evans probably did as much in Spain as it
was possible to do with the troops under his command.
But in justice to him as an officer it should be
remembered that he commanded a division of the British
army in the Crimea, long afterwards, and showed
considerable foresight and ability at the battles of
the Alma and Inkerman.]
We have had Brougham every day at the Council Office, more busy
writing a review of Lady Charlotte Bury's book than with the
matter before the Judicial Committee. He writes this with
inconceivable rapidity, seldom corrects, and never reads over
what he has written, but packs it up and despatches it rough from
his pen to Macvey Napier. He is in exuberant spirits and full of
talk, and certainly marvellously agreeable. His talk (for
conversation is not the word for it) is totally unlike that of
anybody else I ever heard. It comes forth without the slightest
effort, provided he is in spirits and disposed to talk at all. It
is the spontaneous outpouring of one of the most fertile and
restless of minds, easy, familiar, abundant, and discursive. The
qualities and peculiarities of mind which mar his oratorical,
give zest and effect to his conversational, powers; for the
perpetual bubbling up of fresh ideas, by incapacitating him from
condensing his speeches, often makes them tediously digressive
and long; but in society he treads the ground with so elastic a
step, he touches everything so lightly and so adorns all that he
touches, his turns and his breaks are so various, unexpected, and
pungent, that he not only interests and amuses, but always
exhilarates his audience so as to render weariness and satiety
impossible. He is now coquetting a little with the Tories, and
especially professes great deference and profound respect for the
Duke of Wellington; his sole object in politics, for the moment,
is to badger, twit, and torment the Ministry, and in this he
cannot contain himself within the bounds of common civility, as
he exemplified the other night when he talked of 'Lord John this
and Mr. Spring that' (on Thursday night), which, however
contemptuous, was too undignified to be effective. He calls this
'the Thomson Government' from its _least_ considerable member.
February 25th, 1838 {p.066}
[Page Head: O'CONNELL AT THE CROWN AND ANCHOR.]
Lord John Russell made a very paltry exhibition on Friday night,
quite unworthy of the fame he had acquired and of the situation
he holds. When Lord Maidstone threatened to bring before the
House the language which O'Connell had used (about the perjury in
Committees) in a speech at the 'Crown and Anchor,'[8] and gave
notice of a motion for that purpose, John jumped up and said, if
he persevered in this motion he would call the attention of the
House to an imputation against the Catholic members contained in
a charge of the Bishop of Exeter with reference to the oath
required of them by the Relief Bill. Whether this was a sally of
passion I know not, but it was puerile, imprudent, and
undignified. This charge was delivered in 1836, and ought to have
been animadverted upon at the time, if at all. It either is, or
is not, a proper matter to bring before the House, but that
propriety cannot be contingent upon some other proceeding of
another person, quite unconnected with it. It was a poor _tu
quoque_ which has got him into a scrape, and will contribute to
the downhill impulsion of the Government; it is a fresh bit of
discredit thrown upon them. John Russell too has been a personal
antagonist of the Bishop of Exeter, and should have been the last
man to attack him in this irregular way. Out of all this will
spring much violence and personality, and that is what interests
the members of the House of Commons more than any great political
question.
[8] [O'Connell had asserted, at the 'Crown and Anchor'
tavern, that 'foul perjury was committed by the Tory
Election Committees.']
February 27th, 1838 {p.067}
It is difficult to conceive a greater quantity of folly crammed
into a short space of time than has been displayed by all parties
in the last three or four days, and which reached the climax last
night in the House of Commons. It began with O'Connell's speech
at the 'Crown and Anchor,' when he denounced the perjury of the
Tory Election Committees in such terms as he usually employs. To
recommend moderate language to O'Connell would, however, be about
as reasonable as to advise him to drop his brogue; but as he had
ample notice that the matter was coming before the House of
Commons, he might have been persuaded, and there should have been
somewhere sense and prudence enough to persuade him, to soften
his tone, and to make one of those explanations, partly
exculpatory and partly apologetic, which are always accepted as a
sufficient atonement for rash and violent language; instead of
which he brazened it out, and then John Russell came to his
rescue in that foolish and unbecoming notice of his which
compromised his dignity, committed his party,[9] and complicated
all the difficulties in which the House itself was placed. The
fools of his party (and on both sides they predominate in noise
and numbers) vociferously cheered this ill-judged sally, and
lauded it as a fine spirited retort. Not so, however, the more
prudent of his friends, who perceived the dilemma in which he had
placed himself. Nobody in the meantime had any clear notion of
what would be done, what motions would be made or withdrawn, and
how the whole thing was to end. But as the debate promised a
great deal of personality, it was exceedingly attractive, and 517
members[10] went down to the House. Lord Maidstone moved that
O'Connell's speech was a scandalous libel, and Lord Howick moved
the order of the day. O'Connell made a very good speech and then
retired; John Russell spoke on one side, and Peel and Follett on
the other, and on the division the Tories carried the question by
nine: 263 to 254. They were of course in a state of uproarious
triumph; the Government people exceedingly mortified, and the
tail in a frenzy. The scene which ensued appears to have been
something like that which a meeting of Bedlam or Billingsgate
might produce. All was uproar, gesticulation, and confusion. The
Irishmen started up one after another and proclaimed their
participation in O'Connell's sentiments, and claimed to be joined
in his condemnation. They were all the more furious when they
found that the conquerors only meant to have him reprimanded by
the Speaker, and that there was no chance of his or their being
sent to Newgate or the Tower. At last 'le combat finit faute de
combattants,' for John Russell and his colleagues first, and
subsequently Peel and his followers, severally made their exits
something like rival potentates and their trains in a tragedy,
and when the bellowers found nobody left to bellow to, they too
were obliged to move off.
[9] The notice was that _if_ Lord Maidstone persisted in
his motion, he would call the attention of the Crown to
a charge delivered by the Bishop of Exeter (nearly two
years ago), in which he had accused the Catholic
members of perjury and treachery.
[10] Many more, I am told, for 517 voted, and several went
away who would not vote.
[Page Head: LORD LYNDHURST AND LORD MELBOURNE.]
In the House of Lords there had been an early, but very smart
skirmish between Melbourne and Lyndhurst,[11] in which the former
drew a contrast between what would have been the conduct of the
Duke (who was absent) and that of Lyndhurst, and said that the
Duke was a man of honour and a gentleman in a tone which implied
that Lyndhurst was neither. Brougham stepped in and aggravated
matters as much as he could by joining Lyndhurst and taunting
Melbourne; but when Lyndhurst rose again to call Melbourne to
account for his expressions, Brougham held him down with friendly
violence, and (as he asseverates) was entirely the cause of
preventing a fight between them, first by not letting Lyndhurst
proceed to extremities,[12] and next by giving Melbourne time for
reflection. However this may be, when Lyndhurst asked him, 'if he
meant to say he was not a man of honour,' Melbourne made as ample
a retractation of the offensive expressions as Lyndhurst could
desire, and there the matter ended, not certainly much to the
credit or satisfaction of the Ministers in either House. I think,
however, that the Opposition have obtained a very mischievous and
inconvenient triumph, and that they would have done much better
to leave the question alone. O'Connell and John Russell made
better speeches than Peel and Follett, and the latter seemed to
be oppressed by a consciousness of the narrow, vindictive, and
merely party, if not personal grounds on which the question was
raised. They have dragged the House of Commons into a vote,
which, if it acts consistently, it ought to follow up by an
indiscriminate exercise of its authority and resentment upon all
the writers and speakers who have denounced the Committee system,
and they have procured a resolution declaratory of that being
libellous and scandalous which the public universally believes,
and every member of the House well knows to be true.
[11] The discussion arose out of a question Lyndhurst put
about some young children who had been confined in the
penitentiary, in solitary confinement, &c., _without
notice_. Melbourne fired up at this in a very
unnecessary rage, though Lyndhurst was clearly wrong in
not giving notice. Much more was made of this omission
than need have been.
[12] Lyndhurst was going out of the House to write a hostile
note, but Brougham forced him down and said, 'I insist
on my noble friend's sitting down,' but though he
boasts of having been the peacemaker, Lyndhurst told me
he thought, but for Brougham, Melbourne would not have
said what he did.
February 28th, 1838 {p.070}
I met Lyndhurst yesterday, and had a few minutes' conversation
with him. He told me, as I had conjectured, that Peel was
extremely annoyed at all these proceedings. I said, 'Why then,
did not he stop them?' 'Because the great misfortune of our party
is that he won't communicate with anybody.' So that this most
inexpedient discussion was forced on by the precipitation and
indiscretion of two or three men, against the convictions and the
wishes of the wise and the moderate of all parties; and when a
few words of prudence and conciliation might have stopped the
whole proceeding, pride, or obstinacy, or awkwardness prevented
those words being uttered. The only real consequence will be that
public attention will be attracted to the Committee system,
people will think a great deal about what they scarcely regarded
before, and the characters of public men will suffer. If the vote
of the House of Commons means anything, it means that these
Committees are honourably and fairly conducted, and it will be
compelled to follow up this vote by reforming them on the
specific ground of enormous and intolerable abuses, the existence
of which their vote will have denied; and all these results, the
self-stultification of the House, and the damage to the moral
reputation of its members, are brought about in order that the
Tory geese may cackle, and that men like Jemmy Bradshaw and Sir
John Tyrrell may wave their hats and their crutches in
triumph.[13] It is curious enough that the Ministers had no
notion the Tories really meant to press this matter. John Russell
went down (Le Marchant told me so) fully sensible of his own
folly on Friday night, resolved to drop his motion about the
Bishop, and convinced that, as it was the interest, so it would
be the determination, of the leading Tories to quash the
discussion.
[13] Bradshaw stood up on the benches, huzzaing and waving
his hat, and it was said Sir John Tyrrell (if it was
he) did the same, having the gout, with his crutches.
March 1st, 1838 {p.070}
Another night (Tuesday) was wasted in a fresh discussion, brought
on by a motion of Pendarves's to let the matter drop. In the
morning Lord Howick told me that the Ministers did not mean to
say or do anything more, and that their only object now was to
put an end to the business as quickly as possible. But John
Russell, who is as little communicative on one side as Peel is on
the other, had in the meantime, and without consulting anybody,
desired Pendarves to make this useless and abortive motion. This
Le Marchant told me yesterday morning, adding how annoyed they
all were at it. Yesterday the Speaker delivered the reprimand,
and they all admitted that it was extremely well done. O'Connell
made a violent speech in reply, but clever.
March 4th, 1838 {p.071}
[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM COURTS THE TORIES.]
Brougham again in the House of Lords on Friday night. He attacked
Pechell and Codrington for having attacked him[14] because he had
abused the Navy in his Slavery speech, and was very violent,
tedious, and verbose. He informed the House that he had written a
remonstrance to the Speaker for not having called the two sailors
to order, and he treated them with great contumely and abuse in
his speech. Lyndhurst[15] made him very wroth by asking him 'if
he had any right to write to the Speaker,' and Melbourne made a
short, but very good reply, reminding him that, as he had chosen
to publish his speech in the shape of a pamphlet, it was no
breach of privilege to comment on its contents. He made a great
splutter, but got the worst of this bout. In the meantime he
continues to be the great meteor of the day; he has emerged from
his seclusion, and is shining a mighty luminary among the Tory
_ignes minores_. The Conservatives are so charmed with him, that
they court his society with the liveliest demonstrations of
regard, and he meets their advances more than half way. They are
very naturally delighted with his unrivalled agreeableness, and
they are not sorry to pat him on the back as a _flagellifer_ of
the Ministers; but though they talk with expressions of regret of
his having radicalised himself, and he would probably, if he saw
an opening, try to wriggle himself out of Radicalism and into
Toryism, they will take care, in the event of their return to
office, not to let such a firebrand in amongst them. He calls his
last Anti-slavery speech his [Greek: peri stephanou], for he
thinks it his greatest effort, and it was such an oration as no
other man could have delivered. The Bishop of Exeter spoke for
two hours and a half the other night on Catholic oaths, but the
whole bench of Bishops, except Llandaff, stayed away, to mark
their disapprobation of his agitation on the subject.
[14] [In their speeches in the House of Commons.]
[15] [It was not Lord Lyndhurst who asked this question.
Lord Brougham intimated that he had written a private
letter on the matter to the Speaker, which he had a
right to do.]
Nobody knows what the Tories are going to do on Molesworth's
motion on Tuesday;[16] they have kept an ominous silence, and it
is believed that the great body of them are eagerly pressing for
a division against the Government, while the leaders want to
restrain them, and not meddle with the question. Care, however,
has been taken, to abstain from any expression of opinion or
declaration of intention, and they are all ordered to be at their
posts. The Whigs would desire nothing better, end as it might,
than that the Tories should support Molesworth's motion, or move
an amendment upon it, which might bring about the concurrence
with themselves of the mover and the few Liberals (some say
seven, some eleven) who will vote with him.
[16] [Sir William Molesworth moved a vote of censure on Lord
Glenelg, Colonial Secretary of State, on the 6th of
March, but withdrew it after two nights' debate in
favour of an amendment moved by Lord Sandon, condemning
the Canadian policy of the Government. On the division
Ministers had 316, and their opponents 287 votes. The
character and purport of this amendment are explained
below.]
March 6th, 1838 {p.072}
Great interest yesterday to know the result of the meeting at
Peel's, when it was to be settled what course should be taken to-
night. There were meetings at both Peel's and John Russell's. The
decision of the Tories was deferred till Stanley's arrival in
town, who had been detained by illness at Knowsley. In the
morning there was a meeting of the Privy Council about municipal
charters, when John Russell and Poulett Thomson told me they did
not expect the Tories would give them battle; but if there was a
division, they thought Government would carry it by 20, a great
majority in these days.
March 8th, 1838 {p.073}
Sandon moved the amendment on Tuesday night, but so well had the
Tories kept their secret that nobody knew what they were going to
do till he got up in the House. As there were above 200 present
at the meeting, and nearly 300 must have been in the secret,
their discretion was marvellous. I was convinced that no
amendment would be moved, and was completely mistaken. The debate
on Tuesday was moderate; Labouchere spoke well, Stanley middling,
but he was not in force physically. Last night they divided at
half-past two, and there was a majority of 29: all things
considered, a great one, and which sets the Government on its
legs for the present. Fourteen of the Conservatives were absent
from illness or the death of relations, so that the strength of
the party really amounts to 300 if it would all be mustered.
There must always be some casualties, and probably there were
some likewise on the other side.
[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM'S ANTI-SLAVERY SPEECH.]
On Tuesday night Brougham made another great Slavery speech in
the House of Lords, as usual, very long, eloquent, powerful; but
his case overstated, too highly wrought, and too artificial. It
was upon the Order in Council by which coolies were brought into
Antigua from India. He made out a case of real or probable abuse
and injustice, and his complaint was that the Government had not
sufficiently guarded against the contingency by regulations
accompanying the Order. He was followed by several of the Tory
Lords; but the Duke of Wellington refused to support him,
provided Melbourne would agree to adopt certain rules which he
proposed as a security against future abuses, in which case he
said he would move the previous question. Melbourne agreed, and
the Duke moved it. As he and the bulk of his followers joined
with the Government, they had a large majority, but Ellenborough,
Lyndhurst, Wharncliffe, the Bishop of Exeter, and a few more,
voted with Brougham, and the whole party would have been very
glad to do so if the Duke would have let them. Brougham was
exceedingly disconcerted, and threw out all sorts of baits to
catch the Duke's vote and support, but did not succeed, and he
said that the Duke had again stepped in to save the Government.
The 'Times' yesterday morning made a very sulky allusion to what
they consider his ill-timed moderation; but he will not be a
party to anything that has the semblance of faction, and to
worrying and bullying the Government merely to show the power or
to have the pleasure of doing so. In the present instance,
although Melbourne gave way to the Duke (as he could not do
less), it so happens that the Government would have been in a
majority of three or four if the Duke had divided against them,
for the Tories had taken no pains to bring their people down, and
Brougham's great orations are not so attractive to the Lords as
they are popular with the public. He will certainly gain a great
deal of reputation and popularity by his agitation of the Anti-
slavery question, for it is a favourite topic in the country.
Wharncliffe told me he walked away with him from the House after
the debate on Tuesday, and some young men who had been below the
bar saluted him as he went by with 'Bravo, Brougham!'
March 9th, 1838 {p.074}
At the Council yesterday everybody was very merry and grinning
from ear to ear, mightily elated with their victory, or perhaps
rather their escape the night before, and at having got such a
timely reprieve. The division has given them a new lease, but
whether it will prove a long or a short one depends upon a
thousand contingencies. The violent Tories were sulky and
disappointed, though in the course of Wednesday they began to
find out that Government would have a better division than either
party had anticipated. I had been strongly of opinion that Peel
would not fight the battle, and I thought it would be bad policy
in him to do so; but any opinion contrary to his must be
entertained with diffidence, so able as he is, and so versed in
parliamentary and party tactics; and in order to form a correct
judgement of the course which it was expedient for him to adopt,
it was necessary to know both his own views as to office at the
present moment and the disposition of the party he leads.
[Page Head: SIR ROBERT PEEL'S TACTICS.]
I had no communication with any of the Tories before the
division, but yesterday I saw George Dawson, Peel's brother-in-
law, and Francis Egerton. From them I learnt, what I had all
along supposed to be the case, that Peel was driven with extreme
reluctance into fighting this battle; that it was difficult to
take no part in the discussion raised by Molesworth's
inconvenient resolution, and that he was continually urged and
pressed by his followers to attack the Government, they
persisting in the notion that the Ministers might be driven out,
and always complaining that the moderation of the Duke and the
backwardness of Peel alone kept them in their places. The
discontent and clamour were so loud and continued that it became
absolutely necessary for Peel, if he meant to keep the party
together, to gratify their impatience for action, and he
accordingly concocted this amendment in such terms as should make
it impossible for the Radicals to concur in it, it being his
especial care to avoid the semblance of any union, even
momentary, between the Tories and them. Peel certainly never
expected to beat the Government, nor did he wish it. There can be
no doubt that he saw clearly all the results that would follow
his defeat, and thought them on the whole desirable. These
results are, that there is an end for the present of any question
of the stability of the Government. Peel has complied with the
wishes of his party, and has demonstrated to them that they
cannot turn the Government out, which will have the effect of
moderating their impatience and induce them for the future to
acquiesce in his managing matters according to his own
discretion. On the other hand, he has exhibited a force of 317
Conservatives[17] in the House of Commons, not only by far the
most numerous Opposition that ever was arrayed against a
Government, but possessing the peculiar advantage of being united
in principle--a compact, cemented body, all animated with one
spirit, and not a mass composed of different elements and merely
allied and conjoined in hostility to the Government. The relative
strength of the two parties has been manifested by this division,
and the Government have a majority of twenty votes, which, as
their people attend better than the others, may be considered
equal to a working majority of thirty.
[17] [The number of Conservatives who took part in the vote
was 287; but thirty members of the party either paired
or were absent.]
This is sufficient to enable them to go on, but the majority
consists of a combination of heterogeneous materials: of
O'Connell and the Irish members, of Radicals and Whigs of various
shades and degrees of opinions, all with a disposition, greater
or less, but with different (and often opposite and inconsistent)
views and objects, to support the present Government, and
containing in itself all the seeds of dissolution from the
variety and incompatibility of its component elements. But while
this division has given present security to the Government, it
has also made a display of Conservative power which will render
it impossible for the Whigs to conduct the Government on any but
Conservative principles; and while, on the one hand, Peel can say
to the violent Tories that they have seen the impotence of their
efforts, and ought to be convinced that by firmness and
moderation they may do anything, but by violence nothing, on the
other, Melbourne and John Russell may equally admonish the
Radicals of the manifest impossibility of carrying out their
principles in the teeth of such a Conservative party, besides the
resistance that would be offered by all the Conservative leaven
which is largely mixed up in the composition of their own. Thus
there is a reasonable expectation that from the balance of party
power moderate counsels may prevail, and that Conservative
principle may extend and consolidate its influence.
The Queen was very nervous at the possibility there seemed to be
that the Ministers might be beaten, for Lord John Russell had
told her that he could not count upon a majority of more than
fifteen, and she looked yesterday as cheerful as anybody else
around her. With regard to the measure on the part of the Tories
and the case of Canada, they were wholly unjustifiable in moving
such a vote of censure, and there is nothing in the case (however
in its details objections may be urged against Lord Glenelg's
conduct) to demand so strong a proceeding. The best speeches were
Sir George Grey's on one side, and Peel's on the other. The
casualties in the division were, on the whole, unfavourable to
the Tories; fifteen of their people were unavoidably absent, not
above half as many of the Government. They contrived to delay the
report of the Belfast Committee, unseating both the sitting
members, till yesterday morning, by which means the Government
got both their votes in the division; and one of them being
paired off with Lord Ramsay, who was not there, the pair
cancelled by the call of the House, this alone made a difference
of five votes.
March 11th, 1838 {p.077}
[Page Head: A DINNER AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.]
I dined yesterday at the Palace, much to my surprise, for I had
no expectation of an invitation. There was a very numerous
party:--the Hanoverian Minister Baron Münchhausen, Lord and Lady
Grey, the Chancellor, the Roseberys, Ossulston, Mahon, &c. We
assembled in the round room next the gallery, and just before the
dinner was ready the Queen entered with the Duchess of Kent,
preceded by the Chamberlain, and followed by her six ladies. She
shook hands with the women, and made a sweeping bow to the men,
and directly went in to dinner, conducted by Münchhausen, who sat
next to her, and Lord Conyngham on the other side. The dinner was
like any other great dinner. After the eating was over, the
Queen's health was given by Cavendish, who sat at one end of the
table, and everybody got up to drink it: a vile, vulgar custom,
and, however proper it may be to drink her health elsewhere, it
is bad taste to have it given by her own officer at her own
table, which, in fact, is the only private table it is ever drunk
at. However, this has been customary in the two last reigns.
George III. never dined but with his family, never had guests, or
a dinner _party_.
The Queen sat for some time at table, talking away very merrily
to her neighbours, and the men remained about a quarter of an
hour after the ladies. When we went into the drawing-room, and
huddled about the door in the sort of half-shy, half-awkward way
people do, the Queen advanced to meet us, and spoke to everybody
in succession, and if everybody's 'palaver' was as deeply
interesting as mine, it would have been worth while to have had
Gurney to take it down in short-hand. The words of kings and
queens are precious, but it would be hardly fair to record a
Royal after-dinner colloquy.... After a few insignificant
questions and answers,--gracious smile and inclination of head on
part of Queen, profound bow on mine, she turned again to Lord
Grey. Directly after I was (to my satisfaction) deposited at the
whist table to make up the Duchess of Kent's party, and all the
rest of the company were arranged about a large round table (the
Queen on the sofa by it), where they passed about an hour and a
half in what was probably the smallest possible talk, interrupted
and enlivened, however, by some songs which Lord Ossulston sang.
We had plenty of instrumental music during and after dinner. To
form an opinion or the slightest notion of her real character and
capacity from such a formal affair as this, is manifestly
impossible. Nobody expects from her any clever, amusing, or
interesting talk, above all no stranger can expect it. She is
very civil to everybody, and there is more of frankness,
cordiality, and good-humour in her manner than of dignity. She
looks and speaks cheerfully: there was nothing to criticise,
nothing particularly to admire. The whole thing seemed to be
dull, perhaps unavoidably so, but still so dull that it is a
marvel how anybody can like such a life. This was an unusually
large party, and therefore more than usually dull and formal; but
it is much the same sort of thing every day. Melbourne was not
there, which I regretted, as I had some curiosity to see Her
Majesty and her Minister together. I had a few words with Lord
Grey, and soon found that the Government are in no very good
odour with him. He talked disparagingly of them, and said, in
reference to the recent debate, that 'he thought Peel could not
have done otherwise than he did.'
March 17th, 1838 {p.078}
[Page Head: MEN OF SCIENCE.]
Went to the Royal Institution last night in hopes of hearing
Faraday lecture, but the lecture was given by Mr. Pereira upon
crystals, a subject of which he appeared to be master, to judge
by his facility and fluency; but the whole of it was
unintelligible to me. Met Dr. Buckland and talked to him for an
hour, and he introduced me to Mr. Wheatstone, the inventor of the
electric telegraph, of the progress in which he gave us an
account. I wish I had turned my attention to these things and
sought occupation and amusement in them long ago. I am satisfied
that, apart from all considerations of utility, or even of
profit, they afford a very pregnant source of pleasure and
gratification. There is a cheerfulness, an activity, an
appearance of satisfaction in the conversation and demeanour of
scientific men that conveys a lively notion of the _pleasure_
they derive from their pursuits. I feel ashamed to go among such
people when I compare their lives with my own, their knowledge
with my ignorance, their brisk and active intellects with my dull
and sluggish mind, become sluggish and feeble for want of
exercise and use.
March 20th, 1838 {p.079}
Met Croker on Sunday, who came to speak to me about the picture
of the Queen's First Council on her accession which Wilkie is
painting. He is much scandalised because the Lord Mayor is
introduced, which he ought not to be, and Croker apprehends that
future Mayors will found upon the evidence of this picture claims
to be present at the Councils of future sovereigns on similar
occasions. I wrote to Lord Lansdowne about it and told him that
it so happens that I caused the Lord Mayor to be ejected, who was
lingering on in the room after the Proclamation had been
read.[18]
[18] [It is a vulgar error, which it would scarcely be
necessary to notice here except for the purpose of
correcting it, that the Lord Mayor of London has some
of the privileges of a Privy Councillor during his year
of office. The mistake has probably arisen from his
being styled 'Right Honourable,' but so are the Lord
Mayors of Dublin and of York. But he has none of the
rights of a Privy Councillor. He is, however, summoned
to attend the Privy Council at which a new Sovereign is
proclaimed, but having heard the Proclamation he
retires before the business of the Council is
commenced. See _infra_, March 27th.]
It is a very trite observation, that no two people are more
different than the same man at different periods of his life, and
this was illustrated by an anecdote Lord Holland told us of Tom
Grenville last night--Tom Grenville, so mild, so refined, adorned
with such an amiable, venerable, and decorous old age. After Lord
Keppel's acquittal there were riots, and his enthusiastic friends
with a zealous mob attacked the houses of his enemies; among
others they assaulted the Admiralty, the chiefs of which were
obnoxious for their supposed ill-usage of him. The Admiralty was
taken by storm, and Tom Grenville was the second man who entered
at the breach!
March 23rd, 1838 {p.080}
On Wednesday I attended a Levée and Council. The Queen was
magnificently dressed, and looked better than I ever saw her. Her
complexion is clear and has the brightness of youth; the
expression of her eyes is agreeable. Her manner is graceful and
dignified and with perfect self-possession. I remarked how very
civil she was to Brougham, for she spoke to him as much as to
anybody. He was in high good-humour after it.
Yesterday we had a Judicial Committee, with a great judicial
attendance: the Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, Brougham, the Vice-
Chancellor, Lord Abinger, Lord Langdale, and Tom Erskine, with
the Lord President. It was to consider a petition of certain
apprentices in British Guiana, who wanted to stay execution of
the judgement of a Court there. Glenelg had it referred to the
Privy Council Committee in order to shift the responsibility from
himself. He expected that Brougham would get hold of the case and
make a clatter about it; but at the Board Brougham treated it
purely upon legal grounds, and was adverse to the prayer of the
petition.
They had come (i.e., the Chancellor, Lyndhurst, and Brougham)
from the House of Lords, where they had been reversing
Lyndhurst's famous judgement in 'Small _v._ Attwood.' Lyndhurst
was very hoarse, having just made a long speech in support of his
former judgement; but the Chancellor and Devon had spoken
against, and Brougham was prepared to side with them. _Sic
transit gloria!_ It was this judgement which was so lauded and
admired at the time, and upon which, more than upon any other, or
even upon the general tenor of his decisions, Lyndhurst's great
judicial fame was based; and now it turns out that, although it
was admirable in the execution, it was bad in point of law.[19]
[19] [The main question in the celebrated case of Small _v_.
Attwood was whether the sale of certain ironworks in
Staffordshire, by Mr. Attwood, to the British Iron
Company, should be set aside for what, in the Courts of
Equity, is termed fraud. Lord Lyndhurst, as Chief Baron
of the Exchequer, held that an amount of
misrepresentation had been practised by the vendor,
which annulled the sale. The House of Lords was of
opinion that if the purchasers had paid too much for
the property, it was their own fault. This decision
rested, of course, on the special circumstances of the
case. It was argued with great ability by Serjeant
Wilde and Mr. Sugden, who received fees in this case to
an amount previously unknown to the Bar. It is
remarkable that Lord Lyndhurst sat on the appeal from
his own judgement and supported it; the fifth vote,
which decided the case, was that of Lord Devon, who had
never held a judicial office.]
March 25th, 1838 {p.081}
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S ATTACHMENT TO WILLIAM IV.]
Lady Cowper told me yesterday that the Queen said to Lord
Melbourne, 'the first thing which had convinced her he was worthy
of her confidence was his conduct in the disputes at Kensington
last year about her proposed allowance,' in which, though he knew
that the King's life was closing, he had taken his part. She
considered this to be a proof of his honesty and determination to
do what he thought right. Though she took no part, and never
declared herself, it is evident that she, in her heart, sided
with the King on that occasion. It is difficult to attribute to
timidity that command over herself and passive obedience which
she showed in her whole conduct up to the moment when she learnt
that she was Queen; and from that instant, as if inspired with
the genius and the spirit of Sixtus V., she at once asserted her
dignity and her will. She now evinces in all she does an
attachment to the memory of her uncle, and it is not to be
doubted that, in the disputes which took place between him and
her mother, her secret sympathies were with the King; and in that
celebrated scene at Windsor, when the King made so fierce an
attack upon the Duchess's advisers, and expressed his earnest
hope that he might live to see the majority of his niece,
Victoria must have inwardly rejoiced at the expression of
sentiments so accordant with her own. Her attentions and
cordiality to Queen Adelaide, her bounty and civility to the
King's children, and the disgrace of Conroy, amply prove what her
sentiments have all along been.
March 27th, 1838 {p.027}
[Page Head: WILKIE'S PICTURE OF THE FIRST COUNCIL.]
Went yesterday to sit to Wilkie for the picture of the Queen's
First Council. The likenesses are generally pretty good, but it
is a very unfaithful representation of what actually took place.
It was, of course, impossible to preserve all the details without
sacrificing the effect, but the picture has some glaring
improprieties, which diminish its interest, and deprive it of all
value as an historical piece. There were ninety-seven Privy
Councillors present on the occasion, and among them most of the
conspicuous men of the time. He has introduced as many figures as
he well could, but has made a strange selection, admitting very
ordinary men, such as Lord Burghersh and Lord Salisbury, while
Brougham and Stanley do not find places. He told me that great
anxiety prevailed to be put into this picture, and many pressing
applications had been made; and as only vain and silly men would
make them, and importunity generally prevails to a great extent,
it ends in the sacrifice of the picture by substituting these
undistinguished intruders in place of the celebrated persons who
are so much better entitled to be there. Then he has painted the
Lord Mayor of London and the Attorney-General, who, not being
Privy Councillors, could not be present when the Queen was
sitting in Council; but they both entreated to be put in the
picture, and each asserted that he was actually present.
Yesterday I remonstrated with Wilkie, who had no good reason to
give; indeed, none, except that they both _said_ they were
present, and that the Attorney had described to him what passed.
The fact was this: when the Lords assemble they order the Queen
to be proclaimed, and when the Proclamation is read the doors are
thrown open, and everybody is admitted. The Lord Mayor came in
together with several Common Councilmen and a multitude of other
persons. When this is over they are all obliged to retire, and I
called out from the head of the table that 'everybody except
Privy Councillors would have the goodness to retire.' It was
necessary to clear the room before Her Majesty could hold her
Privy Council. The people did retire, slowly and lingeringly, and
some time afterwards, espying the fur and scarlet of the Lord
Mayor, I requested somebody (I forget whom) to tell him he must
retire, and he did leave the room. Shortly after the Queen
entered, and the business of the Council commenced. The
impossibility of getting the summonses to two hundred and twenty
Privy Councillors conveyed in time caused the greatest
irregularity in the arrivals, and the door was continually opened
to admit fresh comers. In such a scene of bustle and confusion,
and in a room so crowded, it is extremely probable that the Lord
Mayor and the Attorney-General smuggled themselves back into the
apartment, and that they were (very improperly) spectators of
what passed; but that forms no reason why they should be
represented in an historical picture as actors in a ceremonial
with which they had, and could have, no concern. Wilkie was very
anxious to have Lord Conyngham in the picture, but both he and
Albert Conyngham decided that it would be improper, because not
only he was not present, but according to etiquette could not be
present, as it was his duty to remain in constant attendance upon
the body of the late King up to the moment of his breaking his
wand over his coffin.
Yesterday Brougham spoke for four hours and a half in the House
of Lords, upon the appeal of 'Small _v_. Attwood,' concurring
with the Chancellor in reversing Lyndhurst's judgement, and
evidently bent upon making a display of judicial eloquence which
should eclipse that of Lyndhurst himself. This judgement has made
a great sensation in the world, especially in the commercial
world. I met the Vice-Chancellor, who had come from the House of
Lords, and who told me of Brougham's speech, and the final
decree; he said he really knew nothing of the case, but from what
he heard he was inclined to believe the reversal was right.
Lyndhurst, however, persists in the correctness of his own
judgement.
March 30th, 1838 {p.083}
Lord Eliot's motion about Spain came to a ridiculous end on
Wednesday. When the debate was resumed at five o'clock very few
people were present; they were chattering and making a noise;
nobody heard the Speaker when he put the question; and so they
divided 72 to 60, the Ministers (or Minister, for none was
present but John Russell) not knowing on which side there would
be a majority. The Tories were very angry, and wanted to renew
the discussion in another form, but after a little wrangle this
project dropped. It was a foolish, useless motion, and deserved
no better end.
On Wednesday afternoon I found Downing Street thronged with rival
deputations of West Indians and Quakers, which had both been with
Melbourne. Out of Brougham's flaming speeches on Anti-slavery a
tempest has arisen, which threatens the West Indians with sudden
and unforeseen ruin in the shape of immediate emancipation.[20]
It is always easy to get up anti-slavery petitions and to excite
a benevolent indignation against slavery in any shape, and
Brougham has laid hold of this easy mode of inflaming the public
mind in his usual daring, unscrupulous, reckless style, pouring
forth a flood of eloquent falsehoods and misrepresentations which
he knows will be much more effective than any plain matter-of-
fact statements that can be urged on the other side. The West
Indians had no notion they were in any danger, and were reposing
under the shade of Government protection and in undoubting
reliance upon the inviolability of the great arrangement, when
they find themselves overtaken all at once with the new question
of immediate emancipation which has sprung up into instantaneous
life and strength. Their terror is accordingly great. They went
to Melbourne, who said he agreed with them, and that the
Government was determined to support them, and so they might tell
their people, but that he could not promise them to make it so
much a Government question as to resign if they were beat upon
it. The leaders of the Opposition equally took their part, but
the question is whether the tails will not beat the heads. I
never remember before to have seen any question on which so much
uncertainty prevailed as to individual votes. More than one half
the members of the House doubted, and probably are at this moment
doubting, how they shall vote. The petitions are innumerable, and
men are disposed to gratify their constituents by voting as they
please on this question, not caring a fig either for the slaves
or the West Indians, and reconciling it to their consciences to
despoil the latter by assuming that they were overpaid with the
twenty millions they got by the Emancipation Act.
[20] [Sir George Strickland moved, on the 30th of March, a
resolution in favour of the termination of negro
apprenticeship as established by the Emancipation Act
of 1834, on the 1st of August of the current year. The
motion was defeated by 269 to 205.]
April 2nd, 1838 {p.085}
[Page Head: BIRTHDAY REFLEXIONS.]
My birthday. Another year has stolen over me, and finds me, I
fear, little better or wiser than at the end of the last. How we
wince at our reflexions and still go on in the same courses! how
we resolve and break our resolutions! It is a common error to
wish we could recall the past and be young again, and swear what
things we would do if another opportunity was offered us. All
vanity, folly, and falsehood. We _should_ do just the same as
before, because we _do_ actually do the same; we linger over and
regret the past instead of setting manfully to work to improve
the future; we waste present time in vague and useless regrets,
and abandon ourselves to inaction in despair instead of gathering
up what yet remains of life, and finding a compensation, however
inadequate, in resolute industry for our losses. I wonder if
anybody has ever done this. Many after damaging their health have
become prudent and careful in restoring their shattered
constitutions; many more have been extravagant and careless, and
ended by being parsimonious and prudent, and so the first have
grown strong and the second rich; but has anybody thoroughly
wasted his time, frittered away his understanding, weakened the
powers of judgement and memory, and let his mind be bare and
empty as the shelves of an unfurnished bookcase, and afterwards
become diligent, thoughtful, reflective, a hater of idleness,
and, what is worse, of indolence, and habitually addicted to
worthy and useful pursuits? I do not think I can call to mind any
instance of such a reformation.
I went to Newmarket on Saturday. Mutable as this climate is, the
greatest variation I ever saw was between Friday and Sunday last.
On Friday S.W. wind, balmy air like June, and the trees beginning
to bud; on Sunday the ground was completely covered with snow,
not a particle of any colour but white to be seen, a bitter N.E.
wind, and so it continued till the sun melted away the thin coat
of snow, which disappeared as suddenly as if it had been swept
away.
The Ministers got a pretty good majority, all things considered,
on Friday. Gladstone made a first-rate speech in defence of the
planters, which places him in the front rank in the House of
Commons, so Fazakerly told me; he converted or determined many
adverse or doubtful votes, as did Sir George Grey the day before.
April 5th, 1838 {p.086}
Lord Charles Fitzroy, Vice-Chamberlain, who had voted against
Government on the Negro question, was turned out for his vote,
not angrily and violently, but it was signified to him that he
must go, and yesterday he came to Buckingham House, where there
was a Council, to resign his key. They could not do otherwise,
for Peel had sent a message to Lord John Russell to know whether
Government did mean in earnest to oppose this motion with all
their force and influence, because, if they did, he would support
them with as many of his friends as he could bring to their aid;
and the reply was that such was their intention. After this they
could not pass over such a vote in one of their own household.
[Page Head: VOTE ON LORD DURHAM'S EXPENSES.]
The night before last Government had the narrowest possible
escape of being beaten upon a motion of Lord Chandos's about Lord
Durham's expenses.[21] They carried it by two, and that only
because Lord Villiers (Durham's first cousin, and whose brother
is one of his aides-de-camp) stayed away, together with Dawson
Damer, from motives of personal friendship; Castlereagh, because
Durham and Londonderry are knit together by the closest of all
ties,--a community of _coal_ interest; and one of the Hopes,
because he is going with his regiment to Canada, and did not
choose to incur the personal animosity of the great man there:
but for these secessions the question would have been carried.
Durham would probably have refused to go, and it is not
impossible the Government might have resigned. Nobody expected
this close division, and the Secretary of the Treasury was
greatly to blame in not securing a larger attendance of the
Government people and guarding against all chances. However, in
these days a miss is as good as a mile, and such a division,
which in former times would have been fatal to a Government, does
not signify a straw, except as an additional exhibition of
weakness and proof of their precarious tenure of office.
Melbourne yesterday looked very grave upon it, and he had an
unusually long audience of the Queen before the Council.
Palmerston treated the matter with great levity. As generally
happens, there is much to blame in the conduct of all parties. In
the first place the Colonial Minister should have made some
arrangement upon his own responsibility, and not have produced
the ridiculous correspondence with Durham, and nobody ever before
heard of a Minister asking a Governor what establishment he
intended to have. Then Durham might as well have laid aside his
ostentation and grandeur, and have shown a determination to apply
himself manfully to the work entrusted to him without any desire
for pomp and expense. He would have gone out more effectively,
have acquired more reputation, and have avoided the odium and the
ridicule which now in no small degree attach to his mission. On
the other hand, the Opposition had no business to take the matter
up in this way. In such a momentous affair it is immaterial
whether there is a secretary more or less, and whether an
establishment, which is only to exist for one year, costs £2,000
or £3,000 more or less, and to declare that the sum actually
spent by Lord Gosford shall be the maximum of Lord Durham's
expenditure, is so manifestly absurd that it proves the pitiful
and spiteful spirit in which the motion was conceived. Suppose
they had succeeded, and that after such a vote Durham (as he well
might) had resigned the appointment. This must have been an
enormous embarrassment to the public service, incurred without
any object of commensurate importance. It is not the least
curious part of this matter that the Government were not at all
sorry that the question of Durham's expenses was mooted in the
House of Commons in order that his extravagance might be checked;
while the Opposition had no expectation, and probably no desire,
to carry a vote upon it against the Ministers.
[21] [Lord Chandos moved, on the 3rd of April, that the
expenditure on Lord Durham's mission should be limited
to £12,000, the sum allowed to Lord Gosford. The
resolution was rejected by 160 to 158 votes.]
April 8th, 1838 {p.088}
It would have been well for Durham if he had started for Canada
the day after he made his speech in the House of Lords, for he
made upon that occasion a very favourable impression, and the
world was disposed to praise the appointment. Since this his
manifestation of a desire for pomp and grandeur and an expensive
display has drawn ridicule and odium upon him. His temper has
been soured by the attacks both in Parliament and in the press;
he has been stung, goaded, and tormented by the diurnal articles
in the 'Times,' and he has now made himself obnoxious to
universal reproach and ridicule by an act which, trifling in
itself, exhibits an _animus_ the very reverse of that which is
required in the pacificator and legislator of Canada. He was
engaged to dine with Bingham Baring on Friday last, but in
consequence of his having voted in the minority the other night,
on Chandos's motion, Durham chose to construe this vote into a
personal offence towards himself, and sent an excuse saying that
'he had no alternative.' He wrote to Lady Harriet Baring a very
civil note, and conveyed his motive by implication, but quite
clearly. The note was, of course, handed about for the amusement
of the company, and the story, subsequently, for that of the
town.
April 12th, 1838 {p.088}
[Page Head: WOLFF THE MISSIONARY.]
Dined with Lord Anglesey yesterday, to meet Wolff, the
missionary. I had figured to myself a tall, gaunt, severe,
uncouth man; but I found a short, plump, cheerful person, with a
considerable resemblance to the Bonaparte family, and with some
to old Denon, with one of the most expressive countenances I ever
saw, and so agreeable as to compensate for very plain features;
eyes that become suddenly illuminated when he is warmed by his
subject, and a voice of peculiar sweetness and power of
intonation. He came prepared to hold forth, with his Bible in his
pocket, and accordingly after dinner we gathered round him in a
circle, and he held forth. It would be no easy matter to describe
a discourse which lasted a couple of hours, or indeed to say very
precisely what it was about. It was a rambling, desultory
reference to his travels and adventures in fluent and sometimes
eloquent language, and not without an occasional dash of humour
and drollery. He illustrated the truth of the Scriptures by
examples drawn from his personal observation and the habits,
expressions, and belief of the present inhabitants of Palestine,
and he spoke with evident sincerity and enthusiasm. He sang two
or three hymns as specimens of the psalmody now in use at
Jerusalem. The great fault of his discourse was its length and
desultory character, leaving no strong and permanent impression
on the mind. He subsequently gave us a second lecture upon the
Millennium, avowing his belief that it is near at hand; he 'hoped
and believed that it would take place in 1847,' and he proceeded
to show that this was to be inferred from the prophecies of
Daniel, and that the numbers in that book, rightly explained,
bore this meaning. He told us that he had learnt fourteen
languages, and had preached in nine.
May 7th, 1838 {p.089}
For three weeks past entirely engrossed by Newmarket, with the
same mixed feelings of disgust at the nature of the occupation,
and satisfaction at the success attending it. I won £2,000 by the
two weeks, and if I meet with no reverse am rapidly acquiring the
means of paying off my debts. Then I propose to live not for
myself alone (as I earnestly hope), but that I may feel the
desire of contributing to the enjoyments of others. I hope as I
become rich (and if I get out of debt I shall be rich) I may not
become grasping and avaricious, and acquire a taste for hoarding
money merely for hoarding's sake. When I see how insensibly, and
under what plausible pretexts, this passion steals upon others, I
tremble lest I should become a victim to it myself.
I know of nothing, in the world of politics. There has been much
foolish chatter about the Coronation, and whether there should be
a banquet or no; the Tories calling out for one because the Whig
Government have settled that there should not be any. The Duke of
Wellington, as usual, sensible, and above such nonsense; says it
will all do very well, and that the Palace of Westminster having
been destroyed by fire, a banquet and procession would not be
feasible, as there exist no apartments in which the arrangements
could be made. He rebuked his Tory Lords the other night when
they made a foolish attack on Melbourne about M'Hale signing
himself John _Tuam_. Every day he appears a greater man.
I have read hardly anything all this time but two reviews in the
'Edinburgh'--Brougham's most remarkable paper upon Lady Charlotte
Bury's book, the composition of which I saw with my own eyes; the
other is Stephen's review of Wilberforce's Life. Nothing can be
more admirable than the characters which Brougham has given of
the celebrated people of that day--George III., George IV.,
Eldon, Perceval, and others; and when I think of the manner in
which they were written, with what inconceivable rapidity, and in
the midst of what occupation--for his attention was perpetually
divided between what he was writing and what the counsel was
saying--it is an astonishing exhibition of facility and
fertility. Stephen's review is as good as possible in a very
different style, and his description of the end of Wilberforce's
life strikes me as singularly eloquent and pathetic.
CHAPTER III.
A Ball at the Palace--Aspect of Foreign Affairs--Irish Tithe
Bill--Debate on Sir T. Acland's Motion--Death of Prince
Talleyrand--Death and Character of Lady Harrowby--Government
defeated on Emancipation of Slaves--Dispute of Mr. Handley and
Lord Brougham--Dinner at Lambeth--Arrangement of Irish
Questions--Settlement of Irish Questions--O'Connell declines
the Rolls--Naval Intervention in Spain--Duke of Wellington's
Moderation--Marshal Soult arrives--Preparations for the
Coronation of Queen Victoria--The Wellington Statue--The
Coronation--Coleridge and John Sterling--Lord Durham's Mission
to Canada--Lord Brougham contrasted with the Duke--Macaulay on
his return from India--Soult in London--Duke of Sussex quarrels
with Ministers--Lord Burghersh's Opera--High Church Sermons--
Lord Palmerston and Mr. Urquhart--The Ecclesiastical Discipline
Bill--The Duke's Despatches--Macaulay's Plan of Life--Lord
Durham's Canada Ordinance--Mr. Barnes--Canada Indemnity Bill--
Lord Durham's Ordinance disallowed--Irish Corporation Bill--
Review of the Session.
May 11th, 1838 {p.91}
Last night I was at the ball at the Palace--a poor affair in
comparison with the Tuileries. Gallery ill-lit; rest of the rooms
tolerable. The Queen's manner and bearing perfect. She danced,
first with Prince George, then young Esterhazy, then Lord
FitzAlan. Before supper, and after dancing, she sat on a sofa
somewhat elevated in the drawing-room, looking at the waltzing;
she did not waltz herself. Her mother sat on one side of her, and
the Princess Augusta on the other; then the Duchesses of
Gloucester and Cambridge and the Princess of Cambridge; her
household, with their wands, standing all round; her manners
exceedingly graceful, and, blended with dignity and cordiality, a
simplicity and good humour, when she talks to people, which are
mighty captivating. When supper was announced she moved from her
seat, all her officers going before her--she, first, alone, and
the Royal Family following; her exceeding youth strikingly
contrasted with their mature ages, but she did it well. I was
struck last night for the first time with the great change in the
Duke of Wellington's looks; others have noted it before. He is no
longer so straight and upright, and old age is taking possession
of his features in a way that is distressing to see. He has lived
long enough for his own renown, but he cannot live long enough
for the good of his country, let what will happen and when it
may. It is a fine sight to regard the noble manner in which he is
playing the last act of his glorious life.
My brother writes me word from Paris that Leopold is deadly sick
of his Belgian crown, and impatient to abdicate, thinking that it
is a better thing to be an English Prince, uncle to the Queen,
with £50,000 a year, than to be monarch of a troublesome vulgar
little kingdom which all its neighbours regard with an evil or a
covetous eye. Louis Philippe is in a mighty fright about it, and
he is right, for Leopold's abdication would be almost sure to
disturb the peace of Europe. Stanley thinks the peace of Europe
will be disturbed, and that speedily, by the great antagonistic
forces of religion growing out of the Prussian disputes between
the Court of Berlin and the Archbishop of Cologne; this he told
me the other day, and said people were little aware of what a
religious storm was brewing; but his opinions are not to be
trusted very confidently, especially when religion is concerned
in them.
May 13th, 1838 {p.092}
[Page Head: THE APPROPRIATION CLAUSE MAINTAINED.]
The world was astonished by Sir Thomas Acland giving notice of a
motion, which comes on to-morrow, for expunging from the Journals
the famous Appropriation Resolution which turned out Peel's
Government.[1] It was doubted at first whether this was a spurt
of his own or a concerted project, but it turns out to have been
the latter. The Government think it a good thing for them, as
they count upon a certain majority, and I am quite unable to see
the use of such a motion as this, even as a party move. The Duke
of Wellington said, at the end of last Session, that he wished to
meet the Government half way, and settle the Tithe question, and
nothing can be less likely to promote an adjustment than this
attack; but I understand _now_ they do not wish to settle it, and
that they prefer trusting to the operation of Stanley's Bill, and
say there is no reason for accepting 75 per cent. for the clergy
when they can eventually get the whole. But they had better
settle the question if they possibly can, for experience might
have shown them that if the spirit of resistance and hostility to
the Church is again roused into action, the means of vexing and
impoverishing the clergy will not be wanting, and the provisions
of Stanley's Bill will only have the effect of making the
landlords parties to the contest, who, if they find their own
interests at variance with the interests of the Church, will not
hesitate for a moment in sacrificing the latter. It is very
surprising that Peel should consent to this motion, and the more
so because his speech at the dinner yesterday is said to have
been extremely moderate in all respects.
[1] [Upon Lord John Russell bringing in a Bill for settling
the Irish Tithe question, Sir Thomas Acland moved, as a
preliminary step to this discussion, that the
celebrated resolution of the 8th of April, 1835, for
the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish
Church should be rescinded. Upon a division the
Government proposal was carried by 317 to 298 votes.]
May 18th, 1838 {p.093}
At Newmarket all the week past. Since I have been away there was
the debate and division on Acland's motion. The Government talked
of 23, and the Opposition of 15 majority, and it turned just
between the two. It was a very ill-advised measure, and I have no
doubt was forced on Peel against his judgement, and that it was
not approved by the Duke; but the fact is, they cannot manage
their party. Peel's speech was anything but good, and smacked of
unwillingness; Stanley's was very poor; John Russell's was very
good in facts, but ill-judged in some respects, and it is neither
wise nor dignified, nor in good taste, to keep flinging at the
Bishop of Exeter as he does; Morpeth's was the best, brilliant
and effective. Peel said to him, when they were going out to
divide, 'I can appreciate a good speech when made against me as
well as when it is for me, and I must tell you that yours was the
best speech of the debate.' This was becoming and judicious, and
such courtesies soften the asperities of Parliamentary warfare.
The Government had much the best of the argument, and the Tories
contrived to afford them a triumph upon the Appropriation Clause,
and at the same time enabled them to shake it off (onerous and
inconvenient as it was) without further difficulty. There was
some ingenuity in doing this. I cannot help thinking Peel likes
to see his party defeated in this way. The Government think it
has been a very great thing for them, and no doubt it has done
them service. Peel's speech at the banquet was somewhat didactic,
and too much in the style of a political sermon; but it was very
good, full of excellent sense, couched in excellent language, but
it may be doubted if his moderation was palatable to the majority
of his hearers.[2]
[2] [A banquet was given to Sir R. Peel on the 12th of May,
in Merchant Taylors' Hall, by 300 Conservative members
of the House of Commons.]
May 23rd, 1838 {p.094}
[Page Head: DEATH OF TALLEYRAND.]
Talleyrand is dead. He died after a short illness some day last
week. It would require a nice discrimination of character and
intimate knowledge of the man to delineate his, a great deal more
of both than I possess, therefore I shall not attempt it. During
the period of his embassy in England I lived a good deal with
him, his house being always open to me, and I dined there _en
famille_ whenever I pleased. Nothing could be more hospitable,
nothing more urbane and kind than he was; and it was fine to see,
after his stormy youth and middle age, after a life spent in the
very tempest and whirlwind of political agitation, how tranquilly
and honourably his declining years ebbed away. Still retaining
his faculties unimpaired, and his memory stored with the
recollections of his extraordinary and eventful career, and an
inexhaustible mine of anecdotes, his delight was to narrate,
which he used to do with an abundance, a vivacity, and a
_finesse_ peculiar to himself, and to the highest degree
interesting and attractive. No name was once held in greater
detestation in England than that of Talleyrand. He was looked
upon universally as a sink of moral and political profligacy.
Born at the end of Louis XV.'s reign, and bred up in the social
pleasures and corruptions of that polite but vicious aristocracy,
he was distinguished in his early youth for his successful
gallantries, for the influence he obtained over women, and the
dexterity with which he converted it to his advancement. A
debauched abbé and bishop, one of the champions and then one of
the victims of the Revolution, afterwards (having scrambled
through the perilous period of Terrorism) discarding his clerical
character, he became the Minister of the Consulate and the
Empire, and was looked upon all over Europe as a man of
consummate ability, but totally destitute of principle in public
or in private life. Disgraced by Napoleon, he reappeared after
his fall, and was greatly concerned in the restoration of the
Bourbons. For a short time only employed, but always treated by
them with consideration and respect, the Revolution of July again
brought Talleyrand prominently on the stage, and, to the surprise
of all men, he accepted the embassy to London. The years he
passed here were probably the most peaceful of his life, and they
served to create for him a reputation altogether new, and such as
to cancel all former recollections. His age was venerable, his
society was delightful, and there was an exhibition of
conservative wisdom, 'of moderate and healing counsels,' in all
his thoughts, words, and actions very becoming to his age and
station, vastly influential from his sagacity and experience, and
which presented him to the eyes of men as a statesman like
Burleigh or Clarendon for prudence, temperance, and discretion.
Here therefore he acquired golden opinions, and was regarded by
all ranks and all parties with respect, and by many with sincere
regard. When he was attacked in the House of Lords the Duke of
Wellington rose in his defence, and rebuked the acrimony of his
own friends. Talleyrand was deeply affected at this behaviour of
the Duke. I regret much not having availed myself of the
opportunities I might have had to listen to and record the talk
of Talleyrand, but the fact is, he was so inarticulate, and I so
deaf, that the labour would have been greater than I could go
through for the object. The account which my brother has sent me
of the circumstances which preceded his death, and of his
reconciliation with the Church, are very curious.[3] He had
always desired to die at Valençay, in order to avoid the scandal
which he apprehended there might be in Paris from the severity of
the Archbishop, but it was contrived to get everything quietly
and decently settled, and he died in peace with the Church, and
with all the absolutions and benedictions that she could have
bestowed upon the most faithful of her sons.
[3] [These particulars are now published in the 'Leaves
from the Journals of Henry Greville,' selected by his
niece, the Viscountess Enfield.]
May 27th, 1838 {p.096}
[Page Head: CHARACTER OF LADY HARROWBY.]
Yesterday, at two o'clock, died, after a week's illness, of a low
bilious fever, Lady Harrowby,[4] the oldest and most intimate of
my friends, and the woman in the world for whom I had the
greatest respect and regard. My intercourse with her had been
much diminished for many years past; such changes take place in
our social habits without any cause except those which the lapse
of time, different pursuits, ties, and habits, bring about. There
is a melancholy satisfaction in dwelling upon the noble qualities
which death has extinguished, and the excellence of Lady Harrowby
demands a brief tribute of affection and admiration from those
who, having best known her virtues, have the greatest reason to
deplore, and are best able to appreciate, her loss. She had a
mind of masculine strength united with a heart of feminine
softness; for while she was resolute and determined, and had
firmness and courage to bear up against the heaviest afflictions,
she had no coldness or insensibility in her temperament, but was
endowed with the tenderest and warmest affections. She was not by
nature imaginative, but her understanding was excellent and
utterly devoid of lumber and affectation. She had the sound
practical sense of a vigorous and healthy mind, without a
particle of vanity or conceit; she never attempted to plunge out
of her depth, or to soar beyond the level of her comprehension
and her knowledge. Her conversation therefore was happily
described by an old and attached friend and very competent judge,
when he said of it that 'her talk was so _crisp._'[5] She had an
even flow of animal spirits, was never capricious or uncertain,
full of vivacity, with a constant but temperate enjoyment of
society; never fastidious or exclusive, tasting and appreciating
excellence without despising or slighting mediocrity; attentive,
affable, and obliging to all, and equally delighting all, because
her agreeableness was inseparable from her character, and was an
habitual and unceasing emanation from it, rather than the
exertion of a latent power only drawn forth by the attraction of
corresponding intellectual energies; perfectly natural both in
manner and character, honest, straightforward, sincere, and true,
but with a genuine benevolence which made her sensitively shrink
from the infliction of pain. Delivered altogether from 'envy,
hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness,' she was ever inclined
to extenuate the faults, to pardon the errors, and to put the
best construction on the motives of others; no mean jealousy ever
entered her mind, no repining at the prosperity, however
unmerited, of other people. She drew pleasure from the purest of
all sources, from the contemplation of the success, the
happiness, and the welfare of her friends and acquaintance. With
an exquisite tact, without the slightest appearance of art, frank
without severity, open without imprudence, always negligent of
self and considerate of others, all her thoughts, impulses, and
actions were regulated by the united influence of the highest
principles, the clearest judgement, and the kindliest feelings.
Thus blessed in her own happy disposition, she was a blessing to
all around her. She was the ornament and delight of society, the
comfort, support, and joy of her own family. The numerous friends
who admired and esteemed her will sincerely deplore her loss; the
world, in which she never made an enemy, will render its tribute
of justice to her merit in a transient but general expression of
regret; but to the grief of her children, the bitterness of which
time alone can assuage, time itself can afford but an imperfect
consolation, for so entirely was she associated with the
interests, the habits, and the pursuits of their existence, that
every passing day and hour will bring something to remind them of
the loss they have sustained. But although it has not been
permitted to them to see her days extended to the ordinary term
of human life, and to be engaged in the tender office of 'rocking
the cradle of her declining age,' for herself it is no unhappy or
unenviable lot to have closed a useful, an honourable, and a
prosperous career in the unimpaired possession of her faculties,
without mental disquietude or bodily pain, and surrounded by all
the dearest objects of her interest and her love.
[4] [Susan, Countess of Harrowby, daughter of Granville,
first Marquis of Stafford, and wife of Dudley Ryder,
first Earl of Harrowby, died the 26th of May, 1838.]
[5] Mr. Luttrell.
June 1st, 1838 {p.097}
Nothing has happened of any importance during the last week but
the defeat of Government upon the Slave question (Sir E. Wilmot's
motion for immediate emancipation), on Tuesday last, and this
happened by an accident. Nobody expected an early division, and
people were scattered all over the town. Ben Stanley[6] was
dining at the Hollands'. In the meantime Lord Stanley persuaded
Rice that it was better to have no debate, and that it was
neither necessary nor desirable that they should speak. Rice
acquiesced, and so they went to a division, but unfortunately
before a sufficient number of their people had arrived. It was
embarrassing, but Lord John Russell has taken measures to set the
matter right before the West Indian mail goes out. The
Abolitionists, however, are determined to do as much mischief as
they can, and though they know perfectly well that Government
(and Parliament, for the Tories are in the same intention) are
resolved not to consent to alter the law, and that the Bill for
protecting the apprentices is gone out, they are resolved to
agitate as violently as they can, and, if possible, to stir up
the negroes to insurrection. These men of peace would prefer a
violent commotion in the West Indies, attended with every sort of
mischief to the slaves as well as to the planters, rather than
abandon their own schemes and notions, in which there is much
more of vanity and the love of meddling than of benevolence and
charity. The whole conduct of Sir Eardley Wilmot, who is only the
organ of a party, proves this; for, though well aware he could
take no advantage of his resolution, and that if nothing was done
to correct the effect of it, a great deal of excitement would be
produced in the colony, he nevertheless tried to shirk the
question when asked by John Russell to say distinctly what he
meant to do, and showed that his only object was to create a
difficulty, whatever might be the consequences, and to exhibit
himself to the country as the successful asserter of a principle.
[6] [The Right Hon. Edward John Stanley, afterwards second
Lord Stanley of Alderley, then Secretary of the
Treasury. He was familiarly called 'Ben' Stanley by his
friends.]
[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM AND MR. HANDLEY.]
On Friday, at Exeter Hall, while engaged in the same cause,
Brougham got a severe rap on the knuckles from Mr. Handley--one
of those rebuffs to which, with all his talents, he exposes
himself, from his tricks and his violence, and, above all, his
want of truth. Brougham made a speech, in which he belaboured the
Ministry generally, and many of them by name, with his usual
acrimony. Handley, who had a resolution to move, said he
regretted to see the chairman prostitute the cause for which they
were assembled by making it the vehicle of abuse of the
Government, and thus venting his spite, disappointed ambition,
and mortified vanity; on which Brougham rose in a great rage, and
said he did not know who the gentleman was who, coming at the
eleventh hour, attacked him, who had been a labourer in the cause
for thirty years; to which the other retorted that he did not
know what he meant by his coming at the eleventh hour, that he
had been for many years in Parliament, and had voted against the
grant of twenty millions, and for immediate emancipation, in
opposition to the apprenticeship system, both of which Brougham
had been a party to proposing.
I dined yesterday at Lambeth, at the Archbishop's public dinner,
the handsomest entertainment I ever saw. There were nearly a
hundred people present, all full-dressed or in uniform. Nothing
can be more dignified and splendid than the whole arrangement,
and the dinner was well served and very good. The Archbishop is a
very meek and quiet man, not dignified, but very civil and
attentive. It is excessively well worth seeing.[7]
[7] [These archiepiscopal dinners were public: anyone could
go who thought proper to put down his name, which, of
course, nobody did without some claim to be there. The
practice ended with Archbishop Howley.]
On Friday night the Bishop of Norwich (Stanley) stood up and
fought the Bishop of Exeter, in the House of Lords, with great
success, upon the Irish education question.
June 3rd, 1838 {p.100}
[Page Head: IRISH CORPORATIONS.]
On Tuesday last all was harmony in the House of Commons. Peel
made a speech, in which he announced his disposition to come to a
compromise, and settle all the Irish questions. Lord John
answered in a corresponding strain of conciliation, and it was
generally understood that everything should be quietly settled,
not, however, to the satisfaction of the Tory tail, much growling
being heard, both in the newspapers and among the low retainers
of the party. (Stanley told somebody, who told me, that he
thought this the best speech he ever heard Peel make.) But on
Friday night this serene sky was overcast with clouds, and all is
thrown into doubt and difficulty again. They are quarrelling
about the qualification, and angry words were bandied about.[8]
O'Connell and Sheil were abusive, though Peel and Lord John both
kept their tempers. It is supposed that the Tory party have been
so urgent, that Peel is obliged to take up this ground. When they
have gone so far towards a settlement, it is probable that some
mode will be hit upon for arranging the difficulty. The mob of
Tories would be rejoiced to see everything fall to the ground.
'Thank God,' said one the other night, after the renewal of
hostilities, 'there is an end of compromise.' I am disposed on
the whole (but very imperfectly informed) to think that John
Russell is right and Peel wrong, and that the former has made all
the concessions that ought to be required of him and that he can
afford to make.
[8] [The measure before the House was the Irish Municipal
Corporation Bill.]
June 7th, 1838 {p.101}
Walked with Mulgrave[9] (whom I met at Brooks's), and asked him
to tell me candidly who was in the right about the qualification,
John Russell or Peel? He said, 'talking openly to you, I don't
mind saying both are a little in the wrong; but the fact is, the
other party do not know what would be the practical effect of the
qualification they require, and when that is made clear to them,
in Dublin particularly' (and he mentioned some numbers and
details I don't exactly recollect), 'I think they will see the
necessity of altering their opinions.' He then talked of the
political effect of settling these questions as clearing away the
obstacles which now stand in Peel's way, and said he thought it
would eventually end in some sort of amalgamation of parties.
This I was surprised to hear from him, and told him that it
appeared to me quite impossible. But it is clear enough that it
is the intention of the Government, at all events, to settle the
questions, and if the Opposition will not give way, they will.
They are quite right, for it is a great thing to get the
principle admitted and to have corporations established; and if
upon trial it is found that there is an undue preponderance cast
into either scale, it will be good ground for proposing an
alteration of the law.
[9] [Lord Mulgrave, afterwards Marquis of Normanby, was at
this time Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.]
June 16th, 1838 {p.101}
At Hillingdon, for Ascot races, from Tuesday to Friday. A great
concourse of people on Thursday; the Queen tolerably received;
some shouting, not a great deal, and few hats taken off. This
mark of respect has quite gone out of use, and neither her
station nor her sex procures it; we are not the nearer a
revolution for this, but it is ugly. All the world went on to the
Royal Stand, and Her Majesty was very gracious and civil,
speaking to everybody.
June 21st, 1838 {p.101}
O'Connell has declined the Irish Rolls (Mastership of the Rolls).
He says that it has been the object of his ambition all his life,
but that at this moment he cannot accept it; that the moderate
course which the Government is pursuing (the abandonment of the
Appropriation Clauses &c.) and his support of that course have
already given great umbrage to the violent party in Ireland, and
his acceptance of office would be considered as the result of a
bargain by which he had bartered the principles he has always
maintained in order to obtain this place; that his influence
would be entirely lost; a ferment produced in Ireland which he
would be unable to suppress, and the Government would be placed
in great difficulty. He therefore thinks himself bound to refuse
the Rolls, and to continue to exert his influence to keep matters
quiet, and enable the Government to accomplish the settlement of
the pending questions, hoping that at some future time an
opportunity may occur of raising him to the Bench, of which he
may be able to avail himself. Lord Tavistock, who told me this,
says no one could behave better than he has done about it, and he
gives him credit (as the whole party do) for sincerity and purity
of motive. Taking his recent conduct generally in connexion, with
this refusal, I am disposed to believe that his motives are good,
and that he is really desirous of aiding in the compromise which
is about to take place, and promoting the great work of Irish
pacification, not probably without some personal views and
objects; and if the present Government remains in, his present
act of self-denial will be 'reculer pour mieux sauter,' and find
its reward in the Chief Justiceship whenever Lord Chief Justice
Bush retires, of which there is already a question.
The debate in the House of Lords the night before last, on
Londonderry's Spanish motion, elicited from Lord Minto a curious
fact (that is, the fact was asserted and not denied) that orders
had been sent from hence to our ships of war to prevent by force
any aid being given to Don Carlos by the ships of other nations,
and that a Sardinian frigate had actually been forcibly
prevented. It has made a great sensation here among the
diplomatists.
Another thing much talked of is the speech which Lord Anglesey
made at the Waterloo dinner when he gave the Duke's health. He
said that
'it was superfluous to talk of his military achievements,
but that he must express his admiration of his conduct in
civil matters, especially in the House of Lords during
the present session, when he had shown how superior he
was to all party considerations and purposes, and when he
had given his support to a Government in which it was
well known he placed no confidence, because he thought
that the national honour and interest required that they
should be supported.'
Of course, a speech reported at second or third hand is not very
correctly given, but this was the gist of it, extremely well done
by all accounts, not perhaps palatable to all who heard him, but
which gave great pleasure to the Duke himself. Anglesey said that
the Duke, when he sat down, squeezed his hand hard and long, and
said to him, 'I cannot tell you what pleasure you have given me.'
The Queen sent the Duke a gracious message, desiring he would
bring the whole of his party to her ball, which gratified him
very much, and he wrote a very grateful and respectful answer.
The French were exceedingly annoyed at the ball being given on
that particular night (the 18th), and begged to be excused from
attending, not angrily however. It was unfortunate that this day
was chosen for the ball, but it was accidental, and not intended
as a celebration.
[Page Head: MARSHAL SOULT IN LONDON.]
Soult arrived yesterday.[10] Croker meets him with an offensive
article in the 'Quarterly,' brought out on purpose, and emanating
from his spiteful and malignant temper, just the reverse of the
Duke, who has made Gurwood keep back the eleventh volume of the
Despatches, in which the battle of Toulouse appears, because some
of the details are calculated to be annoying to Soult--a piece of
delicacy which is very becoming. It is a sad thing to see how the
Duke is altered in appearance, and what a stride old age has made
upon him. He is much deafer than he was, he is whiter, his head
is bent, his shoulders are raised, and there are muscular
twitches in his face, not altogether new, but of a more marked
character.
[10] [The preparations for the Coronation of Her Majesty
Queen Victoria, were now actively going on. Marshal
Soult arrived in London as the Ambassador Extraordinary
of the King of the French, and was received with the
highest distinction and respect, to which Mr. Croker's
article in the 'Quarterly Review' on the battle of
Toulouse was the solitary and disgraceful exception.]
June 24th, 1838 {p.104}
Lord Anglesey gave me his speech at the Waterloo dinner to read,
and very good it is.[11] I wanted him to let me send it to the
'Times,' and he told me I might do as I liked. I resolved to
consult Tavistock, who was (on the whole) against publishing, for
fear it should be displeasing to the Duke, so I give up the idea.
What he said about the Duke was this, after alluding to his
military glory &c.:--
'But there is a subject on which I wish to say a word,
and it shall be only a word. I allude to the noble, the
generous, the disinterested, the truly patriotic conduct
of the noble Duke in his Parliamentary course. At the
opening of the session the country was involved in
difficulty, and under very considerable embarrassment;
the spirit of faction had crossed the Atlantic; the demon
of discord was abroad; one of the most favoured and
interesting of our colonies was in revolt. The noble Duke
saw this, and seemed at once to decide that it would
require all the energies of the mother country to crush
the Hydra at its birth. Accordingly, when any measure was
brought forward tending to support the dignity, to uphold
the honour, and to secure the integrity of the empire,
the noble Duke invariably came forward and nobly
supported those measures. But the noble Duke did not stop
there: spurning the miserable practices of party spirit,
he upon many occasions offered his sage and solid counsel
to a Government which he had not been in the habit of
supporting. Gentlemen, I declare to you that this conduct
has made a deep impression on me. It appears to me that
this is the true character and conduct of a real patriot;
such conduct is, in my estimation, beyond all praise.'
[11] The impression which Lord Anglesey's speech made was
not such as his own report of it was calculated to
make. A word makes a difference, and he was supposed to
have said that the Duke had 'separated' himself from
faction, which implied censure on others and made it a
_political speech_, and though Anglesey says the Duke
was so pleased, Gurwood told me that in reply he merely
said 'He believed every man present would have done, in
his place, what he had done,' and he afterwards asked
Gurwood if he had said anything in his reply that could
_annoy_ Lord Anglesey, which looks as if he was not so
highly pleased as the former supposed him to be.
Gurwood said, 'We were all on thorns when he talked of
faction, and the Duke replied, "Poor man, he was
suffering very much, and he is not used to public
speaking, so that he did not know what he was saying."'
If Anglesey could hear this!
June 27th, 1838 {p.105}
[Page Head: PREPARATIONS FOR THE CORONATION.]
There never was anything seen like the state of this town; it is
as if the population had been on a sudden quintupled; the uproar,
the confusion, the crowd, the noise, are indescribable. Horsemen,
footmen, carriages squeezed, jammed, intermingled, the pavement
blocked up with timbers, hammering and knocking, and falling
fragments stunning the ears and threatening the head; not a mob
here and there, but the town all mob, thronging, bustling,
gaping, and gazing at everything, at anything, or at nothing; the
park one vast encampment, with banners floating on the tops of
the tents, and still the roads are covered, the railroads loaded
with arriving multitudes. From one end of the route of the Royal
procession to the other, from the top of Piccadilly to
Westminster Abbey, there is a vast line of scaffolding; the
noise, the movement, the restlessness are incessant and
universal; in short, it is very curious, but uncommonly tiresome,
and the sooner it is over the better. There has been a grand
bother about the Ambassadors forming part of the Royal
Procession. They all detest it, think they ought not to have been
called upon to assist, and the poor representatives of the
smaller Courts do not at all fancy the expense of fine equipages,
or the mortification of exhibiting mean ones. This arrangement
was matter of negotiation for several days, and (the Lord knows
why) the Government pertinaciously insisted on it. Public opinion
has declared against it, and now they begin to see that they have
done a very foolish thing, odious to the Corps Diplomatique and
unpleasing to the people.
The Duke and Soult have met here with great mutual civilities,
and it is very generally known that the former did everything he
could to stop the appearance of Croker's article. Gurwood told me
that he begged the Duke to write to Croker and request he would
keep it back. The Duke said, 'I will write because you wish it,
but I tell you that he won't do it. When a man's vanity or his
interest is concerned he minds nobody, and _he_ thinks himself a
cleverer fellow than anybody.' The Duke knew his man, for he
flatly refused, and intimated that though the Duke might be a
better judge of military matters, he (Croker) was the best of
literary.
A great squabble is going on about the Wellington memorial,[12]
in which I have so far been concerned that Lord Tavistock got me
to write the requisition to the Duke of Rutland to call another
meeting of the committee, to reconsider the question of the
selection of the artist. It is a gross job of Sir Frederic
Trench's, and has been so from the beginning, the Duke being a
mere cat's-paw of that impudent Irish pretender. The Duke of
Wellington himself thinks it a great job, and would be very glad
to see it defeated; but he said that 'his lips were sealed, he
could take no part, the Duke of Rutland had been so personally
kind to him, but that it was the damnedest job from the
beginning.'
[12] [This refers to the subscription for a memorial to the
Duke of Wellington, which led eventually to the strange
erection of the equestrian statue of the Duke, placed
_upon_ the arch at the top of Constitution Hill and in
front of Apsley House. Sir Frederic Trench took an
active part in the promotion of the affair, in the
selection of Wyatt for the artist, and finally in the
placing of the statue, which appeared to most people
who knew all the facts at the time, to be a scandalous
job and an enormous absurdity. In the year 1883 the
arch was moved from its former position and the statue
taken down, to be transported to the camp at Aldershot
and erected there.]
June 29th, 1838 {p.106}
[Page Head: THE CORONATION.]
The Coronation (which, thank God, is over) went off very well.
The day was fine, without heat or rain--the innumerable multitude
which thronged the streets orderly and satisfied. The appearance
of the Abbey was beautiful, particularly the benches of the
Peeresses, who were blazing with diamonds. The entry of Soult was
striking. He was saluted with a murmur of curiosity and applause
as he passed through the nave, and nearly the same, as he
advanced along the choir. His appearance is that of a veteran
warrior, and he walked alone, with his numerous suite following
at a respectful distance, preceded by heralds and ushers, who
received him with marked attention, more certainly than any of
the other Ambassadors. The Queen looked very diminutive, and the
effect of the procession itself was spoilt by being too crowded;
there was not interval enough between the Queen and the Lords and
others going before her. The Bishop of London (Blomfield)
preached a very good sermon. The different actors in the
ceremonial were very imperfect in their parts, and had neglected
to rehearse them. Lord John Thynne, who officiated for the Dean
of Westminster, told me that nobody knew what was to be done
except the Archbishop and himself (who had rehearsed), Lord
Willoughby (who is experienced in these matters), and the Duke of
Wellington, and consequently there was a continual difficulty and
embarrassment, and the Queen never knew what she was to do next.
They made her leave her chair and enter into St. Edward's Chapel
before the prayers were concluded, much to the discomfiture of
the Archbishop. She said to John Thynne, 'Pray tell me what I am
to do, for they don't know;' and at the end, when the orb was put
into her hand, she said to him, 'What am I to do with it?' 'Your
Majesty is to carry it, if you please, in your hand.' 'Am I?' she
said; 'it is very heavy.' The ruby ring was made for her little
finger instead of the fourth, on which the rubric prescribes that
it should be put. When the Archbishop was to put it on, she
extended the former, but he said it must be on the latter. She
said it was too small, and she could not get it on. He said it
was right to put it there, and, as he insisted, she yielded, but
had first to take off her other rings, and then this was forced
on, but it hurt her very much, and as soon as the ceremony was
over she was obliged to bathe her finger in iced water in order
to get it off. The noise and confusion were very great when the
medals were thrown about by Lord Surrey, everybody scrambling
with all their might and main to get them, and none more
vigorously than the Maids of Honour. There was a great
demonstration of applause when the Duke of Wellington did homage.
Lord Rolle, who is between eighty and ninety, fell down as he was
getting up the steps of the throne. Her first impulse was to
rise, and when afterwards he came again to do homage she said,
'May I not get up and meet him?' and then rose from the throne
and advanced down one or two of the steps to prevent his coming
up, an act of graciousness and kindness which made a great
sensation.[13] It is, in fact, the remarkable union of _naïveté_,
kindness, nature, good nature, with propriety and dignity, which
makes her so admirable and so endearing to those about her, as
she certainly is. I have been repeatedly told that they are all
warmly attached to her, but that all feel the impossibility of
for a moment losing sight of the respect which they owe her. She
never ceases to be a Queen, but is always the most charming,
cheerful, obliging, unaffected Queen in the world. The procession
was very handsome, and the Extraordinary Ambassadors produced
some gorgeous equipages. This sort of procession is incomparably
better than the old ceremonial which so much fuss was made about,
for the banquet would only have benefited the privileged few and
the rich, and for one person who would have witnessed the
procession on the platform five hundred enjoyed a sight of this.
In fact, the thing best worth seeing was the town itself, and the
countless multitudes through which the procession passed. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer told me that he had been informed
£200,000 had been paid for seats alone, and the number of people
who have flocked into London has been estimated at five hundred
thousand. It is said that a million have had a sight of the show
in one way or another. These numbers are possibly exaggerated,
but they really were prodigious. From Buckingham Palace to
Westminster Abbey, by the way they took, which must be two or
three miles in length, there was a dense mass of people; the
seats and benches were all full, every window was occupied, the
roofs of the houses were covered with spectators, for the most
part well dressed, and, from the great space through which they
were distributed, there was no extraordinary pressure, and
consequently no room for violence or ill-humour. In the evening I
met Prince Esterhazy, and asked him what the foreigners said. He
replied that they admired it all very much: 'Strogonoff and the
others don't like you, but they feel it, and it makes a great
impression on them; in fact, nothing can be seen like it in any
other country.' I went into the park, where the fair was going
on; a vast multitude, but all of the lower orders; not very
amusing. The great merit of this Coronation is, that so much has
been done for the people: to amuse and interest _them_ seems to
have been the principal object.
[13] She sent in the evening to inquire after Lord Rolle.
July 1st, 1838 {p.109}
[Page Head: COLERIDGE AND JOHN STERLING.]
This morning hit upon this stanza in Coleridge's 'Ode to
Tranquillity':--
'Who late and lingering seeks thy shrine
On him but seldom, power divine,
Thy spirit rests! Satiety
And sloth, poor counterfeits of thee,
Mock the tired worldling. Idle hope
And dire remembrance interlope
To vex the feverish slumbers of the mind:
The bubble floats before, the spectre stalks behind.'
My own thoughts about myself. Mr. Sterling, whom I met at dinner
the other day (son of Sterling, of the 'Times'[14]), said that
Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, and Keats were all greater poets
than Dryden, that they had all finer imaginations. He compared
'The Vision of Kubla Khan' to 'Lycidas' for harmony of
versification!!
[14] [This was Mr. John Sterling, whose life has been
written by Thomas Carlyle, and again by Julius Hare,
though it was a short and uneventful one. Few men left
a deeper mark upon his own contemporaries, not less by
the grace and purity of his character than by the
vigour of his intellect. It is hard to think that of so
bright a promise of life and thought so little remains
after him. Sterling was sometimes paradoxical, and he
worshipped Coleridge, which may account for the
incident related in the text.]
July 3rd, 1838 {p.109}
I was at the ball at Court last night to which hundreds would
have given hundreds to go, and from which I would have gladly
stayed away: all was very brilliant and very tiresome.
July 4th, 1838 {p.109}
A great exposure of Durham in the House of Lords on Monday
night,[15] Brougham chuckling over it yesterday morning. The
impression left by Melbourne's speech was, that Durham had
actually assured him he had no intention of appointing Turton,
and it was either so, or Melbourne had desired him not to do so,
and he went off without sending any answer. The former discussion
about Turton took place while Durham was at Portsmouth.
Everything blows over, so probably this will, but it is
calculated to produce a very bad effect both here and in Canada,
and to deprive Durham of all the weight which would attach to him
from the notion of his being trusted and trustworthy; besides,
the bitter mortification to his pride (by receiving this rap on
the knuckles at the outset of his career) will sour his temper
and impair his judgement. Brougham says that if he finds his
difficulties great and his position disagreeable, he will avail
himself of Melbourne's speech and resign. It is universally
thought that he must send Turton home whatever he may do himself.
[15] [Lord Durham took with him to Canada, on his staff,
besides Mr. Charles Buller (an unexceptionable
appointment), Mr. Turton, of the Calcutta Bar, and Mr.
Edward Gibbon Wakefield, gentlemen against whose
private character much had been not unjustly said. Some
of these appointments were strongly objected to in
Parliament.]
July 8th, 1838 {p.110}
Lord Duncannon told me yesterday that Melbourne went to Lord
Durham when he heard he was going to take out Turton, and told
him that the odium of such an appointment would be so great that
it was impossible he could consent to it, and it must not take
place. Durham sulked over it for two days, but finally
acquiesced, and engaged that Turton should only go out as his
private friend. Duncannon added that Durham was much mistaken if
he thought Melbourne would endure this disobedience and breach of
engagement. Durham had made his entry into Quebec on a white
long-tailed charger, in a full general's uniform, surrounded by
his staff, and the first thing he did was to appoint Sir John
Doratt (his doctor, whom he had got knighted before he went)
Inspector-General of Hospitals, superseding all the people there.
July 14th, 1838 {p.110}
[Page Head: THE NAVAL INSTRUCTIONS.]
At Newmarket all this past week. Nothing of consequence occurred
here except the debate in the House of Lords upon Brougham's
motion for the production of naval instructions about Sardinian
ships, which was only lost by the numbers being equal. The Duke
of Wellington, according to his custom, refused to be factious,
and when Melbourne said that it would be highly inconvenient to
produce any instructions, he declared against the motion and left
the House. Brougham was furious, and many of the high Tories
greatly provoked. Brougham said, 'Westminster Abbey is yawning
for him.' Ellenborough, Mansfield, and Harewood stayed and voted,
Aberdeen went away. After all their fury, however, the Tories are
beginning (as I was told last night) to come to their senses. The
Duke was quite in the right; there is no doubt that some very
unwise and improper instructions have issued from the Admiralty,
and their purport has got abroad by the indiscretion of somebody,
but we only know, or rather suspect from public rumour, that such
is the case; they have never been acted upon if they do exist; no
overt act has been done, and the production of this document
might be attended with very seriously inconvenient consequences.
Brougham cares for nothing but the pleasure of worrying and
embarrassing the Ministers, whom he detests with an intense
hatred; and the Tories, who are bitter and spiteful, and hate
them merely as Ministers and as occupants of the places they
covet, and not as men, are provoked to death at being baulked in
the occasion that seemed to present itself of putting them into a
difficulty. The Duke, whose thoughts are steadily directed to the
public good, and to that alone, will lend himself to no such
vexatious purposes; he looks at the position of the Government in
relation with foreign powers, and deals with it as a national and
not as a party question. It is in this spirit that he constantly
and inflexibly acts, though not failing to give Ministers a
pretty sharp lecture every now and then. His forbearance has
annoyed his own supporters to such a degree that they keep up a
continual under-growl, and are always lamenting the decay of his
faculties, and if they dared and knew how, they would gladly
substitute some other leader for him. The 'ardor prava jubentium'
has, however, no effect whatever on him: it neither ruffles his
serenity nor shakes his purpose. The Whigs laud him to the skies,
which provokes the Tories all the more, nor does their praise
spring in all probability from a purer or more unselfish source
than the complaints of their adversaries, for they are more
rejoiced at finding so often this plank of safety than struck
with admiration at his magnanimity. Wise, moderate, and impartial
men of all parties view the Duke's conduct in its true light, and
render him that justice the full measure of which it is reserved
for history and posterity to pay. No greater contrast can be
displayed than between the minds of the Duke of Wellington and
Brougham. It is a curious and an interesting study to examine and
compare their powers, faculties, attainments, the moral and
intellectual constitutions of the men, their respective careers,
their results, and the judgement of the world upon them.
Yesterday morning I met Macaulay,[16] and walked with him for
some time. He talked of the necessity of a coalition between the
Parliamentary leaders, which might be effected, provided they
would lay aside personal feelings and jealousies; that Lyndhurst
might be the greatest obstacle; he thought a strong Government
ought to be formed, one that should not live as this does from
hand to mouth, and by no means but by a coalition could this be
effected. The Radicals, he said, were clearly extinct, being
reduced, as far as he could learn, 'to Grote and his wife;' that
he had not been prepared for the tranquillity and contentment
that he found on his return to England; that he was as great a
Radical as anybody, that is, that if ever the voice of the nation
should be as clearly and universally pronounced for reform of the
House of Lords, or any other great change, as it had been for the
Reform Bill, he should be for it too, but that now he did not
think it worth while to give such projects a thought, and it no
more occurred to him to entertain them in this country than it
would to advocate the establishment of a representative
government in Turkey, or a monarchy and hereditary peerage in
America. I told him that I did not see how a coalition was
feasible, or how conflicting pretensions could be adjusted. He
said it seemed to be a matter of course that Peel must lead the
House of Commons. I said that the other alternative the
Government had was to get rid of some of its lumber, and take in
him, Morpeth, and Sir George Grey, and so present a more
respectable front--to which he said nothing.
[16] [Mr. Macaulay returned to England from his official
residence in India, in June 1838.]
[Page Head: THE RECEPTION OF MARSHAL SOULT.]
It is really curious to see the manner in which Soult has been
received here, not only with every sort of attention and respect
by persons in the most respectable ranks in life, members of all
the great trading and commercial bodies, but with enthusiasm by
the common people; they flock about him, cheer him vociferously,
and at the review in the park he was obliged to abandon both his
hands to be shaken by those around him. The old soldier is
touched to the quick at this generous reception, and has given
utterance to his gratitude and his sensibility on several
occasions in very apt terms. It is creditable to John Bull, but I
am at a loss to understand why he is so desperately fond of
Soult; but Johnny is a gentleman who generally does things in
excess, and seldom anything by halves. In the present instance it
is a very good thing, and must be taken as a national compliment
and as evidence of national goodwill towards France, which cannot
fail to make a corresponding impression in that country. But the
French will not meet us cordially and frankly and with an equally
amicable spirit; they are not such good fellows as the English;
they have more vanity and jealousy, and are not so hearty; still
it will not be without effect.
July 18th, 1838 {p.113}
[Page Head: CLAIM OF THE DUKE OF SUSSEX.]
The Duke of Sussex has quarrelled with the Government on account
of their refusal to apply to Parliament for an increased
allowance, and his partisans are very angry with Melbourne, and
talk of withdrawing their support. The Duke began by requesting
Melbourne to bring the matter before the Cabinet, which he did,
and the result was that they informed his Royal Highness it could
not be done. He was very angry, and the rest of the Royal family
(glad to make bad blood between him and the Whigs) fomented his
discontent. The Duke of Cambridge went to Melbourne and begged
that he might not stand in the way of his brother's wishes, from
its being supposed that if they were complied with, his own
claims could likewise be urged. The Duke, finding he could do
nothing with the Government, determined to do what he could for
himself, and began to canvass and exert all the influence he
possessed among Members of Parliament, and (as he thought) with
such success, that he counted upon 250 votes in his favour. He
then employed Mr. Gillon to move the matter in the House of
Commons, having previously conveyed to Melbourne his intention to
do what he could for himself, but not making any communication to
Lord John Russell, and directing his confidants to conceal from
him what it was intended to do. Accordingly John Russell paid
very little attention to the motion of Mr. Gillon, which he saw
entered on the Order Book, and when it came on, he opposed it.
Peel pronounced a very warm eulogium upon John Russell's conduct,
and the motion was rejected by ninety to forty, the Duke's
anticipated supporters having dwindled away to that paltry
number. Bitter was his mortification and violent his resentment
at this result. He wrote an angry letter to John Russell, to
which John sent a temperate and respectful reply, but his Royal
Highness has since informed Melbourne that he shall withdraw his
support from the Government, and the Duke of Cleveland has
likewise given notice that the conduct of Government to the Duke
'makes the whole difference' in his disposition to support them.
The Duke's friends generally have expressed so much
dissatisfaction, that it is matter of considerable embarrassment
and annoyance to the Government, and if this was to be carried to
the length of opposition, or even neutrality, it might be
productive of serious consequences, weak as they are. But as this
session is about to close, means will probably be found of
pacifying them before the opening of the next. Much of the
mischief has arisen from the want of communication and
understanding between the parties. It seems strange that Lord
John Russell should have been ignorant of the Duke's intentions
when Melbourne had been apprised of them, and the latter ought to
have imparted to the former all he had learnt with regard to
them. Lord John Russell says that they seldom communicate except
with regard to matters which come before the Cabinet, and that if
he had learnt that Lord Radnor or any other peer was going to
make some such motion in the House of Lords, he should not have
thought of speaking to Melbourne about it, each managing his
matters in his own way in the House to which he belongs. But
though he makes this excuse for Melbourne, it was great _laches_
in the latter, after what had passed, not to tell Lord John what
was in preparation, when some communication with the Duke's
friends might have prevented the discussion. On the other hand,
it was very bad policy in the Duke not to be more open with the
leader of the House of Commons and to attempt to carry his object
by force. But he had buoyed himself up with the notion that his
popularity was so great that there would be a Parliamentary
demonstration in his favour sufficient to compel the Ministers to
yield, and he now sees how much he overrated it, and
miscalculated the support he fancied he had secured. What he
complains of with the greatest bitterness is the conduct of Lord
Howick in having asked Mr. Hawes to oppose this grant: 'that the
son of the man whose administration I made only a few years ago
should have canvassed others to oppose me is the deepest wound
that ever was inflicted on me.' He fancies (it seems) that _he
made_ Lord Grey's administration!
The Duke has some sort of claim, under all the circumstances.
When King William came to the throne, he told him he was anxious
to do what he could for him, and would therefore give him the
best thing at his disposal, the Rangership of Windsor Park,
£4,000 a year; but immediately after came Lord Grey's economical
reforms, which swept this away. The King then gave him Bushey;
but it was found necessary to settle a jointure house on the
Queen Dowager and Bushey was taken from him for this purpose. At
last they gave him the Rangership of Hyde Park, and he had
actually drawn for the first quarter's salary, when the salary
was done away with, so that he has been three times disappointed,
and he really is over head and ears in debt. It is now more
difficult than ever to do anything for him, because all parties
are committed, and there is a vote of the House of Commons
recorded against the grant. In his dudgeon, he talks of
withdrawing from politics, and of selling by public auction all
his personal property, library included.
July 23rd, 1838 {p.116}
I went the other night (Friday) to Burghersh's[17] opera at
Braham's theatre. A vast deal of fine company, and prodigious
applause; tolerable music, moderately sung, but a favourable
audience. When it was over they insisted upon his appearing, and,
after some delay, he thrust his head out from an obscure pit-box
in which he had been sitting and bowed and smiled; but this was
not enough, and they would have him on the stage; so a great
clapping and shouting went on, among the most vociferous being
the Duke of Wellington, who enjoyed the fun like a boy, laughing
and beckoning to Burghersh, and bawling 'Maestro! Maestro!' till
at last, vanquished by the enthusiasm of the audience and the
encouragement of his friends, he appeared at a corner of the
stage; then came a shower of bouquets, which were picked up by
Mrs. Bishop and the other women and presented to him, and so
ended the triumphant night.
[17] [John, Lord Burghersh, afterwards eleventh Earl of
Westmoreland, served in the army with distinction, and
afterwards in the diplomatic service of the Crown. He
was devotedly fond of music, and composed both for the
orchestra and the stage, not without success. He died
in 1859.]
July 24th, 1838 {p.116}
[Page Head: MR. HOOK'S SERMON.]
High Church has been recently reading lectures to Her Majesty the
Queen in the shape of two sermons preached at the Chapel Royal by
Mr. Perceval and Mr. Hook.[18] The Bishop of London was cognizant
of Mr. Perceval's intention, and he preached himself for several
Sundays, probably for the purpose of keeping him out of the
pulpit; but, the Bishop having had a fall from his horse and
broken his collar-bone, Mr. Perceval found his opportunity. The
Bishop, however, previously warned the Queen that she must expect
a very _strong_ sermon, which naturally excited her curiosity,
and when she heard it it did not appear to her so strong as she
had expected. The Bishop's advice or his own reflexion may have
induced Mr. Perceval to soften it. He made an attack upon Peel
(that is, upon somebody whom they concluded to be Peel),
reproaching him with sacrificing his conscience to political
objects in consenting to Catholic emancipation, not _totidem
verbis_, but in words to this effect. Hook's sermon appears to
have been the stronger of the two. He told the Queen that the
Church would endure let what would happen to the throne. On her
return to Buckingham House, Normanby, who had been at the chapel,
said to her, 'Did not your Majesty find it very hot?' She said,
'Yes, and the sermon was very hot too.'
[18] [Afterwards Dean of Chichester, and author of the
'Lives of the Archbishops.']
July 28th, 1838 {p.117}
The letters between Lord Palmerston and Mr. Urquhart which
appeared two days ago in the 'Times,' have made a very great
sensation, and thrown the friends of the former into great alarm.
Urquhart's letter is so enormously long, so overlaid with matter,
and so stuffed with acrimonious abuse, that it is difficult to
seize the points of it; but that to which general attention is
directed is the positive assertion of Lord Palmerston that he had
nothing to do with the 'Portfolio,' and the announcement of
Urquhart that in consequence of such denegation he will
demonstrate that Palmerston had everything to do with it. He is
said to make exceedingly light of it, and asserts that he can
clear himself of all the imputations Mr. Urquhart seeks to cast
upon him. He has, however, committed a great blunder in entering
into a paper war at all. In his letter he correctly lays down the
principle of the irresponsibility and omnipotence of a Secretary
of State in relation to his agents, and there he ought to have
stopped, and, acting on that principle, have declined any
controversy; but he entered into it, and descended from his
pedestal; and, though his letter is clever and well written,
there are some very weak points in it, and some things which
incline one to doubt his veracity. Who, for example, can believe
that when Strangways[19] gave him a letter from Urquhart
containing (as he informed him) a statement of his conduct, which
conduct he thought so reprehensible that he had desired
Strangways to admonish and caution him, he should have put this
letter in his pocket, and not even have broken the seal till a
long time after? The Government people are evidently in great
consternation, and it is very remarkable that not a line of
contradiction has appeared in any of Palmerston's papers. No less
than three men (Labouchere, Morpeth, and Le Marchant) spoke to me
about it yesterday, full of doubt and anxiety, and very curious
to know 'what people said.'
[19] [The Hon. William Strangways, afterwards Earl of
Ilchester, was at this time Under-Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Strangways was an old and
intimate friend of Prince Adam Czartoryski, by whom the
papers were brought to England which afterwards
appeared in the 'Portfolio,' and it was through this
Polish connexion that Mr. Urquhart was introduced to
the notice of the Under-Secretary. Lord Palmerston was
at that time (about 1834) strongly anti-Russian, and
was perfectly cognizant of several undertakings which
originated with Prince Adam Czartoryski, and his more
energetic nephew, Count Ladislas Zamoyski, who had very
much the ear of the English Government at that time.
These undertakings were the publication of the
'Portfolio,' Mr. George Bell's expedition to the coast
of Circassia in the 'Vixen,' which was seized there,
and the attempt to establish a Consulate in the then
Free-Town of Cracow. But after having encouraged and
promoted these objects for some time in conjunction
with Mr. Strangways, Lord Palmerston suddenly became
violently opposed to them, and disclaimed all knowledge
of those whom he had employed. See _infra_, January
30th, 1839.]
[Page Head: MR. URQUHART AND LORD PALMERSTON.]
Le Marchant told me that Palmerston was a strange mixture of
caution and imprudence; that as long as he did not commit himself
_on paper_ he thought himself safe; that he would see any
newspaper editor who called on him, and often communicate to such
persons matters of great delicacy; yet, at the very time he would
do this, he demurred to a request that was made to him to
communicate freely with him (Le Marchant) and Drummond, who were
managing the press on the part of Government; and this reserve
was exercised towards him when he was Brougham's private
secretary, cognisant of all that Brougham knew (which, of course,
was everything), and frequently employed to communicate verbally
between the Chancellor and his colleagues on the most
confidential matters.
The history of Urquhart is this: William IV. was nearly mad upon
the subject of Russia, and Sir Herbert Taylor[20] either partook
of his opinions or ministered to his prejudices. Urquhart, who
had been in the East, published a violent anti-Russian pamphlet,
which made some noise and which recommended him to the notice of
Taylor, and through him to that of the King. His Majesty took up
Urquhart, and recommended him to Palmerston. Palmerston was not
sorry to have an opportunity of gratifying the King, with whom
the Ministers were never on cordial terms, and probably he was
not _then_ disinclined to act (as far as he dared) upon
Urquhart's views. Accordingly he appointed him--a very
extraordinary appointment it was thought at the time--Secretary
of Embassy at Constantinople. There can be no doubt that Urquhart
considered himself appointed to that station on account of the
opinions he professed, and for the express purpose of giving them
effect. He was very likely told so by the King, and left to infer
as much by Palmerston. The letter of Strangways, which has
appeared in the course of the correspondence, shows that the
communications from the Foreign Office were in this spirit. At
the same time Palmerston took care not to commit himself in
writing. When the death of the King was approaching, Palmerston
foresaw that he would have to change his tone with regard to
Eastern politics, and consequently that it would be convenient to
throw over Urquhart, which he proceeded to do. This man, first
his tool and then his victim, turned out to be bold,
unprincipled, and clever, and finding his prospects ruined and
his reputation damaged, he turned fiercely upon him whom he
considered as his persecutor and betrayer. It is fortunate for
Palmerston that the matter has broken out at the end of the
Session when people are all on the wing and there is not time to
sift anything to the bottom, but still the charges are so grave,
and they involve such serious consequences and considerations,
that it is absolutely necessary the truth should be manifested
one way or another.[21] The Foreign Ministers all believe that
Palmerston is guilty. Dedel told me last night that Pozzo had
said to him, 'Quant à moi, je ne dirai pas un mot; mais si tout
cela est vrai, il faut aller aux galères pour trouver un pareil
forfait.' Graham said to me that he was sincerely sorry for it,
inasmuch as he had personally a regard for Palmerston; that no
man was ever a better, more honourable, or kinder colleague, more
anxious to smooth differences and adjust disputes; that _he_
could not attack him in the House of Commons, neither would
Stanley; that Peel, who hated him, would not dislike doing so,
but that he was too cautious to trust implicitly to Urquhart's
assertions, and to commit himself by acting on them; that there
was nobody else capable of dealing with the subject well, and
that Canning[22] ought not, for the same reasons (only much
stronger in his case) that restrained himself and Stanley.
[20] [King William's Private Secretary.]
[21] The truth never was manifested, the matter blew over,
very little ever was said about it in the newspapers,
Urquhart's revelations never appeared, the public
forgot it, and the whole affair died a natural death.--
January 6th, 1839.
[22] [Sir Stratford Canning, afterwards Lord Stratford de
Redcliffe, was at this time a Member of the House of
Commons.]
The bishops were at loggerheads in the House of Lords the other
night on the Ecclesiastical Discipline Bill. Exeter (Phillpotts),
in a most venomous speech, attacked the Archbishop, whose
mildness was stimulated into an angry reply; but Exeter gained
his point, for both Brougham and the Duke were for postponing the
Bill. Phillpotts would have made a great bishop in the days of
Bonner and Gardiner, or he would have been a Becket, or, still
better, a Pope either in the palmy days of papal power or during
the important period of reaction which succeeded the Reformation.
He seems cast in the mould of a Sixtus.
August 3rd, 1838 {p.120}
The following panegyric on the sixth volume of the Duke's
Despatches, evidently written by no common hand, was given by Dr.
Ferguson to Edward Villiers,[23] the Doctor not knowing the
author:--
'The sixth volume appears to me among the most
extraordinary of human productions, ancient or modern. It
is not the mere power of sagacity, vigilance, acute and
comprehensive reasoning, or, in short, the intellectual
perfection of the book, various and wonderful as it is,
which affects my mind most deeply: it is the love of
justice, the love of truth, the love of humanity, the
love of country, the fine temper, the tolerance of error,
the mildness of reproof, the _superb morality_ of the
great and masculine spirit displayed throughout it, which
it is impossible for an honest man to observe without
affection and admiration.'
[23] [The Hon. Edward Ernest Villiers, a younger brother of
Lord Clarendon, filled at this time the office of Clerk
of the Clergy Returns to the Privy Council.]
August 8th, 1838 {p.121}
[Page Head: MACAULAY'S LIFE IN INDIA.]
James Stephen yesterday was talking to me about Macaulay. He came
to him soon after his return from India, and told him that when
there he used to get up at five every morning (as everybody else
did), and till nine or ten he read Greek and Latin, and went
through the whole range of classical literature of every sort and
kind; that one day in the Government library he had met with the
works of Chrysostom, fourteen Greek folios, and that he had taken
home first one volume and then another, till he had read the
whole through, that is, he had not read every word, because he
had found that it contained a great deal of stuff not worth
reading, but he had carefully looked at every page, and had
actually read the greater part. His object now is to devote
himself to literature, and his present project, to write a
History of England for the last 150 years, in which Stephen says
he would give scope to his fine imagination in the delineation of
character, and bring his vast stores of knowledge to the
composition of the narrative, and would, without doubt, produce a
work of astonishing power and interest. Macaulay says if he had
the power of recalling everything he has ever written and
published and of destroying it all, he would do so, for he thinks
that his time has been thrown away upon _opuscula_ unworthy of
his talents. This is, however, a very preposterous squeamishness
and piece of pride or humility, whichever it may be called, for
no man need be ashamed of producing anything perfect in its kind,
however the kind may not be the highest, and his reviews are
perfect in their way. I asked Stephen by what mental process
Macaulay had contrived to accumulate such boundless stores of
information, and how it was all so sorted and arranged in his
head that it was always producible at will. He said that he had
first of all the power of abstraction, of giving his undivided
attention to the book and the subject on which he was occupied;
then, as other men read by syllables or by words, he had the
faculty, acquired by use, of reading by whole sentences, of
swallowing, as it were, whole paragraphs at once, and thus he
infinitely abbreviated the mere mechanical part of study; that as
an educated man would read any number of pages much more quickly
than an uneducated man, so much more quickly would Macaulay read
than any ordinary man. Therefore it is first and foremost the
power of abstraction, that faculty of attention and of rendering
up his mind to the matter before him, which makes all his reading
profitable, and leaves nothing to be wasted and frittered away.
Then the acquired habit of devouring at a glance a vast surface
of print, so that, like the dragon of Wantley, to whom
Houses and churches
Were like geese and turkeys,
he can discuss a Greek folio while an ordinary man is dawdling or
boggling over a pamphlet or a newspaper.
Nature has certainly cast the mind of Macaulay in a different
mould from that of common men. There is no more comparison
between his brain and such a one as mine than between a hurdy-
gurdy in the street and the great organ at Haarlem; but it is
probably not true that _nature_ has made all the difference or
the greatest part of it. If the hurdy-gurdy was kept in constant
tune and the great instrument was never played upon, and its
barrels and tubes allowed to grow rusty, the former would at
length discourse the more eloquent music of the two. No care or
cultivation indeed could have made me what Macaulay is, but if he
had wasted his time and frittered away his intellects as I have
done mine, he would only have been an ordinary man; while if I
had been carefully trained and subjected to moral discipline, I
might have acted a creditable and useful part.
August 10th, 1838 {p.123}
[Page Head: LORD DURHAM'S ORDINANCE.]
Lord Durham[24] has got into a fine scrape with his Ordinance,
which is clearly illegal. Brougham brought it forward on Tuesday
night in an exulting speech, or rather in many exulting speeches,
one of which contained some eloquent passages. He was transported
with joy at having, as he said, 'got them at last.' The Duke
supported Brougham, but with more temper and dignity; the
Ministers made but a poor defence, if defence it could be called.
Durham's appointments cancelled and his proclamations declared
illegal will neither sweeten his temper nor exalt his character
in Canada.
[24] [Lord Durham had passed an Ordinance enacting that
Papineau and the leaders of the Canadian rebellion
should be transported to Bermuda, and that if any of
them returned to Canada they should suffer death. This
was done before trial and without authority or law. It
was consequently attacked with great vehemence by Lord
Brougham in the House of Lords, on the 30th of July,
and again on the 5th of August, and he brought in a
Bill declaring the true meaning and intent of the
Canada Act. The second reading was carried against the
Government by a majority of eighteen, and Ministers
were compelled to disallow the Ordinance, the legality
of which could not, indeed, be defended.]
August 11th, 1838 {p.123}
Brougham introduced his Bill of Indemnity (a Declaratory Bill) in
an admirable speech, dignified, calm, and ably reasoned.
Melbourne was imprudent enough to talk of 'a trap having been
laid for Durham,' at which the Duke was very angry, and made a
strong speech. Last night they announced that they mean to let
this Bill pass, for that there is a necessity for some such Bill.
It certainly admits of a doubt whether Durham's Ordinance is
illegal, except as relates to transporting people to Bermuda, but
it is inexcusable that he should not have been better advised and
more cautious than to make any such blunder. We were told that
Turton's indifferent moral character was to be overlooked in
favour of his great legal capacity, and now it appears that his
law is not a jot better than his morals.
Yesterday I met Mr. Barnes at dinner for the purpose of being
introduced to him: an agreeable man enough, with evidently a vast
deal of information, but his conversation bears no marks of that
extraordinary vigour and pungency for which the articles in the
'Times' are so distinguished.[25]
[25] [Mr. Barnes was then chief editor of the 'Times.' Mr.
Greville had long been in correspondence with him, but
this was the first time they met.]
August 12th, 1838 {p.124}
[Page Head: THE ORDINANCE DISALLOWED.]
Lord Melbourne agreed to the Indemnity Bill, but with many
complaints of the bad effect the discussion would have in Canada.
Brougham was triumphant, the Duke moderate and conciliatory. No
doubt Brougham, in hitting this blot, was animated with nothing
but the delight of firing a double shot into Durham there and the
Ministry here, and as to the consequences he cared not a straw;
but I am unable to perceive how it would have been possible to
pass the Ordinance _sub silentio_, its illegality being clear,
and so far from its being dangerous to discuss the matter in
Parliament, it is fortunate that the case occurred before
Parliament broke up, so that the necessary Acts may pass to
secure Durham and all others acting under his authority from the
consequences which might have arisen from a later discovery of
the irregularity of his proceedings; for what might not have
happened if this Ordinance had been published during the recess
and pronounced illegal by high legal authority and taken up by
the press? The Government must have confirmed it on their own
responsibility, or disallowed it by their own authority; they
would not have dared do the first, and their disallowance would
have been fraught with as serious consequences as a parliamentary
condemnation. By Melbourne's own showing, and for the reasons
which he says induced him to agree to the Bill--namely, that one
part of the Ordinance is clearly illegal, and that it is
impossible to take one part and to reject another--he ought
himself to have come to Parliament for an Indemnity Bill and a
Declaratory Act. The question resolves itself into this: what
power would the Colonial Legislature have had if the Act had not
passed by which the constitution was suspended? and would it have
been competent to do what Durham has done? Upon this point
authorities differ, but everybody agrees that, whatever the
Colonial Legislature could have done, Durham (with his Council)
can do. If, however, Parliament did not think fit to define his
power, and great doubts exist as to its extent, the reasonable,
indeed the indispensable course seems to be that those doubts
should be as speedily as possible removed, and the amount of his
authority clearly and expressly ascertained.
August 13th, 1838 {p.125}
At a Council to-day to disallow Durham's Ordinance. Nothing was
sent from the Colonial Office, and I did not know what it was for
till I saw Lord Lansdowne. He told me, and then I wrote the Order
for the Queen to approve, and he took it in to her. Presently
Glenelg arrived, and announced that nothing could be done, for
the authenticated copy under the Great Seal of the Colony was not
arrived. Then a consultation was held: Lord Lansdowne was for not
minding about the Great Seal, and Melbourne chuckled and grunted,
and said, 'Why, you knock over his Ordinances, and he won't care
about the form, will he?' I said, 'If there is no precedent, make
one,' and accordingly the Order passed. They are very angry with
the House of Lords, and Lord John said they had behaved very ill,
and ought to have waited till the whole case was before them: but
I think it _was_ all before them.
August 20th, 1838 {p.125}
At Stoke on Saturday, where Lord Sefton is sinking to the grave
in a miserable state of depression and mental debility. Up by the
railroad and dined at Holland House for the first time for above
a year; sat next to Lord FitzGerald at dinner, who lamented to me
the loss of the Corporation Bill; he said he would not have
consented to the lesser qualification, but would have agreed to
all the other clauses if he had had his own way. The continuance
of the trusts in the hands of the old Corporation he thought
unwise, calculated to offend feelings and prejudices, and
inconsistent with their own opinion of the corporators
themselves. Wharncliffe, on the other hand, told me some time ago
that he did not care about the qualification, but he defended,
though feebly, the trusts. This shows how dissatisfied the
moderate and sensible of the party are with their own
proceedings.
August 23rd, 1838 {p.126}
[Page Head: REVIEW OF THE SESSION.]
In looking back at the past Session, unexampled in duration, the
first thing that occurs to one is how uneventful it has been, and
how precisely the political state of affairs has ended as it
began. The characters of certain conspicuous men have manifested
themselves in a very striking manner, but that is all; the
Government are still in their places, not a jot stronger than
they were, and the Opposition maintain their undiminished phalanx
without being at all nearer coming into power. The House of
Commons uniformly supports the Government, the House of Lords
frequently opposes it, but the difference between the two Houses
seldom swells to a dispute; it is languidly carried on and
carelessly regarded, the country at large not seeming to mind who
are in or who are out. The great meteor of the year has been
Brougham, who, by common consent, has given proofs of the
undiminished force of his wonderful capacity, and who has spoken
with as much, if not with greater eloquence than at any previous
period of his life. But while he has excited no small degree of
wonder and admiration, he has not raised his reputation for
wisdom or honesty. He has exhibited such an unbridled rage
against the Government, he has appeared to be animated with so
much spite and malice, without a particle of public spirit, but
only with a vindictive determination to punish them for having
rejected him, that the world has only regarded him and his
performances as they would look at a great actor on the stage. So
bent has he been upon worrying the Ministers, so determined his
enmity to them, that he has sought to ally himself with the most
extreme sections of opposition, congregating with the Roebucks,
Wakleys, and Leaders in the morning, contriving and concocting
with them measures of ultra-Radicalism, then hugging Lyndhurst,
bowing down to the Duke, courting the Tory lords, and figuring,
flirting, and palavering at night at the routs of the Tory
ladies. In the House of Lords, Lyndhurst was well content to hunt
in couples with him; but the Duke has kept him at arm's length,
and though always on civil, would never be on intimate terms with
him. Far different has been the Duke's own career, for he has,
throughout the Session, displayed a dignity, candour, and
moderation, without any tameness or indifference or inactivity,
which raise him to the highest rank as a statesman and a patriot,
and show him equally mindful of his own honour and his country's
good. He alone has moderated the rancour of Lyndhurst, kept in
check the violence of Brougham, and restrained the impetuosity
and impatience of his party. His abstinence from opposition
exceedingly provoked his followers, for, with the exception of
the question of the appointment of magistrates by the Chancellor,
upon which he treated the latter with considerable asperity, and
blamed his conduct severely, he displayed uniform leniency and
forbearance; at the end of the session, indeed, he supported
Brougham in his attack upon Durham, though not by any means
joining in it with the same _animus_. Melbourne, very soon after
the commencement of the session, openly, avowedly, and
intentionally quarrelled with Brougham and set him at defiance.
However unequal to him on the whole, he came off tolerably well
in the little skirmishes which constantly took place between
them, and he derived a strength and security from the Duke's
forbearance or support, which enabled him to jog on without
sustaining any material damage from Brougham's terrible assaults.
None of his colleagues were of much use to him, and Glenelg got
so cruelly mauled at first, that he had afterwards no mind to
mingle more than he could help in the fray.
[Page Head: OPPOSITION IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.]
In the House of Commons the debates have been much less
interesting and exciting than in the House of Lords. John Russell
has continued steadily to advance in public estimation as a
speaker and political leader, and Morpeth and Sir George Grey
have taken higher places, while Rice and Thomson have lost
ground, and Hobhouse has sunk into utter insignificance. Peel
has, throughout the Session, acted a moderate, cautious part, and
Stanley and Graham have said and done little or nothing, both
parties, as if by common consent, keeping each other at bay, and
alike conscious that their relative strength is too equal to
admit of any great triumph on either side. This balance of
parties keeps the Ministers in place, but keeps them weak and
nearly powerless either for good or for evil. It has not,
however, had the effect of exalting the third party (the
Radical), which has, on the contrary, sunk in numbers,
reputation, and influence. The conduct of the ultra-Radicals in
the House of Commons, on the outbreak of the Canadian
insurrection, revealed their real disposition and disgusted the
country, and, _for the present_, nothing can be lower than the
Radical interest, or more feeble and innocuous than the
revolutionary principle. The great mass of the Tories are always
fretting and fuming at the Whigs retaining possession of office,
and are impatient to assault them in front, and indignant that
they do not of their own accord resign, but the wiser and the
cooler know that however weak the Whigs may be as a Government,
and however insufficient their power to execute all they would
like to do, they are fortified in their places by certain
barriers which their adversaries are still more powerless to
break through; for they have the cordial, undoubted support of
the Queen, they are the Ministers of her choice, and they have a
majority (a small but a clear and a certain majority) in the
House of Commons. A great Tory principle therefore coalesces with
a great Whig principle to maintain them in office; for the
Tories,--who were indignant at what they considered an invasion
of the King's prerogative in 1835, when the House of Commons
would not let him choose his own Ministers, or, which is the same
thing, so continually thwarted the Ministers of his choice as to
compel them to resign, and left him no alternative but that of
taking back those whom he had dismissed--the Tories could not
with any consistency deny to the Queen the exercise of the same
authority sanctioned by the support of the House of Commons,
which they claimed for King William even against the declared
opinion of the House. Nothing is left for them, therefore, but a
sulky acquiescence in the present state of things; but they
indemnify themselves by placing the House of Lords in the new
position of an assailant of the Queen's Government, and the
Peers, without daring to assert any co-ordinate authority with
the House of Commons as to the choice of Ministers, evince their
disapprobation of that choice by frequently thwarting their most
important measures. It is curious that none of them--not even
Lyndhurst himself, perhaps not the Duke of Wellington--seems to
perceive that in the midst of their horror of innovation and
dread of great constitutional changes, they have themselves made
a great practical change in the constitutional functions of the
House of Lords; that it is a departure from the character and
proper province of that House to array itself in permanent and
often bitter hostility to the Government, and to persist in
continually rejecting measures recommended by the Crown and
passed by the Commons. When the House of Lords opposed and
thwarted the Ministers during the last two years of King
William's reign, they may have justified themselves on their own
Tory principle, and (assuming as a fact that the King was in the
hands of a faction, from whose bondage he could not release
himself), that they were only supporting the Crown when they
opposed the Ministers whom the House of Commons had forced upon
him, and therefore, both as Tories and as Conservatives, they
were taking a consistent, constitutional, and prudent course; but
even if this was true then, it is certainly not true now, and it
is, I believe, the first time that there is no party in the House
of Lords supporting the Crown, nor any individual acting upon
that principle, but all are either Whigs or Tories arrayed
against each other and battling for power.
CHAPTER IV.
The Queen and Lord Melbourne--The Battersea Schools--A Council at
Windsor--A Humble Hero--Lord Durham's Resignation--Duke of
Wellington's Campaigns--The Grange--Lord Durham's Return--Death
of Lord Sefton--Lord Durham's Arrival--His Reception in the
Country--Position of the Radicals--A Visit to Windsor Castle--
Lord Brougham's 'Letter to the Queen'--Lord Durham repudiates
the Radicals--A Lecture at Battersea--Dinner at Holland House--
Curran and George Ponsonby--Prospect of the New Year--The
Petition of the Serjeants-at-Law--Reconciliation with Lord
Durham--Murder of Lord Norbury--The Corn Laws attacked--Lord
Palmerston and the 'Portfolio'--The Serjeants' Case--Brougham
and Lyndhurst 'done up'--Opening of the Session--Resignation of
Lord Glenelg--State of Parties--Lord Durham's Report--Lord
Glenelg's Retirement--Lord Normanby, Colonial Minister--Corn
Law Repeal--Sir Francis Bond Head--Gore House--Lady
Blessington.
September 7th, 1838 {p.130}
Nothing to record of any sort or kind: London a desert; I went
to-day to Windsor for a Council, was invited by the Queen
(through Melbourne) to stay and dine, but made an excuse on the
score of business, and luckily had a plausible one to make.
September 12th, 1838 {p.130}
[Page Head: THE QUEEN AND LORD MELBOURNE.]
George Villiers, who came from Windsor on Monday, told me he had
been exceedingly struck with Lord Melbourne's manner to the
Queen, and hers to him: his, so parental and anxious, but always
so respectful and deferential; hers, indicative of such entire
confidence, such pleasure in his society. She is continually
talking to him; let who will be there, he always sits next her at
dinner, and evidently by arrangement, because he always takes in
the lady-in-waiting, which necessarily places him next her, the
etiquette being that the lady-in-waiting sits next but one to the
Queen. It is not unnatural, and to him it is peculiarly
interesting. I have no doubt he is passionately fond of her as he
might be of his daughter if he had one, and the more because he
is a man with a capacity for loving without having anything in
the world to love. It is become his province to educate,
instruct, and form the most interesting mind and character in the
world. No occupation was ever more engrossing or involved greater
responsibility. I have no doubt that Melbourne is both equal to
and worthy of the task, and that it is fortunate she has fallen
into his hands, and that he discharges this great duty wisely,
honourably, and conscientiously. There are, however, or rather
may be hereafter, inconveniences in the establishment of such an
intimacy, and in a connexion of so close and affectionate a
nature between the young Queen and her Minister; for whenever the
Government, which hangs by a thread, shall be broken up, the
parting will be painful, and their subsequent relations will not
be without embarrassment to themselves, nor fail to be the cause
of jealousy in others. It is a great proof of the discretion and
purity of his conduct and behaviour, that he is admired,
respected, and liked by all the Court.
Yesterday I went to Battersea and dined with Robert Eden, the
Rector,[1] and he took me before dinner to see his lions, and
introduced me to scenes very different from those which I am used
to see. We went to different manufactories, a saw-mill, a
pottery, to the lunatic asylum, to the workhouse, and we visited
several poor people at their cottages, when he enquired into the
circumstances of the sick or the indigent; but what struck me
most forcibly was the school (upon Bell's system) and the
extraordinary acquirements of the boys. Eden examined them, and
invited me to do so, in arithmetic, geography, English history,
and the Bible, and their readiness and correctness were really
surprising. I doubt whether many of the children of the rich, who
are educated at a vast expense at private or public schools,
could pass such an examination as these young paupers who are
instructed at the cost of about one guinea a year. The greatest
punishment that can be inflicted on one of these boys is to
banish him from school, such delight do they take in acquiring
knowledge. He gave me a curious account of the state of his
parish: there is no middle class of tradesmen in good
circumstances; they are divided between the extremes of wealth
and of poverty, masters and operatives; but amongst the latter
there is a considerable amount of knowledge, though their minds
are ill-regulated and their principles perverted. When first he
came there the place abounded in disciples of Carlile, pure
atheists, and when Carlile was in prison he was supported by
their contributions; but though totally without religion they
were not immoral, and among these men were some of the best
husbands and fathers in the place, so much so that when Carlile
told them that men might indulge in polygamy and take two wives,
they were scandalised and disgusted, and began immediately to
abandon him. Some were reclaimed and came to church, but the
greater part, who required some powerful excitement, sought it in
politics, and became deeply imbued with the most pernicious
principles of hatred against all institutions, against the higher
orders, and against property. The fountain from which they draw
their opinions is a Sunday paper called the 'Watchman,' which is
universally and greedily read: it is cleverly written,
accommodated to their taste, and flatters all their worst
propensities. Few people know these things and are aware of the
poison that is thus circulating through the veins, and corrupting
the blood, of the social mass. The desire for instruction and
knowledge seems very general among the lower orders. Eden, with
some others, has established evening lectures upon various
subjects, which are crowded by anxious and attentive listeners of
all ages and callings, who frequently hurry from their daily
occupations, impatient to partake of the instruction which Eden
and his curates, and often some of the better informed
inhabitants of the place, are in the habit of dispensing.
[1] Afterwards Bishop of Bath and Wells.
September 15th, 1838 {p.132}
[Page Head: AN INVITATION TO WINDSOR.]
Yesterday again at Windsor for a Council. I had made up my mind
not to stay if invited, and meant to hasten away; but before I
could do so Melbourne came after me and said, 'You will stay
here? the Queen desired me to ask you.' I said I had no evening
dress, had come by the railroad, and walked from Slough; could
not assume that I should be asked, and did not know what to do.
He said, 'She meant it as a civility, and thought you would like
it.' There was a sort of reproach conveyed in the tone, and that
induced me to say, 'So I should if I had only known of it, but as
it is I can send for my things if you like.' He ended by desiring
I would do what I liked best myself, promised that he would take
care the Queen was not offended, and that nobody else would know
anything of the matter. I accordingly resolved to go, and went
away with Lord Albemarle. My mind misgave me, and I had a great
mind to stay, especially as Lord Albemarle told me they did not
mean to turn me out after dinner, but that sleeping there was a
matter of course. Then I was sorry I had not stayed, which I
might just as well have done, for I had nothing else to do. At
these Councils we meet in common morning dress, which we used not
to do.
London, October 26th, 1838 {p.133}
A blank month: to Newmarket, to Buckenham, back to Newmarket, to
Cromer (fine, wild, bleak coast), Buckenham again, Newmarket,
London, Norman Court, and here again; heard nothing, learnt
nothing, altogether unprofitable, Durham's resignation[2] the
only event, the _dénouement_ of which nobody can guess. The
Ministers ought never to have sent him, knowing what he was, and
this has not been their only fault. Norman Court[3] is a very
enjoyable place; close to it was (for it has lately been pulled
down) the house from which Lady Mary eloped with Mr. Wortley.
There I met the doctor who attended young Sam Day (who won the
St. Leger for me on Mango) after the fall of which he died, and
he gave me a striking account of the deathbed scene, the actors
in which, albeit of an humble and unpolished class, displayed
feelings not the less intense from the simplicity of their
expression, and the total absence of that morbid or conventional
sensibility which gives a sort of dramatic dignity to the grief
of the great ones. The boy himself died like a hero, with a
firmness, courage, and cheerfulness which would have been
extolled to the skies in some conspicuous character on whom the
world has been accustomed to gaze, but which in the poor jockey
boy passed unheeded and unknown, and it is only the few as
obscure as himself who witnessed his last moments who are aware
that, wherever his bones rest--
in that neglected spot is laid
A heart once pregnant with celestial fire.
[2] [Upon the receipt of the intelligence of the
Declaratory Act, Lord Durham at once announced in
Canada his determination to resign. The disallowance of
the Ordinance and his official recall crossed this
intimation on the road.]
[3] [Norman Court was at that time the seat of Mr. Baring
Wall. After his death it passed to Mr. Thomas Baring.]
November 8th, 1838 {p.134}
At Newmarket, and at Euston for a day (probably for the last
time), and to London on Monday. The stillness of the political
atmosphere has been rudely broken in upon by Lord Durham's
astounding Proclamation: for once the whole of the press has
joined in a full chorus of disapprobation, and this may be
considered conclusive as to public opinion. Indeed there can
scarcely be two opinions on the subject, for such an appeal to
the people of the Colony over whom he is placed from the acts of
the Government and the legislature of the mother country is as
monstrous as it is unexampled.[4] It seems incredible that he
should not have been deterred by the men who are about him, who
are not deficient in capacity, from taking this desperate step;
but as there is little doubt that Turton advised him not to issue
the Ordinances, and got into disgrace with him for so doing, it
is possible that they none of them were consulted, or if
consulted did not dare, or did not choose, to give him any advice
whatever. The dignity of the Government now demands that his
insolence and misconduct should be visited with the severest
expression of disapprobation and reproof, and the harshest
measures, even an impeachment, would be fully warrantable, if
harsh measures did not generally defeat their own object. But if
the Government mince matters with him, and evince any fear to
strike, if they do not vindicate their own authority, and punish
his contumacy with dignity and spirit, their characters are gone,
and they will merit all the contempt with which their opponents
affect to treat them.
[4] [Lord Durham's conduct was arrogant and highly
injudicious. On the 9th October he issued a
Proclamation in Canada, in which he censured the
conduct of the Home Government. It is printed in the
'Ann. Reg.' for 1838, Chron. p. 311. In fact his vanity
was wounded, and his mission, of which so much was
expected, had failed. But it will be seen further on
that the first impression produced by his violence was
considerably mitigated. Mr. John Stuart Mill defended
his policy in the _Westminster Review_, and a certain
amount of reaction took place in his favour.]
November 18th, 1838, Wolbeding {p.135}
[Page Head: WELLINGTON IN BATTLE.]
Came here to-day and brought Lord Fitzroy Somerset[5] with me,
who told me a great deal about the Duke and their old campaigns.
He never saw a man so cool and indifferent to danger, at the same
time without any personal rashness or bravado, never putting
himself in unnecessary danger, never avoiding any that was
necessary. He was close to the Duke, his left arm touching the
Duke's right, when he was shot in the arm at Waterloo, and so was
Lord Anglesey when he received his wound in the leg. When Lord
Anglesey was shot he turned to the Duke and said, 'By G-- I have
lost my leg.' The Duke replied, 'Have you? by G--.' The only time
the Duke ever was hit was at Orthez, by a spent ball, which
struck him on the side and knocked him down. He and Alava were
standing together having both dismounted, and they were laughing
at a Portuguese soldier who had just passed by saying he was
'offendido' ... when the Duke was struck down, but he immediately
rose and laughed all the more at being 'offendido' himself.
During the battles of the Pyrenees Cole proposed to the Duke and
his staff to go and eat a very good dinner he had ordered for
himself at his house in the village he occupied, as he could not
leave his division. They went and dined, and then the Duke went
into the next room and threw himself upon a bed without a
mattress, on the boards of which he presently went to sleep with
his despatch-box for a pillow. Fitzroy and the aides-de-camp
slept in chairs or on the floor scattered about. Presently
arrived, in great haste and alarm, two officers of artillery,
Captain Cairne and another, who begged to see the Duke, the
former saying that he had just brought up some guns from the
rear, and that he had suddenly found himself close to the enemy
and did not know what to do. They went and woke the Duke, who
desired him to be brought in. The officer entered and told his
story, when the Duke said, very composedly, 'Well, Sir, you are
certainly in a very bad position, and you must get out of it in
the best way you can,' turned round, and was asleep again in a
moment.
[5] [Afterwards Lord Raglan. He lost his arm at Waterloo,
and commanded the British army in the Crimea, where he
died in 1855.]
Lord Fitzroy gave me an account of the battle of Salamanca,
exactly corresponding with that which the Duke himself gave me
last year at Burghley, but with some additional details. They
were going to dine in a farmyard, but the shot fell so thick
there that the mules carrying the dinner were ordered to go to
another place. There the Duke dined, walking about the whole time
munching, with his field-glass in his hand, and constantly
looking through it. On a sudden, he exclaimed, 'By G--, they are
extending their line; order my horses.' The horses were brought
and he was off in an instant, followed only by his old German
dragoon, who went with him everywhere. The aides-de-camp followed
as quickly as they could. He galloped straight to Pakenham's
division and desired him immediately to begin the attack.
Pakenham said, 'Give me your hand, and it shall be done.' The
Duke very gravely gave him his hand, Pakenham shook it warmly and
then hastened off. The French were attacked directly after.
[Page Head: AN ARMY LOST.]
He also told me another anecdote I had never heard before. During
the retreat from Burgos, on this very day twenty-six years ago,
when the weather was dreadful and the roads were nearly
impassable, the Duke _lost his army_ for several hours. They had
to cross a river near a place called Rodrigo, and the Duke had
ordered the army to march in three columns, of which one,
composed of the Spaniards, was to cross by the only bridge there
was, and the other two by fords and by another route. He had
assigned the easiest line to the Spaniards because they were
likely to have more stragglers than the British. Arthur Upton,
the Quartermaster-General of one of the divisions, had dined at
head-quarters the night before, and the Duke had sent by him
written orders for the march. The next morning at two o'clock the
Duke was on the high road on purpose to see the troops pass by.
Cavalry came, but no infantry, and to the enquiries the Duke
made, they all replied that they had not seen anything of the
infantry. Presently the Duke galloped off, and Fitzroy having
missed him soon after, set off to see if he could discover what
was become of the infantry. It was not till several hours after
that he joined the Duke, who had at last found out the cause of
the non-appearance of his infantry. The three Generals commanding
the divisions, Clinton, Stewart, and Lord Dalhousie, had thought
fit to disobey his orders, and as a great deal of rain had fallen
in the night, they had settled that it would be better to direct
the whole of the infantry on the bridge instead of moving them by
the roads prescribed by the Duke, and though they knew he was
only seven or eight miles off, they never advised him of their
having made this change in the movements he had ordered. The
enemy did not discover what had occurred; if they had, the
consequences might have been very serious, and a great loss have
ensued. Fitzroy asked the Duke what he had said to them, and he
replied, 'Oh, by G--, it was too serious to say anything.' It was
too late then to restore the original order of march, and the
whole army crossed by the bridge. No further allusion was made to
what had occurred.
December 2nd, 1838 {p.137}
Went from Wolbeding to the Grange, last Friday week--Henry Taylor
and George Cornewall Lewis there--and came to town on Sunday. The
Grange is a beautiful specimen of Grecian architecture, bought by
Lord Ashburton of that extraordinary man Henry Drummond, a man so
able and eccentric as to be treading on the very edge of the
partition which divides wit from madness.
Lord Durham arrived at Plymouth some days ago, but was not able
to land (on Thursday last) owing to the violence of the storms.
Great curiosity prevails to see what sort of a reception he gets
from Ministers and the Queen, and what his relations are to be
with Government. Nothing they say can exceed the astonishment
which he and his court feel, or will feel, at the sensation
excited in the country by his conduct. Gibbon Wakefield, the
first who arrived, said he had never been so amazed in the course
of his life, and owned that they had all expected to make a very
different impression, and to be hailed with great applause.
Brougham, who is sitting at the Judicial Committee, is in high
spirits and looking forward with exceeding zest and eagerness to
the fun he is to have in the House of Lords.
[Page Head: CHARACTER OF LORD SEFTON.]
While I was in the country, Lord Sefton's long illness came to a
close, but not before he was reduced to a state of deplorable
imbecility, so that his death was a release from misery to
himself as well as to all about him. He was a man who filled a
considerable space in society, and had been more or less
conspicuous from the earliest period of his life. He was
possessed of an ample fortune, which he endeavoured to convert
into a continual source of enjoyment in every mode which fancy,
humour, or caprice suggested. His natural parts were excessively
lively, but his education had been wholly neglected, and he never
attempted to repair in after-life the deficiencies occasioned by
that early neglect. He had therefore not the slightest tincture
of letters, his mind was barren of information, and he not only
took no interest in intellectual pursuits, but he regarded with
aversion, and something like contempt, those who were peculiarly
devoted to them. On the other hand, he was an acute man of the
world, eagerly entering into all the interests, great and small,
of his own time, sufficiently acquainted with the mushroom
literature of the day for all social purposes, and, partly from
the authority which his wealth and position gave him, partly from
his own dexterity, he contrived to turn conversation aside from
those topics in the discussion of which he was incapable of
mixing, and to promote that sort of half-serious, half-ludicrous
talk, in which he was not only fitted to play a prominent part,
but in which he exhibited a talent quite peculiar to himself.
Never was there so great a master of what is called
_persiflage_--of that boisterous, droll and pungent banter which,
if not the most elevated species of wit, is certainly that which
is most exhilarating and provocative of laughter. In this he was
unrivalled, and it was heightened by the adjuncts of a voice,
face, and manner irresistibly comical. As the most opposite
characters owned the fascination of this exciting talent, he was
enabled to gratify his inclination for every variety of social
excellence, and to number among his friends and companions many
of the most eminent and accomplished men of his time. From his
earliest youth he had always lived in what was considered the
very best society, and as he eschewed the idea of growing old and
retiring from the stage, he was continually making new
acquaintances, falling into fresh pursuits, and adapting himself
to the prevailing tastes and habits of the day. His father had
stamped upon him his hideous form, but with it his sharp and
caustic wit; he found himself at the outset a member of that
brilliant society of which Hatfield and Cashiobury were the
temples, and Lady Salisbury, Lady Essex, and Mrs. St. John the
presiding divinities. After these had flourished and decayed,
Sefton struck into fresh paths of social enjoyment, and having
successively sought for amusement in hunting, shooting, racing,
gaming, 'besides ten thousand freaks that died in thinking,' he
plunged with ardour into politics, and though he had no opinions
or principles but such as resulted from personal predilections,
and had none of that judgement which can only be generated by the
combination of knowledge with severe mental discipline, he was
enabled by the force of circumstances and an energetic will to
acquire political intimacies, and to a certain degree to play a
political part: of this his friendship with Brougham was the
primary cause. Brougham had been his counsel in some important
cause at Liverpool, and that professional connexion subsequently
ripened into a close alliance, Sefton being naturally delighted
with his brilliant conversation, while Brougham was always highly
diverted with the peculiar humour and drollery of Sefton. So
intimate therefore did they become, and such influence was Sefton
supposed to possess over his mind, that he was employed by Lord
Grey, on the formation of the Whig Government in 1830, to settle
the conditions of Brougham's accession to office, and to appease
the wrath which had been stirred up in his mind by the offer of
being made Attorney-General. His addiction to politics had,
however, very little influence on his habits, except to extend
and diversify the sphere of his occupations and amusements. His
Parliamentary attendance never abridged the hours or nights which
were devoted to Crockford's, and his friendships with Brougham,
Lord Grey and Lord Holland, Talleyrand, and all the most
distinguished people in the country, did not alienate him from
the company of the idle, gay, and dissolute frequenters of clubs
and race-courses, congenial spirits from whom he extracted their
several contributions of entertainment. The one thing needful to
him was excitement, and so fixed and rooted was his habit of
seeking it, that there was a sort of regularity in the very
irregularities of his existence. In regard to his moral
attributes he was governed by an intense selfishness, but of that
liberal and enlightened character which throws a partial veil
over the vice itself and leaves the superficial observer
unconscious of its existence. He was a devoted husband, a kind
and affectionate father, a despot (though it was a beneficent
despotism) in his own family, a courteous, cordial, and obliging
host; he cared for money only as a means of enjoyment, but it
formed no part of his scheme of happiness to employ it in
promoting the pleasures, or relieving the necessities of others,
except in so far as such pleasures were connected with his own
gratification. He was absolutely devoid of religious belief or
opinions, but he left to all others the unquestioned liberty of
rendering that homage to religion from which he gave himself a
plenary dispensation. His general conduct was stained with no
gross immorality, and as he was placed far above the necessity of
committing dishonourable actions, his mind was habitually imbued
with principles of integrity. They sat, however, lightly and
easily upon him as regarded the conduct of others, not so much
from indifference as from indulgence in those particular cases
where a rigid and severe application of high principle would have
interfered with his own convenience or enjoyment. Such was
Sefton, a man who acted too conspicuous a part on the stage of
the world to be passed over without notice, whom I knew too well
to delineate in more flattering terms, but to whom I must
acknowledge a debt of gratitude for a long and undeviating course
of kind and cordial hospitality experienced for many years.
December 6th, 1838 {p.141}
[Page Head: LORD DURHAM'S RETURN.]
If notoriety upon any terms could satisfy anybody, Lord Durham
would have ample reason for contentment, as his name is in
everybody's mouth, and the chief topic of every newspaper and
political periodical. He was detained by the storms on board his
ship for a day or two, and met on his landing by a Devonport
address, to which he returned a rather mysterious answer (talking
of the great disclosures he had to make), with a reference to his
Glasgow speech in which in '34 he announced his Radical tendency.
The most interesting question is how he and the Ministers will go
on together, what they ought to do, and how he will take their
usage of him whatever it may be. He has been in no hurry to come
to town, and has reposed himself at Plymouth as long as it suited
him; but he is expected to-day. Brougham, who is sitting every
day at the Privy Council, is always growling at him
sarcastically, and was much pleased when news came of the fresh
outbreak in Canada, and his disappointment was equally evident
when he heard it was so rapidly quelled. He was reading the
newspaper in my room before the Court opened, when Denman came
and announced that he had just met Charles Wood, who had told him
that young Ellice was released, and the insurrection suppressed.
Brougham did not take his eyes off the paper, and merely
muttered, 'It will soon break out again.' He is all day long
working sums in algebra, or extracting cube-roots; and while he
pretends to be poring over the great book (the cases of the
parties) before him, he is in reality absorbed in his own
calculations. Nevertheless, he from time to time starts up, and
throws in a question, a dictum, or a lecture, just as if he had
been profoundly attentive.
December 10th, 1838 {p.142}
Nothing can exhibit more strikingly the farcical nature of public
meetings, and the hollowness, worthlessness, and accidental
character of popularity, than the circumstances of Durham's
arrival here. He has done nothing in Canada, he took himself off
just as the fighting was going to begin, his whole conduct has
been visited with universal disapprobation, and nevertheless his
progress to London has been a sort of triumph; and he has been
saluted with addresses and noisy receptions at all the great
towns through which he passed. His position here is extraordinary
enough, and his relations with the Government stand upon a
strange footing. They have made no communication to him since his
arrival. Upon the receipt of his Proclamation they wrote to him
and expressed their disapprobation, but those letters never
reached him, as he quitted Canada before they could have arrived.
They now, it seems, consider that silence is token sufficient of
their displeasure at his abrupt return; but, though no doubt he
fully understands them, they ought to have conveyed their
sentiments openly and distinctly. There is an appearance of
pusillanimity in this reserve which does them great harm, and
brings them into discredit. They ought to have told him
temperately, but firmly, that they were entirely dissatisfied
with his proceedings, and having so done they should have called
upon him to afford them all the explanations and all the
information he has to give; but they have done none of this, for
they have taken no notice of him, nor he of them. He has not seen
one of the Ministers, not even his own brother-in-law Howick, nor
any of the underlings, except Ben Stanley, who found Durham in
high dudgeon, and saying, that 'as Government attacked him he
must defend himself.' What he means by 'attacking him' is, that
certain articles reflecting on his conduct have appeared in the
'Globe,' for in no way have Government said or done anything
about him; on the contrary, they have been only too reserved and
forbearing.
[Page Head: LORD DURHAM BLUNDERS.]
The conduct of Durham throughout the whole business, from his
first legislative act in Canada (the Ordinance) down to his
arrival in London, is perfectly inexplicable, and presents a
series of blunders tricked out in plausible language, invested
with the dignity of pompous phraseology, mysterious allusions,
threats and promises, and the affecting complaints of injured
innocence and ill-requited virtue. But still, such is the effect
of notoriety, so dearly do ordinary mortals love to play a part
and 'make the capable,' that in spite of his blunders and his
faults he has contrived to excite a certain amount of interest,
to make an impression, though not a very deep or wide one, and to
raise a vague expectation as to his promised disclosures. His
speeches in reply to the addresses are most extraordinary
performances, unbecoming in tone, contradictory, inconsistent,
and inflated; for as to disclosures he has none to make of any
sort or kind. He had the finest game to play in Canada that could
be placed in his hands, for the proceedings here gave him a
legitimate grievance, and would have enabled him to claim double
credit for success, and exemption from any blame or discredit
from failure; but temper, uncontrollable and unreflecting,
hurried him into the irretrievable follies he committed, and he
is now without any alternative but that of renewing the Radical
connexion from which a short time ago he evinced a disposition to
keep aloof, and he has nothing left for it but to accept the post
that is offered him of leading a party which, in its composition,
principles, and objects, is as uncongenial as possible to his
real character and disposition. For it is not a little curious
that this levelling democratic faction, to whom the aristocracy
are an abomination, are not only wild to have a lord for their
leader, but must have that lord who is the especial incarnation
of all those odious qualities which they ascribe most unjustly to
the order of which he is a member: and he who is brimful of pride
and arrogance, and of an overweening sense of his greatness and
his rank, is content to associate with men whose chief
recommendation is the profuseness with which they pander to his
vanity, and to seek personal distinction and power by lending
himself to the promotion of schemes the success of which no man
would more earnestly deprecate than himself. The greatest enigma
is how Durham has ever come to be considered of such importance,
and what is the cause of the sort of reputation he has acquired;
for whatever may be his intrinsic value, he certainly fills a
considerable space, attracts a great share of public attention,
and is a personage of some consequence in the political world. He
is a clever man, can both write and speak well, but he has not
been in the habit of _saying_ much, and he has never _done_
anything whatever. He is known to the world by no specific act,
and he has taken part very rarely and occasionally in the debates
in Parliament. All that is known of his embassy to Russia is,
that he was completely bit by the Emperor Nicholas, and gave up
the question of the 'Vixen;' still, by dint of being perpetually
cried up by a particular party, and by doing well the little he
has occasionally done in public, he has succeeded in making
himself pass for a man of high pretensions and uncommon
endowments, and in the present state of parties his arrival may
be productive of important effects.
[Page Head: IRRITATION OF THE RADICALS.]
The Radicals, that is, the English ones, are extremely
exasperated against the Government, and many of them are anxious
to terminate the Whig reign, from which they think it vain to
expect anything after John Russell's declaration, and to try
their chance with the Tories: not that they expect to find the
Tories squeezable, but they fancy that a Tory Government will
fail, and, after its failure, that recourse must be had to them.
The wiser heads of the party know that these notions are quite
chimerical, and are for trusting to the chapter of accidents and
letting the present Cabinet remain in. The consequence is, that
there is great dissension and vast difference of opinion among
them; they have no leader, and there is no individual who
influences the determinations of the whole body. On the other
side of the water, O'Connell has likewise threatened to insist
upon ballot as the condition of his support to Government; but
nobody pays any attention to his harangues or the menaces they
contain, and his support may be pretty well depended on. But it
would not be enough for Government that the English Radicals
should abstain from going against them in a body, because so
slender is the majority on which they can count, that if any
considerable number were to oppose Government on some vital
question, it would be sufficient to overthrow them. Of this they
are aware, as well as of the probability of such defection, and
the consequent precariousness of their situation, and many among
them are beginning to be very tired and disgusted with such a
tenure of office. It is difficult to believe that Melbourne would
not be more so than anybody, if it were not that he is bound by
every sentiment of duty, gratitude, and attachment to the Queen
to retain the Government as long as he can with honour and
safety, and to stretch a point even, to spare her the pain and
mortification of changes that would be so painful to her. The
Tories, who see the accumulating difficulties of the Government,
and who are aware of the immense importance of letting it
dissolve of itself, or be broken up by the defection and
opposition of its own supporters, are disposed to be patient and
moderate; that is, the more sagacious of them are; but they are
always in danger of being prematurely urged on by the violence
and impetuosity of their tail. Such is the state of parties at
the present moment, and it would puzzle the most sagacious
observer and most experienced actor in political life to predict
the result of the ensuing session. There is quite enough,
however, in the general aspect of affairs both at home and abroad
to moderate the rancour of mere party violence.
December 15th, 1838 {p.145}
Went on Wednesday to a Council at Windsor, and after the Council
was invited to stay that night; rode with the Queen, and after
riding Melbourne came to me and said Her Majesty wished me to
stay the next day also. This was very gracious and very
considerate, because it was done for the express purpose of
showing that she was not displeased at my not staying when asked
on a former occasion, and as she can have no object whatever in
being civil to me, it was a proof of her good-nature and
thoughtfulness about other people's little vanities, even those
of the most insignificant. Accordingly I remained till Friday
morning, when I went with the rest of her suite to see the hounds
throw off, which she herself saw for the first time. The Court is
certainly not gay, but it is perhaps impossible that any Court
should be gay where there is no social equality; where some
ceremony, and a continual air of deference and respect must be
observed, there can be no ease, and without ease there can be no
real pleasure. The Queen is natural, good-humoured, and cheerful,
but still she is Queen, and by her must the social habits and the
tone of conversation be regulated, and for this she is too young
and inexperienced. She sits at a large round table, her guests
around it, and Melbourne always in a chair beside her, where two
mortal hours are consumed in such conversation as can be found,
which appears to be, and really is, very up-hill work. This,
however, is the only bad part of the whole; the rest of the day
is passed without the slightest constraint, trouble, or annoyance
to anybody; each person is at liberty to employ himself or
herself as best pleases them, though very little is done in
common, and in this respect Windsor is totally unlike any other
place. There is none of the sociability which makes the
agreeableness of an English country house; there is no room in
which the guests assemble, sit, lounge, and talk as they please
and when they please; there is a billiard table, but in such a
remote corner of the Castle that it might as well be in the town
of Windsor; and there is a library well stocked with books, but
hardly accessible, imperfectly warmed, and only tenanted by the
librarian: it is a mere library, too, unfurnished, and offering
none of the comforts and luxuries of a habitable room. There are
two breakfast rooms, one for the ladies and the guests, and the
other for the equerries, but when the meal is over everybody
disperses, and nothing but another meal reunites the company, so
that, in fact, there is no society whatever, little trouble,
little etiquette, but very little resource or amusement.
[Page Head: LIFE OF THE QUEEN AT WINDSOR.]
The life which the Queen leads is this: she gets up soon after
eight o'clock, breakfasts in her own room, and is employed the
whole morning in transacting business; she reads all the
despatches, and has every matter of interest and importance in
every department laid before her. At eleven or twelve Melbourne
comes to her and stays an hour, more or less, according to the
business he may have to transact. At two she rides with a large
suite (and she likes to have it numerous); Melbourne always rides
on her left hand, and the equerry in waiting generally on her
right; she rides for two hours along the road, and the greater
part of the time at a full gallop; after riding she amuses
herself for the rest of the afternoon with music and singing,
playing, romping with children, if there are any in the Castle
(and she is so fond of them that she generally contrives to have
some there), or in any other way she fancies. The hour of dinner
is nominally half-past seven o'clock, soon after which time the
guests assemble, but she seldom appears till near eight. The lord
in waiting comes into the drawing-room and instructs each
gentleman which lady he is to take in to dinner. When the guests
are all assembled the Queen comes in, preceded by the gentlemen
of her household, and followed by the Duchess of Kent and all her
ladies; she speaks to each lady, bows to the men, and goes
immediately into the dining-room. She generally takes the arm of
the man of the highest rank, but on this occasion she went with
Mr. Stephenson, the American Minister (though he has no rank),
which was very wisely done. Melbourne invariably sits on her
left, no matter who may be there; she remains at table the usual
time, but does not suffer the men to sit long after her, and we
were summoned to coffee in less than a quarter of an hour. In the
drawing-room she never sits down till the men make their
appearance. Coffee is served to them in the adjoining room, and
then they go into the drawing-room, when she goes round and says
a few words to each, of the most trivial nature, all however very
civil and cordial in manner and expression. When this little
ceremony is over the Duchess of Kent's whist table is arranged,
and then the round table is marshalled, Melbourne invariably
sitting on the left hand of the Queen and remaining there without
moving till the evening is at an end. At about half-past eleven
she goes to bed, or whenever the Duchess has played her usual
number of rubbers, and the band have performed all the pieces on
their list for the night. This is the whole history of her day:
she orders and regulates every detail herself, she knows where
everybody is lodged in the Castle, settles about the riding or
driving, and enters into every particular with minute attention.
But while she personally gives her orders to her various
attendants, and does everything that is civil to all the inmates
of the Castle, she really has nothing to do with anybody but
Melbourne, and with him she passes (if not in _tête-à-tête_ yet
in intimate communication) more hours than any two people, in any
relation of life, perhaps ever do pass together besides.[6] He is
at her side for at least six hours every day--an hour in the
morning, two on horseback, one at dinner, and two in the evening.
This monopoly is certainly not judicious; it is not altogether
consistent with social usage, and it leads to an infraction of
those rules of etiquette which it is better to observe with
regularity at Court. But it is more peculiarly inexpedient with
reference to her own future enjoyment, for if Melbourne should be
compelled to resign, her privation will be the more bitter on
account of the exclusiveness of her intimacy with him.
Accordingly, her terror when any danger menaces the Government,
her nervous apprehension at any appearance of change, affect her
health, and upon one occasion during the last session she
actually fretted herself into an illness at the notion of their
going out. It must be owned that her feelings are not unnatural,
any more than those which Melbourne entertains towards her. His
manner to her is perfect, always respectful, and never presuming
upon the extraordinary distinction he enjoys; hers to him is
simple and natural, indicative of the confidence she reposes in
him, and of her lively taste for his society, but not marked by
any unbecoming familiarity. Interesting as his position is, and
flattered, gratified, and touched as he must be by the confiding
devotion with which she places herself in his hands, it is still
marvellous that he should be able to overcome the force of habit
so completely as to endure the life he leads. Month after month
he remains at the Castle, submitting to this daily routine: of
all men he appeared to be the last to be broken in to the
trammels of a Court, and never was such a revolution seen in
anybody's occupations and habits. Instead of indolently sprawling
in all the attitudes of luxurious ease, he is always sitting bolt
upright; his free and easy language interlarded with 'damns' is
carefully guarded and regulated with the strictest propriety, and
he has exchanged the good talk of Holland House for the trivial,
laboured, and wearisome inanities of the Royal circle.
[6] The Duke of Wellington says that Melbourne is quite
right to go and stay at the Castle as much he does, and
that it is very fit he should instruct the young Queen
in the business of government, but he disapproves of
his being always at her side, even contrary to the
rules of etiquette; for as a Prime Minister has no
precedence, he ought not to be placed in the post of
honour to the exclusion of those of higher rank than
himself.
December 19th, 1838 {p.149}
[Page Head: BROUGHAM'S LETTER TO THE QUEEN.]
Dined with Brougham the day before yesterday, with whom I am on
mighty intimate terms just now. Sat next to Bellenden Ker (who
drew up his Privy Council Bill), who told me that Brougham said
he was writing sixteen hours a day, and about to bring out two
more volumes of his Paley,[7] and I found the explanation of his
calculations at the Council Board in the fact that he was working
out some problems for the purpose of proving the form of the
structure of honeycombs. In the meantime he has put forth a
pamphlet in the shape of a letter to the Queen, which he half
acknowledges, and of which nobody doubts that he is the author,
as in fact nobody can who is acquainted with the man or his
writings. It makes a prodigious noise in the world and is read
with avidity, but, though marked with all his cleverness, it is a
discreditable production. The tone of it is detestable, the
object mischievous, though by no means definite or clear. After
stripping it of all its invectives and ribaldry, there is no
proposition which can be extracted from it except that of giving
universal suffrage, for, although he does not say so, his
argument cannot be arrested short of such a consummation. It is a
bitter, brilliant, wayward satire and philippic, and, as Johnson
said of Junius, 'if you extract from its wit the vivacity of
impudence, and withdraw from its efficacy the sympathetic favour
of plebeian malignity, if you leave it only its merit, I know not
what will be its praise.' It is, however, marvellously
characteristic of the man, and illustrative of the state of his
mind. His present political conduct, if political it can be
called, is curious enough, for he is doing all he can to keep up
his connexion with the Radicals, and at the same time courting
the Tories, his only fixed idea being to worry the Government. It
is clear to me that he was jealous and displeased at the notion
of Durham's being put at the head of the Radical party, and it
was with evident glee that he told me on Monday how grievously
Durham had offended them by his reply to the Westminster
Association, which they very correctly took to themselves.
Brougham called on Leader on Sunday, where he found Trelawny, and
one or two more Radicals whose names I have forgotten, when
Leader expressed these sentiments to him: he said there was no
sort of necessity for Durham's writing them such a letter, and
that he had evidently seized the opportunity of addressing _them_
in that shape, and of course there was an end of any possibility
of a connexion between him and them. This is very true, for the
fact is that Durham--who since his arrival has had time and
opportunity to find out in what a miserable position he has
placed himself, how feeble and inefficient the Radical party is
as a party, and how entirely he would destroy himself by becoming
their leader, and who moreover has been exceedingly disgusted at
the way in which he was taken up by Molesworth, and provoked to
death at being taken under his protection at Devonport--desires
earnestly to retrace his steps and to disavow the alliance they
have offered him, and which they have so prematurely and
ostentatiously proclaimed. He now wants to put himself in a
neutral and, if he can, a dignified position. Yesterday he had an
interview with Lord Wellesley, whom he asked leave to call upon,
and it is not at all unlikely that it will end in his meeting
Brougham at Lord Wellesley's as their common friend. Brougham
told me that their quarrel was at an end, and that it was now
only a question which should first speak to the other, and that
Durham had said he was not at all angry at the part he had taken
in the House of Lords, and owned he could not, consistently with
the conduct he had pursued with respect to Canada, have acted
differently. All this proves that he is ready enough to make it
up with Durham; in fact he will ally himself with anybody who is
likely to join him in attacking the Government. What Brougham
told me about the Radicals was confirmed last night by
Fonblanque, who said that Durham's return had been positively
serviceable to Government, for if he had remained in Canada there
were fourteen or fifteen of that party who would most certainly
have gone into Opposition; but his return having led to the
expectation of his joining them, and that having been frustrated,
there was every probability of their doing what they had done
before and supporting the Government, however sulkily and
reluctantly, rather than throw open the door for the return of
the Tories. He said the slightest concession to them from the
Government would secure them, but I told him none would be made,
and he was aware of it.
[7] Paley's _Natural Theology_, illustrated by Lord
Brougham, was published soon afterwards.
I met Sheil at dinner yesterday at Poulett Thomson's, who, to my
surprise, is a candidate for the office of Judge Advocate, and he
expects, if Macaulay refuses it, to be appointed. He begged of me
to let him know as soon as Macaulay's answer came, and he said,
Normanby had strongly urged it, and Melbourne was well disposed
towards him.
December 24th, 1838 {p.151}
[Page Head: A LECTURE AT BATTERSEA.]
Went on Friday to Battersea to hear Robert Eden deliver a lecture
in the school-room--one of a course he is delivering upon
anatomy, or rather upon different parts of the human body--and
demonstrating the utility of cleanliness, the danger of
drunkenness, and mixing precept with information for the benefit
of as mixed an audience as ever was assembled, but who seemed
much interested and very attentive. There were many of the gentry
of Battersea, male and female, the tradespeople, workmen, the
boys of the school, and a rough, ragged set of urchins, labourers
on the railroad--in all about 300 people. The lecture, which was
upon the arm, was very fluently given; the lecturer is not
sufficiently master of his subject to make his explanations very
lucid and perfectly intelligible, but he conveys good general
notions, and introduces such a mixture of anecdote and
illustration as makes it sufficiently entertaining. The
undertaking is highly laudable; it is carried on with great zeal
and spirit, very considerable ability, and, as far as it has
gone, with complete success.
Dined yesterday at the Hollands': Normanby, Melbourne, and
Luttrell; pretty good talk. Melbourne, rather paradoxical,
asserted that 'men with quick feelings were always the worst men;
that he could not work out the proposition metaphysically then,
but that he should do.' It was the assertion of Brougham's having
quick feelings which elicited the saying, though certainly
Brougham is not the _worst_ of men: far from it, nor did he mean
to say so. Brougham denies this pamphlet, and says he cannot be
the author for this reason: the pamphlet reasserts something
about Melbourne which he had asserted in one of his articles in
the 'Edinburgh Review.' Melbourne, when he read that article,
wrote to Brougham, and told him that as he was sure he did not
wish to misrepresent him, he informed him that he had never
entertained the opinions nor given the vote there ascribed to
him. Brougham replied, admitting his error, and promising to
correct it, offering to do so at Melbourne's option in another
number of the 'Edinburgh Review,' or _in some other work_ (I
forget what). Melbourne wrote back, in rather a jocular strain,
that he thought it would be preferable to have the correction in
the same publication as the statement, to which Brougham sent a
good-humoured answer, and there it ended. After this, he says
that he could not by possibility repeat the very same thing in
another work that he had already engaged to recall, and this is
certainly strong. At the same time there are things in it which
no other man could have written. Just before it came out he was
preparing something for the printer, for he came into my room
with a parcel of proof-sheets in his hand, which I fancied were
for me to frank to Macvey Napier, and I said so; when he replied,
'Oh no, they are going to the printer here.' It is after all not
improbable that it was a joint production--his and Roebuck's--
Roebuck making the pudding, and Brougham putting in the plums.
Melbourne was talking of Brougham's indignation and mortification
at being deprived of his pre-eminence in the House of Lords, and
of a letter he wrote in great bitterness of spirit, in which he
said, 'Do you mean to deprive me of my lead in the House of
Lords? Why don't you say as you did when you took the Great Seal
from me, 'God damn you, I tell you I can't give you the Great
Seal, and there's an end of it'?'
[Page Head: ANECDOTES OF CURRAN.]
They spoke of Curran, his wit, and of his quarrel with Ponsonby.
When the Whigs came in in 1806, Ponsonby was made Irish
Chancellor.[8] There had been some previous communication with
Curran, who had assented to Ponsonby's being promoted to the
highest place; but he expressed his expectation that he should
have the next, and he wanted to be Attorney-General. Fox was very
desirous of making him Attorney, but Lord Grenville would not
hear of it; he had been so concerned with the rebels that it was
thought impossible, besides that it led directly to the Bench,
for which he was disqualified by temper and character. When
Ponsonby became Chancellor, Curran wrote to him to know if he was
to be Attorney; and Ponsonby sent him a pompous answer, that 'his
lips were sealed with the seals of office;' which affronted
Curran. Eventually, they determined to buy out the Master of the
Rolls and put Curran in his place, and they arranged with the
Master that he should have £600 a year out of the place (a
monstrous job). Accordingly Curran was informed that he was to be
the Master of the Rolls, but _after_ this notification (as he
asserted), it was intimated to him that he was to have this rider
upon his place. He said, he had been no party to such an
agreement and he would not pay it, nor did he. Ponsonby was
highly indignant, said Curran was a great rogue, and never would
speak to him again; and he paid the £600 a year out of his own
pocket as long as Curran lived. As a specimen of Curran's wit,
one day when Lord Moira had been making a speech in his usual
style full of sounding phrases and long words, Curran said, 'Upon
my word his lordship has been airing his vocabulary in a very
pretty style to-day.'
[8] [Right Hon. George Ponsonby, who resigned the office in
the following year. Curran held the office of Master of
the Rolls in Ireland from 1806 to 1814, when he retired
on a pension of £3,000 a year. He died in 1817.]
Lord Holland gave me an account of Fox's death, with all the
details of the operations (he was thrice tapped), and his
behaviour; and till then I was not entirely aware that Fox was no
believer in religion. Mrs. Fox was very anxious to have prayers
read, to which he consented, but paid little attention to the
ceremony, remaining quiescent merely, not liking, as Lord Holland
said, to refuse any wish of hers, nor to pretend any sentiments
he did not entertain.
January 1st, 1839 {p.154}
[Page Head: DISTURBED STATE OF THE COUNTRY.]
Another year gone, taking along with it some particles of health,
strength, and spirits, but it is to be hoped making us something
wiser and better, and giving an increased power of passive
resistance to bear up against the accumulating ills or sorrows of
life. But I will not--here at least--plunge into a moralising
strain. As to public matters the year opens in no small gloom and
uncertainty. On the surface all is bright and smooth enough: the
country is powerful, peaceful, and prosperous, and all the
elements of wealth and power are increasing; but the mind of the
mass is disturbed and discontented, and there is a continual
fermentation going on, and separate and unconnected causes of
agitation and disquiet are in incessant operation, which create
great alarm, but which there seems to exist no power of checking
or subduing. The Government is in a wretched state of weakness,
utterly ignorant whether it can scramble through the session,
unable to assume a dignified attitude, to investigate with calm
deliberation the moral and political condition of the country,
and to act upon its convictions with firmness and resolution,
tottering and staggering between one great party and one fierce
faction, and just able to keep on its legs because both are, for
different reasons, willing to wound but afraid to strike. It does
not fulfil the purpose of a Government, and brings the function
itself into contempt by accustoming men to look at it without any
feeling of attachment or respect. Wild notions of political
grievances and political rights have been widely disseminated
among the masses, and these are not engendered or fostered by the
prevalence of distress or that want of employment which not
unnaturally turns the thoughts of the idle and unoccupied to the
most desperate expedients for bettering their condition, but they
are the mere aspirings of a fierce democracy who have been
gradually but deeply impregnated with sentiments of hatred and
jealousy of the upper classes, and with a determination to
'level' all political distinctions and privileges, and when this
is accomplished to proceed to a more equal distribution of
property, to an agrarian experiment; for it is idle to suppose
that men of this stamp care anything for abstract political
theories, or have any definite object but that of procuring the
means of working less, and eating and drinking more. The accounts
of the Chartists (as they are called), at and about Manchester,
represent them to be collected in vast bodies, associations of
prodigious numbers, meeting in all the public-houses, collecting
arms universally, and constantly practising by firing at a mark,
openly threatening, if their demands are not complied with, to
enforce them by violence. In the mean time there is no military
force in the country at all adequate to meet these menacing
demonstrations; the yeomanry have been reduced, and the
magistracy are worse than useless, without consideration,
resolution, or judgement. There is every reason to suppose that
they have got into a scrape with their arrest of Stephens, the
great Chartist orator, and that there is no case against him
sufficient for a conviction.[9] The magistrates completely lost
their heads, and between their fears and their folly have
blundered and bothered their proceedings miserably, and so as to
afford an ultimate triumph to this mischievous fellow and his
followers.
[9] [One Stephens, formerly a Wesleyan preacher, and one of
the most violent agitators against the New Poor Law,
was apprehended near Manchester on December 27. He had
used most incendiary language, but was liberated on
bail, and soon afterwards addressed a meeting of 5,000
people at Ashton-under-Lyne. There seems to have been
no case against him.]
January 11, 1839 {p.156}
A great field-day at the Council Office yesterday to hear the
Petition of the Serjeants against the order of the late King
opening the Court of Common Pleas to all barristers. It was
Brougham's order.[10] The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Master of
the Rolls, three Chiefs, all the Puisne Judges who are Privy
Councillors, Lushington, Wynford, and Brougham sat. Follett and
Charles Austin were counsel for the Serjeants, and the Attorney
and Solicitor-Generals ordered to attend, and seated at a table
in court. Follett spoke for four hours, and Austin for two, and
did not finish. A vast deal of historical research was displayed,
but it was not amusing nor particularly well done. The Serjeants
were present (the five petitioners), and Wilde prompting Follett
all the time. There seemed no difference of opinion among the
Judges, at least with those I talked to, and the King's mandate
(for such it was to the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and
under the sign manual, though countersigned by nobody) will be
declared waste paper, and matters be replaced on their ancient
footing till Parliament may otherwise determine. Brougham
appeared considerably disconcerted, and though he tilted
occasionally with the counsel, he was on the whole quieter than
usual and than I expected he would have been. This order was one
of those things he blurted out in that 'sic volo sic jubeo' style
which he had assumed, and without consideration, probably without
consultation with anybody, or he might easily have avoided the
commission of such a blunder.
[10] [The Serjeants-at-Law had enjoyed from time immemorial
the exclusive right of practising in the Court of
Common Pleas. Upon the advice of Lord Brougham, then
Chancellor, King William IV. had issued a written
mandate to the court to open their bar to the whole
profession. No doubt the act was quite illegal and a
nullity. The Serjeants now petitioned the Queen in
Council to set it aside. But the court was subsequently
opened by Act of Parliament.]
January 18th, 1839 {p.156}
Durham has come down from his high horse, and has at last
condescended to see Howick and Duncannon, the latter through the
mediation of John Ponsonby, who hopes by bringing them together
to pave the way, if not to a reconciliation, to a state of things
less hostile and bitter in feeling and intention between him and
the Government. They are both anxious to avoid blows if possible,
but it is so difficult to avoid mutual inculpation and
accusation, although only professing exculpation, that it will be
very strange if the matter does (as many think it will) blow over
lightly. The personal question between Melbourne and Durham about
Turton appears the most difficult to settle; but if there is a
will there will be a way, and it is easy enough to imagine the
sort of civil, complimentary assurances from one to the other,
that though there had been a great misunderstanding, it was no
doubt unintentional, and all that sort of palaver which is so
familiar to old stagers and parliamentary squabblers.
[Page Head: THE MURDER OF LORD NORBURY.]
The murder of Lord Norbury[11] has made a great sensation because
the man is so conspicuous; for there seems no reason for
believing that he was murdered from any religious or political
motive, but that it was only another of the many praedial
enormities that are from time to time committed in Ireland. At
present this event only serves to exasperate angry passions, to
call forth loud blasts of the never silent trumpet against
Romanism and the Irish population, and it does not lead men's
minds _immediately_ to a conviction of the necessity of calmly
investigating, and if possible applying a remedy to, a social
condition so full of crime and misery, and so revolting to every
feeling of humanity, as that of Ireland. But the death of this
poor man will conduce to this end, for it is only through long
processes of evil and after much suffering that good is
accomplished.
[11] [The Earl of Norbury was shot near his own house at
Kilbeggan, in the county of Meath. The assassin was
never discovered.]
The case of the Canadian prisoners has been argued before the
Court of Queen's Bench,[12] but it has not excited much interest.
They give judgement on Monday. Roebuck is said to have spoken
very moderately.
[12] [Twelve Canadian prisoners having landed at Liverpool
were brought up on _habeas corpus_ before Lord Denman
and the Court of Queen's Bench. The court upheld the
committal of the prisoners.]
January 24th, 1839 {p.157}
Duncannon found Durham in a very complacent mood, and he entered
with him fully into the subject of Canada and their quarrels.
With respect to Turton's affairs, Durham denies he ever said, or
authorised anybody else to say, that the appointment had
Melbourne's consent, and he admits that Melbourne did put his
veto upon Turton's appointment to office, but says he considered
this veto applicable only to offices _under Government_, and that
the place to which he appointed him was not _under Government_,
but one at his own disposal, and for which he was wholly and
solely responsible. This is his excuse, and a very bad one it is.
It won't go down in the House of Lords, I imagine.
As the time draws near for the meeting of Parliament the
probability of ousting the Government grows fainter; we hear no
more of disunion and Radical hostility, and things promise to
continue pretty much as they have heretofore been. The question
of absorbing interest is now the repeal or alteration of the Corn
Laws, and the declaration of war against them on the part of the
'Times' has produced a great effect, and is taken as conclusive
evidence that they cannot be maintained, from the rare sagacity
with which this journal watches the turn of public affairs;
besides that, its advocacy will be of the greatest use in
advancing the cause which it already had perceived was likely to
prevail. The rest of the Conservative press, the 'Morning
Herald,' 'Post,' and 'Standard,' support the Corn Laws, and the
latter has engaged in a single combat with the 'Times,' conducted
with a kind of chivalrous courtesy, owing to the concurrence of
their general politics, very unusual in newspaper warfare, and
with great ability on both sides.
January 30th, 1839 {p.158}
[Page Head: THE 'PORTFOLIO'.]
After four months or more from the time when he threatened
further disclosures, and when, it appeared as if the whole matter
had blown over, how or why nobody could tell, Urquhart has
published a fresh set of letters which passed between himself and
Backhouse,[13] for the purpose of proving that the latter was a
party to the publication of the 'Portfolio.' Backhouse, who was
at Liverpool when these came out, wrote to desire judgement might
be suspended till certain notes omitted by Urquhart had been also
published, and to-day they appeared; but instead of making the
case better, they have made it rather worse. It is altogether a
dirty transaction, and mortifying to those who care about the
character of public men, and who have some feeling of national
pride and vanity in the super-eminence of English statesmen for
integrity and high-mindedness. It is not very difficult to
extract the truth from the mass of verbiage and contradictory
assertions in which it is involved, and it appears that Urquhart,
having got hold of the papers, communicated them to Palmerston,
offered to publish them, and was encouraged by him to do so.
Urquhart, who was appointed secretary of embassy at
Constantinople while this publication was going on, took every
opportunity of consulting the Foreign Office, and of trying to
make Palmerston and his under-secretaries _participes criminis_,
in order that they might share the responsibility and stand
committed with him. Against this they fought, and while they took
good care that Urquhart should understand that they wished the
publication of the 'Portfolio' to be continued, they kept
shifting and shirking in hopes of not committing themselves
materially. It is pretty clear that Backhouse really disliked the
whole thing, had no mind to meddle with the 'Portfolio,' or mix
himself up with Urquhart, and it was only the official obligation
that was imposed upon him by Palmerston's wishes which induced
him very reluctantly to engage in the business even so far as he
did, and it is very painful to see his early struggles to keep
clear of it, and his present abortive attempts to wriggle out of
his concern with the publication. It is Palmerston on whom the
blame ought to rest, and on whom it will rest, only nobody seems
to take the least interest in the dispute, and he brazens it out
in a very unblushing manner. I am more particularly struck with
the meanness here exhibited, from having just been reading Lord
Chatham's correspondence, in which his noble and lofty character,
so abhorrent of everything like trickery, shabbiness, and
underhand dealing, shines forth with peculiar lustre. It is
animating and refreshing to turn to the contemplation of this
really great and noble mind, even more remarkable I think for
dignity of sentiment and purity of motive, than for eloquence and
capacity.
[13] [Mr. Backhouse was at this time permanent Under
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He filled this
office from 1827 till 1842.]
February 6th, 1839 {p.160}
Last Friday the Serjeants' case came on again before the Privy
Council. The Attorney and Solicitor made a sort of reply to
Austin, but acknowledged that the mandate was not binding on the
Court of Common Pleas; in fact, that it was illegal. Brougham was
very angry, and kept battling with counsel or with Wynford,
Abinger, or others of the Lords, though not violently. They were
anxious to get rid of the question if possible, and to avoid
making a report to the Queen. The conclusion (pretty nearly
unanimous) to which they came was, that the order was illegal,
but that it was neither expedient that matters should return to
their former, nor remain in their present state; and they agreed
to adjourn the consideration of the question. They then separated
with an understanding that a Bill should be brought in directly
to settle the dispute, and they don't intend to meet again upon
it till this Bill has been passed. Thus they will avoid making
any report at all.
Brougham and Lyndhurst came to a Patent case the day before, both
in high spirits. After it was over Lyndhurst came into my room,
when I said, 'You look in high force.' 'Oh no,' said he, 'I am
quite _passé_, entirely done up.' Just then Brougham came in,
when I said to him, pointing to Lyndhurst, 'He says he is quite
_passé_ and done up.' 'Just like me,' he said; 'I am quite
_passé_ too.' 'Then,' I said, 'there can be no use in two such
poor worn-out creatures as you two going to the House of Lords.'
'Do you hear him?' cried out Brougham: 'A capital suggestion of
the Clerk of the Council: we won't go to the House of Lords at
all; let us go together to _Hamble_.'[14] And then he seized
Lyndhurst's arm, and off they went together chuckling and
laughing and brimful of mischief.
[14] Hamble is the country seat of Sir Arthur Paget, who was
present with Brougham.
He came out the night of the Address with a very brilliant
speech, and with a fierce and bitter philippic against O'Connell
for having insinuated that Lord Norbury had been shot by his own
son. Last night, O'Connell retaliated in the House of Commons,
and denying that he had even thought of, or insinuated any such
thing, he hurled back an invective still fiercer, bitterer, more
insulting, and very powerful too. Very little discussion grew out
of the Queen's Speech, all parties being agreed to defer the
consideration of great questions till brought regularly on. There
was a pretty strong demonstration in the House of Commons in
favour of the Corn Laws, so as to render it improbable that
anything will be done. The only thing which seems to threaten the
Government at present is, the hatred that has sprung up between
the English Radicals and the Irish, and the animosity which
prevails among the former against O'Connell. If this is carried
to the length of inducing the English Radicals to keep aloof on
some important question, Ministers may find themselves in a
minority, and resign thereon; and this is what the Tories are
looking to as their best chance.
February 10th, Sunday, 1839 {p.161}
[Page Head: RESIGNATION OF LORD GLENELG.]
On Friday, Lord Glenelg announced in the House of Lords that he
had resigned,[15] though it would have been more correct to have
stated that he had been turned out. He said very little, but that
little conveyed a sense of ill-usage and a mortified spirit; none
of the Ministers uttered a word. Many wonder that they ventured
to make any changes in such a rickety concern, and that, if they
were resolved to do so, they did not have everything settled
before Parliament met. However, the Cabinet appears to have been
unanimous in determining that Glenelg could not remain Colonial
Minister, and they gave him a sort of hint some time ago, by
offering him Sir John Newport's place (for whom an arrangement
was to be made), which he refused; so on Tuesday last the blow
was struck, and they proposed to him to be Privy Seal, which he
declined in some dudgeon. It certainly was difficult so to gild
the pill he was asked to swallow as to disguise its bitterness
and make it tolerably palatable, for in whatever polite
periphrasis it might be involved, the plain English of the
communication was, that he was incompetent to administer Colonial
affairs.
[15] [Lord Glenelg had held the office of Secretary of State
for the Colonies since the formation of Lord
Melbourne's second Administration in 1835. He was
succeeded in the Colonial Office by the Marquis of
Normanby, who had filled up to this time the office of
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.]
By venturing upon these changes the Government evidently think
they can scramble on, and on the whole it is probable that they
may, though never did a Government hold office by so frail and
uncertain a tenure, and upon such strange terms. A pretty correct
analysis of the House of Commons presents the following result:
267 Government people, including the Irish tail; 66 Radicals, 5
doubtful, and 315 Conservatives; 4 vacant seats, and the Speaker.
If, therefore, at any time, one half the Radicals should stay
away (they need not vote against), when danger threatens the
Government, it would be at an end; and if they do not do so, it
is because most of them are still unconvinced that it would be
better and more conducive to the ultimate success of their
objects to let the Tories in, and not from any love to the
present Ministers, whom, on the contrary, they hate a good deal
and despise a little. The Irish band appear to be dependable, but
there is no knowing what might be the consequence of a change,
and the withdrawal of all the personal influence which Normanby
had obtained over them. It has often happened that a coalition of
very opposite parties has turned a Government out; but never
before, that I remember, kept one in, and for such a length of
time. The Conservatives are completely united, ably led, and
count in their ranks the most powerful men in the House of
Commons; they are by far the most numerous of any of the parties,
one-third more than the Whigs (without the Irish), nearly five
times more than the Radicals, and within twenty of all combined;
and yet they are as effectually excluded as they were just after
the passing of the Reform Bill, for all that appears to the
contrary.
[Page Head: LORD DURHAM'S REPORT.]
Lord Durham's enormously long Report[16] appeared in the 'Times'
on Friday last, before being laid on the tables of the two
Houses, whereat he rose in his place and expressed much surprise
and displeasure, all of which was very ridiculous and
superfluous, for he had two thousand copies of it printed, and
distributed them to the right and left, to anybody who came to
see him, to Foreign Ministers and others, so no wonder that the
document found its way into the 'Times.'[17] He sent a copy to
Easthope, proprietor of the 'Morning Chronicle,' but with an
injunction not to publish it, and Easthope told him he wished he
had kept his copy to himself, for he could have obtained one
elsewhere which he should have been at liberty to publish if he
had not accepted his with the prohibition.
[16] [This was the celebrated Report on the Administration
of Canada, which bore the name of Lord Durham, but was
in fact written by Mr. Charles Buller, and embodied the
opinions of Mr. Gibbon Wakefield and Sir William
Molesworth on Colonial policy. It is not too much to
say that in the course of the next twenty years this
Report changed the Colonial policy of the Empire, and
the principles laid down in it certainly converted
Canada from a revolted colony into one of the most
loyal dependencies of the British Crown. What would
have been the result if the Ministers of George III.
had treated the complaints of the American colonies in
1774 with equal wisdom?]
[17] [The copy which appeared in the _Times_ was sent to
that journal by Mr. Hanson, who was one of the persons
attached to Lord Durham's mission. He afterwards became
Sir Richard Davies Hanson, Chief Justice of South
Australia. This gentleman gave the following account of
the transaction. The whole report was written by
Charles Buller, with the exception of two paragraphs on
Church or Crown lands, which were composed by Gibbon
Wakefield and Mr. Hanson. After the Report was
presented to the Colonial Office, the Government wished
these last two paragraphs to be modified. This Lord
Durham was inclined to do. Wakefield resented this and,
in order to prevent any change, he got Hanson to send a
copy of the Report to the _Times_, where it appeared
the next day. These particulars have been communicated
to me by a gentleman to whom Sir Richard Hanson related
them.]
February 14th, 1839 {p.163}
Lord Normanby was not acquainted with the intention of dismissing
Glenelg, nor was the thing settled when he was here; on the
contrary, he had made every preparation for the Dublin season,
and is put to serious inconvenience by being thus suddenly sent
for. Glenelg continues to discharge the official duties, but he
is deeply hurt at the treatment he has experienced. It is the
more remarkable because at this moment his official
correspondence with Durham is published, in which he displays
firmness, dignity, and sense, so that the world can discern no
good cause why he should be so unceremoniously turned off.
Melbourne urged him to retire when his brother (Sir Robert Grant)
died; but Glenelg thought this was from kindness and
consideration, and was so touched, that he deemed it the more
incumbent on him to remain at his post. Normanby will probably do
much better, for though he has nothing like the natural abilities
of his predecessor, he has the knack of succeeding in whatever he
undertakes; he has application, courage, and sense, and all this
in spite of a frivolous exterior. In Ireland, however obnoxious
to the Orangemen, his government has been successful, and I know
of no error that he has committed, except that of too often
releasing prisoners and commuting punishments without the
sanction and concurrence of the Judges. Nothing is so dangerous
and imprudent as to tamper with justice, and John Russell himself
has upon several occasions been rash and flippant in this
respect. It is not long ago that a man was tried and found
guilty, at the Sessions, of destroying a will with a fraudulent
intent. I forget what the punishment was, but a petition for
mercy was handed up to the Secretary of State's office--got up by
the clergyman of the parish, and signed by many names. Without
consulting the magistrates who had convicted the man, he reduced
the punishment to two months' imprisonment, and it turned out
that the clergyman was himself a man of indifferent character,
who had been promoted at the instance of Lord Fitzwilliam, and
the rest of the subscribers to the petition were ignorant people
who had signed it at his instigation: the object was unworthy of
the indulgence which was carelessly and improperly extended.
These things exasperate the magistracy, whom Lord John is apt to
regard with aversion and suspicion; but the Judges are deeply
offended when their sentences are arbitrarily set aside, as they
have sometimes been.
[Page Head: THE CORN LAW QUESTION.]
The Corn Law question, which appeared so formidable before
Parliament met, has lost much of its terrors; and an error
committed by one of its champions, Mr. Wood of Preston, greatly
assisted to damage it. Peel turned against him certain admissions
which he made of the prosperity of trade, with extraordinary
dexterity and effect. The Anti-Corn-Lawites were so enraged and
mortified that they punished their blundering advocate by
dismissing him from his post of President of the Manchester
Chamber of Commerce; and his constituents invited him to resign.
This, and the strong demonstration in favour of the existing
system the first night, the divided opinions and indifference of
the Government, and the diversion made by the Chartists, have
placed the Corn Laws in perfect security for this session at
least. It is curious to see the conduct of the 'Times': just
before Parliament met it thought the time was come when something
must be done, and it accordingly took up the cudgels against the
Corn Laws; but now that it finds the time is not come, it has
dropped the subject altogether, and relapsed into silence.
There seems very little probability of any discussion about
Canadian affairs till Government introduces some legislative
measure, and the expected personalities and recriminations will
silently pass away. Brougham and Durham are reconciled after a
fashion; Ministers and Durham mutually desire to sheathe their
swords. The correspondence which has just appeared at the tail of
the Report exhibits a grand specimen of arrogance and vanity on
Durham's part, not unmixed with talent, albeit his letters are
intolerably prolix. Glenelg has, however, much the best of the
controversy as soon as they begin to cross their weapons, and his
despatch conveying the Queen's disapprobation of his Proclamation
is very dignified and becomingly severe. It is impossible to
conceive anything more galling to a man so puffed up with pride
and vanity, and who fancied himself to be placed upon a pinnacle
far above the sphere of official obligation and responsibility.
It is curious to see the different measure that was dealt out to
Durham and to Head,[18] the latter an able, though not always a
prudent man, who really did good service in his government, and
extricated himself boldly and successfully from a very difficult
situation. He had dismissed a Judge for certain reasons, part of
which he explained to the Colonial Office, and for the rest he
told them that he must, in the difficult position he was in, draw
upon their confidence to support and confirm his act. They said
this was not enough, and insisted on his restoring the Judge.
Upon this he tendered his resignation, which they instantly
accepted; and when he came home they took no notice of him
whatever, and at the same time they were flattering and lauding
and trying to cajole Durham, and begging and praying him to stay,
in the midst of his blundering acts and insolent language, and
while he was addressing the Government in the most contumelious
terms. Head has behaved very well about the publication of his
despatches; for when he asked Melbourne's leave to publish, and
the latter refused, he promised that nothing should appear, and
that he would discourage any Parliamentary attempt to elicit
them. Now that Durham's Report has come forth, containing
strictures on Head's conduct, he assumes a right to publish, for
his own vindication, and he has asserted this in a pettish letter
to Melbourne; whereas, if he had again asked for permission on
this express ground, it would not have been refused. The motto of
this Government, however, seems to be,--
parcere superbis et debellare subjectos,
and their besetting sins are pusillanimity, indifference, and
_insouciance_. On a discussion the other night about speaking on
petitions, when the Speaker laid down the practice, which Lord
John Russell supported with great earnestness, and which was
opposed on Radical grounds by the Radicals, Stewart of the
Treasury, and Vernon Smith, marched off and would not vote; and,
instead of being reprimanded, Vernon Smith will probably be made
Under Secretary of State.
[18] [Right Hon. Sir Francis Bond Head, who was Governor of
Upper Canada at the time of the outbreak of the
insurrection.]
February 17th, 1839 {p.166}
[Page Head: GORE HOUSE.]
I dined at Lady Blessington's yesterday, to meet Durham and
Brougham; but, after all, the latter did not come, and the excuse
he made was, that it was better not; and as he was taking, or
going to take (we shall see), a moderate course about Canada, it
would impair his efficacy if the press were to trumpet forth, and
comment on, his meeting with Durham. There was that sort of
strange _omnium gatherum_ party which is to be met with nowhere
else, and which for that reason alone is curious. We had Prince
Louis Napoleon and his A.D.C.[19] He is a short, thickish,
vulgar-looking man, without the slightest resemblance to his
Imperial uncle, or any intelligence in his countenance. Then we
had the ex-Governor of Canada, Captain Marriott, the Count Alfred
de Vigny (author of 'Cinq Mars' &c.), Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer,
and a proper sprinkling of ordinary persons to mix up with these
celebrities. In the evening, Forster, sub-editor of the
'Examiner;' Chorley, editor of the 'Athenaeum;' Macready, and
Charles Buller. Lady Blessington's existence is a curiosity, and
her house and society have at least the merit of being singular,
though the latter is not so agreeable as from its composition it
ought to be. There is no end to the men of consequence and
distinction in the world who go there occasionally--Brougham,
Lyndhurst, Abinger, Canterbury, Durham, and many others; all the
_minor_ poets, _literati_, and journalists, without exception,
together with some of the highest pretensions. Moore is a sort of
friend of hers; she _has been_ very intimate with Byron, and _is_
with Walter Savage Landor. Her house is furnished with a luxury
and splendour not to be surpassed; her dinners are frequent and
good; and D'Orsay does the honours with a frankness and
cordiality which are very successful; but all this does not make
society, in the real meaning of the term. There is a vast deal of
coming and going, and eating and drinking, and a corresponding
amount of noise, but little or no conversation, discussion, easy
quiet interchange of ideas and opinions, no regular social
foundation of men of intellectual or literary calibre ensuring a
perennial flow of conversation, and which, if it existed, would
derive strength and assistance from the light superstructure of
occasional visitors, with the much or the little they might
individually contribute. The reason of this is that the woman
herself, who must give the tone to her own society, and influence
its character, is ignorant, vulgar, and commonplace.[20] Nothing
can be more dull and uninteresting than her conversation, which
is never enriched by a particle of knowledge, or enlivened by a
ray of genius or imagination. The fact of her existence as an
authoress is an enigma, poor as her pretensions are; for while it
is very difficult to write good books, it is not easy to compose
even bad ones, and volumes have come forth under her name for
which hundreds of pounds have been paid, because (Heaven only can
tell how) thousands are found who will read them. Her 'Works'
have been published in America, in one huge folio, where it seems
they meet with peculiar success; and this trash goes down,
because it is written by a Countess, in a country where rank is
eschewed, and equality is the universal passion. They have (or
some of them) been likewise translated into German; and if all
this is not proof of literary merit, or at least of success, what
is? It would be not uninteresting to trace this current of
success to its source, and to lay bare all the springs of the
machinery which sustains her artificial character as an
authoress. The details of course form the mystery of her craft,
but the general causes are apparent enough. First and foremost,
her magnificent house and luxurious dinners; then the alliance
offensive and defensive which she has contrived (principally
through the means of said house and dinners) to establish with a
host of authors, booksellers, and publishers, and above all with
journalists. The first lend her their assistance in composition,
correction, or addition; with the second she manages to establish
an interest and an interchange of services; and the last
everlastingly puff her performances. Her name is eternally before
the public; she produces those gorgeous inanities, called 'Books
of Beauty,' and other trashy things of the same description, to
get up which all the fashion and beauty, the taste and talent, of
London are laid under contribution. The most distinguished
artists and the best engravers supply the portraits of the
prettiest women in London; and these are illustrated with
poetical effusions of the smallest possible merit, but exciting
interest and curiosity from the notoriety of their authors; and
so, by all this puffing and stuffing, and untiring industry, and
practising on the vanity of some, and the good-nature of others,
the end is attained; and though I never met with any individual
who had read any of her books, except the 'Conversations with
Byron,' which are too good to be hers, they are unquestionably a
source of considerable profit, and she takes her place
confidently and complacently as one of the literary celebrities
of her day.
[19] [The first mention of His Imperial Majesty Napoleon
III., who was an _habitué_ of Gore House, and well
known to all who frequented it. The A.D.C. was M. de
Persigny, who accompanied the Prince everywhere.]
[20] [Lady Blessington had a good deal more talent and
reading than Mr. Greville gives her credit for. Several
years of her agitated life were spent in the country in
complete retirement, where she had no resources to fall
back upon but a good library. She was well read in the
best English authors, and even in translations of the
classics; but the talent to which she owed her success
in society was her incomparable tact and skill in
drawing out the best qualities of her guests. What Mr.
Greville terms her vulgarity might be more charitably
described as her Irish cordiality and _bonhomie_. I
have no doubt that her 'Conversations with Lord Byron'
were entirely written by herself. It is true that,
writing, as she did, to make money, many of her other
books were exceedingly worthless.]
CHAPTER V.
Opening of the Session--Lady Flora Hastings--Bulwer's
'Richelieu'--Changes at the Colonial Office--Attack on Lord
Normanby's Irish Administration in the Lords--General Aspect of
Affairs--The 'Morning Chronicle'--Death of Lord de Ros--
Precarious Position of the Government--Views of Lord John
Russell--A doubtful Question--Conciliatory Conversation with
Sir James Graham--Attitude of the Whig Party--Peel's cold
Reception of the Proposal--Result of the Debate--Attitude of
Lord John Russell--Language of the Radical Party--
Conciliation--Change of Feeling in the Country--Duke of
Newcastle dismissed from the Lord Lieutenancy--Lord John
Russell's Letter--Jamaica Bill--Defeat of the Jamaica Bill--
Resignation of Ministers--The Queen retains the Ladies of her
Household--Conduct of the Whigs--End of the Crisis--The Truth
of the Story.
London: February 24th, 1839 {p.170}
Hitherto the proceedings in Parliament have been sufficiently
languid and uninteresting. The debate on the Corn Laws, which was
expected to occupy two or three nights, went off in one, and a
great majority against hearing evidence, followed by no sort of
sensation, has set the question at rest for the present. Lord
Winchilsea brought on the Turton case in the House of Lords, when
Durham made a blustering, and Melbourne a prudent, moderate, and
satisfactory explanation. He had remonstrated against the
appointment, when Durham had replied that his honour was
concerned in it and he could not cancel it; and Melbourne said,
he did not think he should be justified in hazarding the great
objects of Durham's mission for such an object as Turton's
removal. Durham threatened, if anything more was said on the
subject, to bring forward the cases of all those who had been
guilty of a similar offence, and had afterwards held office. He
did not say what he had to say well, for he might have exposed
the cant of all this hubbub, and have asked Winchilsea, who
talked of sense of duty and so forth, and that he should have
done the same by his dearest friend, whether he had thought it
necessary to make a similar stir when Sir George Murray was
appointed Secretary of State; and, besides this _argumentum ad
hominem_, he might have asked, whether in point of fact it was an
admitted principle that those who had committed heavy offences
against the laws of morality should be therefore disqualified
from serving in a civil capacity. However the question is at an
end, and has gone off smoothly enough all things considered.[1]
[1] [Sir George Murray had run away with Lady Louisa
Erskine, whom he afterwards married. But Turton's
breach of morality was of a more serious character.
Mr., or as he afterwards became Sir Thomas, Turton had
been guilty of an intrigue with his sister-in-law,
which led to the dissolution of his marriage. On this
ground Lord Melbourne had objected to his going out to
Canada with Lord Durham in a public capacity; but Lord
Durham, with very bad taste, took him out in what he
was pleased to call a private capacity. The public, as
this was a question of morals, were slow to accept this
distinction.]
[Page Head: CHANGES AT THE COLONIAL OFFICE.]
After much difficulty about filling up Sir George Grey's place at
the Colonies,[2] Labouchere has very handsomely volunteered to
take it, though lower in rank and pay, and far more laborious
than that which he before held. They did not venture to ask him,
but it was thrown out by Le Marchant that he would be the most
eligible successor to Grey; when he said immediately, that if
Government thought he could be of use to them and to the public,
and he was satisfied the measures to be proposed would be such as
he could conscientiously support, he would take the office
without hesitation. They took him at his word, and he was
installed _instanter_; had he not taken it, Ben Stanley would
have gone there. These changes have so much disconcerted Stephen
that he has proposed to resign, and it is still a question
whether he does or not; but they will hardly let him go, for his
knowledge and powers of wielding the business cannot be dispensed
with, particularly by two men perfectly new and inexperienced in
Colonial affairs.
[2] [Sir George Grey, who had been Under Secretary for the
Colonies, was made Judge Advocate and a Privy
Councillor on the 1st of March, 1839. Mr. Labouchere,
who had been Vice-President of the Board of Trade and
Master of the Mint since 1835, very handsomely
consented to take the inferior office at the Colonies.
Mr. Labouchere, however, returned to the Board of Trade
as President on the 29th of August, 1839. Mr. Stephen
was the permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies.]
March 2nd, 1839 {p.172}
The whole town has been engrossed for some days with a scandalous
story at Court, and although of course great exaggerations and
falsehoods are grafted upon the real case, and it is not easy to
ascertain what and how much is true, enough is known and
indubitable, to show that it is a very discreditable transaction.
It appears that Lady Flora Hastings, the Duchess of Kent's lady,
has been accused of being with child. It was at first whispered
about, and at last swelled into a report, and finally into a
charge. With whom it originated is not clear; but the Queen
appears to have been apprised of the rumour, and so far to have
entered into it as to sanction an intimation to the lady that she
must not appear at Court till she could clear herself of the
imputation. Medical examination was either demanded by her or
submitted to, and the result was satisfactory to the virtue of
the accused damsel. Then naturally exploded the just indignation
of insulted honour. Her brother, Lord Hastings, came up to town,
saw Melbourne, who is said to have endeavoured to smother the
affair, and to have tried to persuade Lord Hastings to do so; but
he was not at all so inclined, and if he had been, it was too
late, as all the world had begun to talk of it, and he demanded
and obtained an audience of the Queen. I abstain from noticing
the various reports of what this or that person did or said, for
the truth of which I could not vouch; but it is certain that the
Court is plunged in shame and mortification at the exposure, that
the palace is full of bickerings and heart-burnings, while the
whole proceeding is looked upon by society at large as to the
last degree disgusting and disgraceful. It is really an
exemplification of the saying, that 'les Rois et les Valets' are
made of the refuse clay of creation, for though such things
sometimes happen in the servants' hall, and housekeepers charge
still-room and kitchen-maids with frailty, they are unprecedented
and unheard of in good society, and among people in high or even
in respectable stations. It is inconceivable how Melbourne can
have permitted this disgraceful and mischievous scandal, which
cannot fail to lower the character of the Court in the eyes of
the world. There may be objections to Melbourne's extraordinary
domiciliation in the palace; but the compensation ought to be
found in his good sense and experience preventing the possibility
of such transactions and _tracasseries_ as these.[3]
[3] [I insert this passage on a painful transaction which
had better be consigned to oblivion, because it
contains nothing which is not to be found in the most
ordinary books of reference; but I shall not enter
further on this matter.]
At Court yesterday to appoint Ebrington Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland: they all looked busy and _affairés_, and the Queen
seemed very grave.
March 8th, 1839 {p.173}
[Page Head: BULWER'S 'RICHELIEU'.]
I went last night to the first representation of Bulwer's play
'Richelieu:' a fine play, admirably got up, and very well acted
by Macready, except the last scene, the conception of which was
altogether bad. He turned Richelieu into an exaggerated Sixtus
V., who completely lost sight of his dignity, and swaggered about
the stage, taunting his foes, and hugging his friends with an
exultation quite unbecoming and out of character. With this
exception it was a fine performance; the success was unbounded,
and the audience transported. After Macready had been called on,
they found out Bulwer, who was in a small private box next the
one I was in with Lady Blessington and D'Orsay, and were
vociferous for his appearance to receive their applause. After a
long delay, he bowed two or three times, and instantly retreated.
Directly after he came into our box, looking very serious and
rather agitated; while Lady Blessington burst into floods of
tears at his success, which was certainly very brilliant.
March 12th, 1839 {p.173}
The Government have offered Canada to Lord Clarendon,[4] who is
coming home to give his answer in person. They are resolved to
make _maison nette_ at the Colonial Office, and want to oust
Stephen; but the publication of Sir Francis Head's extraordinary
book,[5]--in which he is denounced as a Republican, and as the
author of all the mischievous policy by which our Colonial
possessions have been endangered, and his dismissal is loudly
demanded--makes it impossible for Stephen to retire, or for
Government to invite him to do so. Stephen cannot vindicate
himself, except by divulging official secrets which he considers
it would be a grievous breach of trust and duty to do; but he
declares to me that he has abundant means of vindication in his
hands if he chose to avail himself of them. The world believes
that each Secretary of State (Glenelg particularly) has been a
mere puppet in his office, and that it is Stephen who has moved
all the strings; but the fact is, there have been three parties--
Stephen, Glenelg, and the Cabinet; and though the first may have
exercised a great influence over the second, it has often
happened, that both have been overruled by the last, and neither
Head nor anybody else can do more than conjecture what has really
been the secret history of our Colonial policy. Glenelg, however,
was evidently feeble, and his faculties seem to have been
entirely benumbed ever since the flagellations he got from
Brougham in the beginning of last session. His terror of Brougham
is so intense that he would submit to any humiliation rather than
again expose his back to such a merciless scourge.[6]
[4] [Sir George Villiers, then Minister at Madrid,
succeeded to the title of Earl of Clarendon on the 22nd
of December, 1838. He shortly afterwards resigned his
diplomatic appointment in Spain and returned to
England.]
[5] [Whatever credit for discretion Sir Francis Bond Head
might previously have enjoyed was more than effaced by
the extraordinary indiscretion of 'A Narrative of
Recent Events in Canada,' which he published at this
time.]
[6] They became great friends again at a subsequent period.
Brougham has been always throwing off and whistling
back his friends.
March 25th, 1839 {p.174}
Laid up with the gout for these ten days, in which time the only
occurrences of moment have been the great (and final) debate on
the Corn Laws, and the hostile vote in the House of Lords,[7]
followed by John Russell's declaration in the House of Commons,
and appeal to that House from the vote of the Lords. The Corn
debate was extremely long and dull, and the House more than
usually clamorous and impotent. The only speech was Peel's, said
to have been exceedingly able; the division was better for the
Cornites, and worse for their antagonists, than had been
expected; the decision received with great indifference, and the
question put on the shelf for some time.
[7] [On the 18th of March Mr. Charles Villiers' motion for
a Committee to take into consideration the duties on
corn was defeated in the House of Commons by 342 to 195
votes. I know not why Mr. Greville styles it the
'final' debate, which it certainly was not. On the 21st
of March Lord Roden carried in the House of Lords, by a
majority of five, a motion for a Committee to inquire
into the state of Ireland since 1835. This motion was
directed against Lord Normanby's Administration.
Shortly afterwards this motion was met by a resolution
of Lord John Russell's in the House of Commons
approving the Irish policy of the Government, which was
carried by 318 to 296.]
The other affair is much more interesting, because more personal,
and involving the existence of the Government. There seems to
have been an abundance of angry feeling and a great lack of
discretion and judgement on all sides: first of all in the House
of Lords thus lightly and somewhat loosely pressing this vote,
and going the length of appointing a Committee; and why the Duke
of Wellington consented to it is difficult to see, unless it be
that his mind is a little enfeebled, and his strong sense no
longer exercises the same sway. They hardly seem to have intended
what they did, for they made no whip up, and Lord Wicklow went
away without voting. As it was, Government had better have rested
upon their old declaration, that as long as they were supported
by the House of Commons they should disregard the opposition of
the House of Lords; and so in fact they would have done, if the
next day Normanby had not flared up so violently and insisted on
resignation or reparation. At the Cabinet there was a long
discussion whether they should resign or not, and the Speaker,
Ellice, and others of their friends, were strongly for their
taking this opportunity of retiring with all their strength, and
upon a question which would have rendered it next to impossible
for their successors to go on if they took their places. The
result, however, was the declaration of John Russell, and their
determination to try their strength in the House of Commons. If
the Radicals support them they will get their usual majority of
from fifteen to twenty; but it does not appear that they will
gain much by that, for the Lords will go on with their Committee
and put Normanby on his trial without caring for the vote of the
Commons.
[Page Head: LORD NORMANBY'S IRISH ADMINISTRATION.]
With regard to the merits of the case, Normanby's Government was
no doubt on the whole carried on in a very good spirit; but as it
was in an Irish spirit, it was of course obnoxious to the old
dominant party. There is not the slightest suspicion that in his
exercise of the prerogative of mercy he was ever influenced by
any improper motives or showed any partiality; though Lord
Wellesley said, that 'he dramatised royalty, and made mercy
appear blind instead of justice.' But the system is of very
questionable propriety, and on some occasions he probably was
rather too free with it, and went a little further than in strict
prudence he ought to have done. Generally speaking, however, on
this point as well as on the other grounds on which he has been
attacked, he has defended himself with great vigour and success.
The night after the debate, he gave Brougham a heavy fall, and
exposed his glaring inconsistency and falseness. Brougham is said
to have appeared more annoyed and crestfallen than ever he did
before. He certainly made a very poor and inefficient reply.
[Page Head: WEAKNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT.]
Nothing would be more unfortunate than a change of Government as
the result of this blow aimed by the House of Lords, and under
the auspices of Roden, the leader of the Orangemen. Ireland is
the great strength of the present Government as it is the weak
point of the Tories; and if they went out, and Peel came in upon
Ireland, and the principle on which he should govern that
country, he would never keep his place, and nobody could tell
what troubles might not ensue. It is Peel's interest that Irish
questions should assume such a shape, and make such a progress,
before he returns to office, as should render their final
adjustment inevitable. If things were left alone, and time and
the hour permitted us to run through the present rough days, it
would be impossible to prevent great changes taking place before
long. The country is beset with difficulties on all sides, if not
with danger; besides the ever rankling thorn of Ireland, there
are the Chartists and the Anti-Corn Law agitators, to say nothing
of minor reformers in England, and the whole of our Colonial
Empire in a most unsettled, precarious, and difficult state,
requiring the utmost wisdom and firmness in dealing with Colonial
interests, and our relations with America demanding firmness,
temper, and sagacity. But, while the country has thus urgent need
of all the ability and experience which can be enlisted in her
service, from the curious position of parties in the House of
Commons, and the mode in which power is distributed, we have at
once a Government miserably weak, unable to exercise a will of
its own, bolstered up by the interested and uncertain support of
men more inimical than friendly to them; while the most
distinguished statesmen and the men who are admitted to be the
fittest to govern, are effectually excluded from office. While we
have a Cabinet in which there is not one man who inspires
confidence, and in which, with the exception perhaps of John
Russell (who is broken in health and spirits), there is not one
deserving to be called a statesman,--to this Cabinet is committed
the awful task of solving the many difficult questions of
domestic, colonial, and foreign policy which surround and press
upon us; while the Duke of Wellington and Peel are compelled 'to
stand like ciphers in the great account.' The great
characteristic of the present time is indifference: nobody
appears to care for anything; nobody cares for the Queen, her
popularity has sunk to zero, and loyalty is a dead letter; nobody
cares for the Government, or for any man or set of men. If there
was such a thing as a strong public opinion alive to national
interests, intent upon national objects, and deeply sensible to
the necessity of calling to the national councils all the wisdom
and experience that the crisis demands, its voice would be heard,
the two parties would cease to hold each other at bay, there
would be either a great change or a fusion in some reasonable
spirit of compromise, and we should see a Government with some
energy, independence and power, and this is what we want. But
Melbourne seems to hold office for no other purpose but that of
dining at Buckingham House, and he is content to rub on from day
to day, letting all things take their chance. Palmerston, the
most enigmatical of Ministers, who is detested by the _Corps
Diplomatique_, abhorred in his own office, unpopular in the House
of Commons, liked by nobody, abused by everybody, still reigns in
his little kingdom of the Foreign Office, and is impervious to
any sense of shame from the obloquy that has been cast upon him,
and apparently not troubling himself about the affairs of the
Government generally, which he leaves to others to defend and
uphold as they best may. The only man besides John Russell in the
Cabinet who stands high in estimation is Morpeth, and it is
remarkable that in this Government the young ones or subordinates
are its chief strength. Morpeth, Labouchere, George Grey, and
Francis Baring are better men than almost any in the Cabinet,
which is certainly the most second-rate one this country ever
saw.
March 28th, 1839 {p.178}
It is amusing to see the nervous consciousness on both the Tory
and the Whig side of blunders having been committed by each in
this demonstration of the Lords and retort of the Government. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer came into my room yesterday, and told
me that Lord Spencer had expressed his strenuous approbation of
the course they had taken, just the right medium, neither too
much nor too little; and this sanction he seemed to think very
valuable, though in fact worth nothing, for Lord Spencer lives
among oxen, and not among men. On the other hand, I met Graham,
and said to him, 'A pretty scrape you would have been in if
Government had resigned upon this vote.' He shrugged up his
shoulders and said, 'I own I am better pleased as it is.' No
great party should do things by halves and doubtingly: if the
leaders thought the case was so grave as to call for the
interference of the House, and that they were justified in taking
this matter into their own hands, they ought to have brought down
all their forces, and have given their vote all the authority it
would derive from an imposing majority. No maxim is more clearly
understood than that any party having generally a large majority,
and only carrying some particular question by a very small one,
suffers something like a defeat, because it implies that they
have not the concurrence on such question of many of their usual
supporters. This was, therefore, a false move one way or the
other. The Government, however, have no doubt of carrying their
point by as large a majority as they ever can have.
[Page Head: DEFECTION OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE.]
They are in a great rage, and in no small dismay at the same
time, at the conduct of the 'Morning Chronicle,' which has turned
half against them in a most extraordinary manner, that is, it is
urging the Radicals to seize this opportunity of compelling the
Government to go their lengths, and to make such compliance the
condition of their support. Government are so indignant that they
want to break off with the 'Chronicle' altogether; but then they
will be left in the awkward predicament of having no morning
paper whatever in their service. What nettles them the more is,
that they made the 'Chronicle' what it is, and raised it by their
exertions from the lowest ebb to its present very good
circulation. Just before Peel's hundred days it was for sale, and
had then fallen to about a thousand a day. Easthope was persuaded
by Ellice to buy it, which he did for £15,000 or £20,000. The
Whigs set to work, and Hobhouse, Normanby, Poulett Thomson, Le
Marchant, and several others, wrote day after day a succession of
good articles which soon renovated the paper and set it on its
legs. The circulation increased daily till it got up to three
thousand, and now it has reached six thousand. Easthope makes a
clear £10,000 a year by the speculation; but now, seeing (or
thinking he sees) greater advantages to be got by floating down
the Radical stream than by assisting in the defence of this
Government, he forgets past favours and connexion, and is ready
to abandon them to their fate. It is rather an ominous sign and
marks strongly their falling estimation. They think it is Durham
who has got hold of Easthope, and persuades him to take this
course. He declares he is so beset with applications, advice, and
threats, that he has no alternative, and must take the line he
does, or ruin the sale of his paper.
Newmarket, March 29th, 1839 {p.180}
Poor De Ros[8] expired last night soon after twelve, after a
confinement of two or three months from the time he returned to
England. His end was enviably tranquil, and he bore his
protracted sufferings (more from oppression and annoyance than
acute pain) with astonishing fortitude and composure. Nothing
ruffled his temper or disturbed his serenity. His faculties were
unclouded, his memory retentive, his perceptions clear to the
last; no murmur of impatience ever escaped him, no querulous
word, no ebullition of anger or peevishness; he was uniformly
patient, mild, indulgent, deeply sensible of kindness and
attention, exacting nothing, considerate of others and apparently
regardless of self, overflowing with affection and kindness of
manner and language to all around him, and exerting all his moral
and intellectual energies with a spirit and resolution that never
flagged till within a few hours of his dissolution, when nature
gave way and he sank into a tranquil unconsciousness in which
life gently ebbed away. Whatever may have been the error of his
life, he closed the scene with a philosophical dignity not
unworthy of a sage, and with a serenity and sweetness of
disposition of which Christianity itself could afford no more
shining or delightful example. In him I have lost (half lost
before) the last and greatest of the friends of my youth, and I
am left a more solitary and a sadder man.
[8] [Henry William, 19th Baron de Ros, born 12th June 1792;
died 29th March 1839.]
London, April 6th, 1839 {p.180}
[Page Head: LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S FINALITY.]
I saw X. at Newmarket, and had a long conversation with him, in
which he gave me an account of the state of affairs. The
Government is at its last gasp; the result of the debate next
week may possibly prolong its existence, as a cordial does that
of a dying man, but it cannot go on. They are disunited,
dissatisfied, and disgusted in the Cabinet--Lord John himself
deeply so--considerably alarmed at the state of affairs,
resolutely bent upon making no further concessions to Radicalism,
and no sacrifices for mere party purposes. There is a violent
faction in the Cabinet and in the Government, who are indignant
with him for his _finality_ speech last year, to which they
ascribe the ruin of their cause, and Duncannon at the time, or
soon after, abused him openly and loudly for it. This reached
Lord John's ears, who complained of such conduct, and the more
because he had summoned a special Cabinet for the purpose of
announcing that it was his intention to make this declaration,
therefore they were all apprised of it, whereas Duncannon had
asserted that he did it without the knowledge of his colleagues.
It turned out in the course of the explanation that Duncannon had
been laid up at the time, and was not present at this Cabinet,
but he could hardly have been ignorant of such an important
circumstance, and this shows the _animus_ there was among some of
them. The principal object of the more radically-inclined was to
let Ballot be an open question, and to this Melbourne had been
persuaded to consent, though no doubt quite contrary to his own
wishes and opinions. But Melbourne has no strong convictions or
opinions founded on political principles deeply engraven on his
mind; he is easy, _insouciant_, persuadable, averse to disputes,
and preferring to sacrifice his own convictions to the
pertinacity and violence of others, rather than manfully and
consistently defend and maintain them; still he looks up to John
Russell and defers to him more than to any of his colleagues,
both on account of his respect for his character and the station
he holds as leader of the House of Commons; and when any struggle
occurs, and he must side with one or the other party, he goes
with Lord John, and accordingly Ballot was not made an open
question.
[Page Head: LORD JOHN'S FRIENDLINESS TO PEEL.]
What Lord John says is this: That when the Reform Bill was
introduced, the extent and sweeping character of the measure were
hateful and alarming to many members of the Cabinet and
supporters of the Government; that the ground on which he urged
the adoption of the measure was the expediency of leaving nothing
for future agitation, and of giving the country a measure so
ample and satisfactory that it might and ought to be final. To
this argument many who dreaded its consequences ended by
yielding, though reluctantly, and he considers himself,
therefore, bound in honour to resist any further changes, and to
take his stand where we now are. Besides this he now (as I
gather) is seriously alarmed at the state of the country, and
deeply impressed with the necessity of opposing all the Radical
measures and propositions, which he considers parts of a great
system, and a comprehensive scheme of a revolutionary character.
Then he is disgusted and mortified at the treatment he has
personally experienced both in and out of the House of Commons,
and at the clamour and abuse of which he has been the object on
account of the firm determination he has evinced to go no
further; and this clamour has not been confined to the regular
avowed Radicals or the organs of their opinions, but there are
old self-styled Whigs--his uncle, Lord William, for example--and
others, who are groaning over his obstinacy as they deem it, and
attributing to it the ruin of their party; all this superadded to
his broken spirits[9] makes him heartily sick of his position;
and, seeing the unpopularity and weakness of the Government,
denuded of all sympathy and support, and left to be buffeted by
the Tories on one side and the Radicals on the other, he is
aware, and not sorry to be aware, that the last act is at hand.
Of this approaching catastrophe probably all the others are as
well aware as himself, but there are some among them who
earnestly desire that it should be so brought about as to make it
next to impossible for those who may succeed them to carry on the
Government. This, however, is not the object of Lord John
Russell, who, on the contrary, desires that the next Government
may be so formed and so conducted as to enable him to support it,
and to bring with him such strength in its aid as may place it
beyond the reach of danger. Whether they get a majority or not on
the 15th, he knows that they cannot go on much longer. The Queen
will do whatever Melbourne advises her, and he will advise her to
send for the Duke of Wellington, who, in his turn, will desire
her to send for Peel. Whether or no any attempt would be made
towards a coalition, or a wide comprehension, on the formation of
the Government, nothing would induce Lord John to take office,
but he would be desirous of supporting Peel's Government, if he
could with honour, and if the circumstances attending the change
should render it possible for him as well as for others disposed
to follow his course, to do so. He thinks that it is of great
consequence that there should be no dissolution, which would
throw the country into a ferment, lead to violent manifestations
and declarations, and to many people being obliged to pledge
themselves to measures of a dangerous tendency. He wishes,
therefore, to place Peel in such a situation as shall exonerate
him from the necessity of a dissolution, by giving him a fair
general though independent support; but the power to do this
depends much upon the temper that is displayed, and upon the mode
in which the change is effected; for if the Tories cannot be
restrained from the exhibition of an insulting and triumphant
demeanour, the exasperation and desire of revenge in the
discomfited party will be too great and general to admit of his
aiding the new Government with an imposing force, and he is
therefore solicitous that prudence and moderation should govern
the Conservative councils. I asked X. whether he thought that
there were many others likely to take this view and to follow
Lord John's example and advice, and he said that there were.
[9] [Adelaide, daughter of Thomas Lister, Esquire, and
widow of the second Lord Ribblesdale, was the first
wife of Lord John Russell: she died on the 1st November
1838, to the great grief of the Minister.]
All this, which is a brief abstract of our two conversations,
appeared to me of so much importance, and, above all, that it is
so desirable that the sentiments of the Whig leader should be
made known to the future Minister, that I asked X. whether there
would be any objection to my making known as much as it was
desirable to impart of our conversation without committing
anybody, and carefully abstaining from giving what I might say
the air of a communication between parties in any shape or way.
He said that it certainly might be very useful that there should
be some such knowledge of these sentiments conveyed to the proper
quarter, but he did not think the time was yet come, and that for
the present I had better say nothing; to which I replied that, as
it might have an important effect upon their deliberations which
would be held previously to the debate on the 15th, and upon the
conduct of Peel and his party on that occasion, I thought that
the sooner the communication took place the better, as there
could be no doubt that the temper displayed and the conduct
pursued by the different parties on that occasion would have a
very material effect upon all future arrangements, and upon the
condition, prospects, and necessities of the new administration.
I told X. that there was nothing I had such a horror of as
repeating things from one party to another, of retailing
political gossip, and of the appearance of worming myself into
the confidence of individuals of one side, and then betraying it
to those of another; that I would not therefore make the
slightest use of what he had told me without his entire
permission, and whatever I might say, I should faithfully report
to him. He, who knows me, was quite satisfied; but others might
not be. Then I have the greatest doubt to whom I should speak.
The only individuals I can think of are the Duke, Fitzgerald,
Graham, Wharncliffe, or Peel himself. Peel himself would be the
most direct, but he is so cold, dry, and unsatisfactory, I know
not how he would take it, and he would very likely suspect me of
some design, some _arrière pensée_, some purpose of founding on
this service a title to his intimacy, or his patronage and
assistance--in short, some selfish, personal object. Whereas I
hope and believe that I am not actuated by any puerile vanity in
this matter, or the ambition of acting a part, however humble and
subordinate, but that I have no object but to render my personal
position instrumental to a great and good purpose.
April 7th, 1839 {p.184}
I sent for Clarendon, and consulted him what I should do. He
advised me to speak to Peel at once, but first to ascertain
whether John Russell certainly remained in the same mind, because
Ben Stanley reports to the Cabinet that they will have so certain
a majority that their drooping spirits have been rather raised,
and it will never do for me to run the risk of deceiving Peel in
any way. I shall do nothing for the present, but turn it in my
mind. There is a moral or religious precept of oriental origin
which is applicable to politics as well as to morals and
religion, and which should, I think, be ever present to the mind:
'When you are in doubt whether an action is good or bad, abstain
from it.' I believe this is the safest and wisest maxim with
reference to sayings and doings: if you have serious doubts
whether it is advisable to do a particular thing, or to say a
particular thing, neither do, nor say; do nothing, say nothing.
Of course, if you must do or say something, and the only choice
is _what_, it is another thing. I believe, when the mind is
disturbed and is oscillating with doubts of this kind, it is that
vanity is whispering at one ear and prudence at the other; but
then prudence almost always takes the deaf ear, and so vanity
persuades.
April 10th, 1839 {p.185}
[Page Head: IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION TO GRAHAM.]
I wrote to X. on Saturday last, and said that what I heard here
of the confidence of Government about their majority made me
hesitate about saying anything for fear Lord John should not be
in the same mind. He replied that he had no reason to believe he
had changed his mind, but that it might be better to say nothing
for the present. I had therefore resolved to say nothing, but on
Monday John Russell announced the terms of his motion,[10] and
Peel gave notice that on Friday he would give out his amendment;
therefore, if anything was to be done (as they were thus coming
to close quarters), no time was to be lost; and accordingly,
after much reflexion, I resolved to speak to Graham, with whom
old intimacy enabled me to converse more freely than I could with
Peel, whose coldness and reserve, and the doubt how he would take
my communication, would certainly have embarrassed me. I called
on Graham yesterday, and had a conversation of two hours with
him. He began by saying that he could hold no communication with
me upon any political subject without telling me that he should
feel bound to impart everything to Peel, and I replied that such
was my intention. I then told him, without mentioning names, or
giving any authority, the reason I had for speaking to him, and
the conviction in my own mind that there would be found (in the
event of a change of Government) a disposition on the part of
John Russell and others of the moderate Whigs to support Peel. I
told him that I thought it of such vital importance that such a
disposition should be fostered, and not checked or suppressed by
any violence in the conduct or language of his party, such as
might render it impossible for them to give that support
hereafter; that I had resolved to make known to him, for his
consideration and that of Peel, this my conviction; at the same
time, he must fully understand, I had no _authority_ for saying
so, that I might be mistaken, and he must take it for just what
he judged it to be worth. I went more at length into the subject,
conveying to him much of the information which had been imparted
to me.
[10] [This was the motion approving the Irish policy of the
Government, above referred to.]
[Page Head: NEGOTIATION WITH GRAHAM AND PEEL.]
He replied that he was fully aware of the great importance of
this communication, and did not doubt that I had very solid
grounds for what I said; but at the same time he thought the
motion of which John Russell had given notice was in itself a
measure of such a violent character that it was inconsistent with
the moderation which I ascribed to him, and he feared that, in
the event of a change, he might be persuaded to put himself at
the head of the Whigs and Radicals, and acquiesce for party
purposes in those movement measures to which he was certainly not
personally inclined; that as for himself, and Stanley also, they
had old feelings of regard, and friendship for Lord John, which
would always influence them; and that he had recently had a sort
of reconciliation with him (the circumstance of which he
detailed), after an alienation on account of his attack upon Lord
John in his speech at Glasgow; but that Peel had no such amicable
feelings towards him, and thought he had got him at a great
disadvantage on the present occasion; that their amendment would
be moderate in terms; but they intended to be very strong in
debate, and it was a good deal to ask of them to emasculate their
speeches for the prospective but uncertain advantage of Lord
John's future support. 'You say,' he continued, 'that you are
convinced, on what you deem good and certain ground, that John
Russell is disposed to resist the movement, and, in order to do
so, to support Peel, if he comes in; and you ask us to place such
confidence in this impression of yours, as to shape our conduct
in conformity with it. You ask us to adopt a tone so moderate as
to give no offence to John Russell, a lower tone than would be
naturally expected from us by our friends, who will, and can,
know nothing of our reasons for foregoing the advantage which
seems to be in our power, and for treating our opponents with
such extraordinary and unaccountable lenity and forbearance. This
is asking a great deal.' I owned that it was; but I urged that
the paramount importance of winning over the Whig leader, and a
part of the Whig party, to a decided opposition to the movement,
and the prospect it held out of separating the Whigs from the
Radicals, fully justified the sacrifice of any such advantage as
that to which he alluded. He said that, 'supposing such were the
views and feelings of John Russell himself, he doubted whether
the great Whig families would follow him. He thought the Dukes of
Sutherland, Devonshire, Bedford, and others, would throw their
influence into the opposite scale, and that the majority of the
Whigs would follow Morpeth, who, he believed, was prepared to go
any lengths.' I replied, that this might be so; that I could only
speak of what I knew; that it had occurred to me to enquire
whether he was likely to be followed by many others, and that to
the question I had thus put, the answer had been 'yes;' but that
I could not pretend to say I knew of any certain instances of
support to be expected, though my own belief was, that they would
not be wanting. After a long conversation, in which we discussed
the state and aspect of affairs in all their bearings, he ended
by saying, that what I had said to him had made a great
impression upon him, and that he should consider what it would be
most advisable to do. He thanked me for the confidence I had
reposed in him, and appreciated my motives; he should communicate
with Peel about it, but whether he should mention what I had said
to him as the impression of his own mind only, or whether he
should tell him upon what authority it rested (upon mine), he
should hereafter determine. I told him I had rather avoid, but
had no objection, if necessary, to have my name brought forward,
and, above all things, he must understand and convey to Peel that
I had _no authority_ for what I had said, that nobody must be in
the slightest degree _committed,_ that my impressions might be
mistaken and erroneous, and the event might not correspond with
them; but that, such as they were, I had frankly communicated
them to him in hopes that the communication might have a salutary
effect.
April 13th, 1839 {p.188}
[Page Head: COLD RECEPTION BY PEEL.]
On Thursday morning I saw Graham again. He had spoken to Peel,
and told him exactly what I intended him to say, neither more nor
less, giving it as given to him _by a friend of his own_. Peel
was not disposed to attach much weight to the communication, and
finding how lightly he regarded it, he thought it necessary to
inform him that it came from me. The mention of my name (he said)
did make a considerable impression on Peel, though much less than
the matter had made on Stanley and himself; the former eagerly
grasping at the prospect it held out, and believing implicitly in
Lord John's disposition. Still Peel was shaken, but at the same
time he was excessively annoyed and _put out_ by it. This (which
appeared extraordinary enough) Graham accounted for in this way:
that Peel had arranged the whole course of his conduct and the
tenour of his speech in his own mind; he thought he had got Lord
John at a great disadvantage, and that the debate would afford
him the opportunity of a signal triumph; and the notion of being
obliged to forego this advantage and triumph, and the perplexity
into which he was thrown between doubt whether it really was
worth while, and fear of sacrificing a great and permanent, to an
accidental and ephemeral interest, threw him into an uncertainty
and embarrassment which disturbed his equanimity. It is at all
events fortunate that I did not go to him myself, for I should
have been met with a cold austerity of manner which would have
disconcerted me, and I should have most certainly quitted him
mortified and disappointed, and without having effected any good.
Peel said to Graham that he should express no opinion, make no
promise, and would not say whether or how his conduct would be
affected by what he had heard. I replied on this, that I did not
desire or expect that he should, and that my object was attained
when he was made aware of what I knew. I repeated that I had no
authority, and he must attach as much or as little importance to
my opinion as he thought it was worth. Graham said that,
notwithstanding his annoyance, he was in fact fully sensible of
the importance of the circumstances, and that he would look with
the greatest solicitude for what fell from John Russell himself,
considering that his speech would afford the test of the
correctness of my impressions, and that if the tenour of that
speech confirmed them, their speeches would be of a corresponding
character; that he might defend the policy of the Government, and
the administration of Ireland, as strenuously as he pleased; but
if he attacked the House of Lords, or truckled to the Radicals,
they must give a vent to the indignant feelings that such conduct
would inevitably excite, and it would be impossible for them to
satisfy their followers by a mere milk-and-water debate, and by
abstaining from the use of their weapons when the other side were
unscrupulous in the use of theirs. I said I did not desire that
they should go into action with their swords in their scabbards,
while their enemies were to have theirs drawn; that I admitted
that this opening speech might be considered a fair test, and
that all I desired was, that if they _could_ be moderate they
_would_, and always keep in sight the motives for moderation.
This, he assured me, I might depend upon. Peel thinks _the
motion_ itself so violent, that it announces violent
dispositions; and he says it is moving the Appropriation Clause
over again.[11] The only individual to whom all this has been
communicated, besides Peel and Stanley, is Arbuthnot, for the
purpose of being conveyed to the Duke of Wellington, but without
any mention of my name.
[11] [The terms of Lord John's resolution were these: 'That
it is the opinion of this House that it is expedient to
persevere in those principles which have guided the
Executive Government of Ireland of late years, and
which have tended to the effectual administration of
the law and the general improvement of that part of the
Kingdom.' It is difficult to perceive any violence in
this language.]
Yesterday I had a long letter from X., to whom I wrote an account
of my interview with Graham, approving of what I had done, and I
wrote Graham a note saying as much (but not mentioning X.'s name,
as I have never done). This he considered of such importance that
he showed it to Peel, and he told me that Peel was greatly more
sensible of the value of the information, and more disposed to
shape his conduct accordingly. He said to Stanley, 'Why, I must
go down to the House of Commons with two speeches.'
April 21st, 1839 {p.190}
[Page Head: MODERATION OF THE DEBATE.]
At Newmarket all last week, and having heard from nobody, could
judge of the debate only from reading the report. Lord John's
speech was admirable, and so skilful, that it satisfied his
friends, his foes, and did not dissatisfy the Radicals. Peel was
flat and laboured, and did not satisfy his own people, all of
which may be attributed to the necessity he was under of making
speech number two. The rest of the debate was very moderate, but
the Government had an excellent case, nothing being proved
against them; and the facts on which the Opposition relied being
all explained or rebutted satisfactorily. The division was
better, too, than they expected, and some accidents told in their
favour; for example, a stupid Tory (Goddard), who was besieged
with letters and notes to be present at the division, turned
sulky and restive in consequence, and voted with the Government,
much to the delight of the Ministerial, and the rage of the
Opposition whippers-in, though to the amusement of both. But the
moderation, which it was my object to enforce, was manifested on
both sides, and nothing fell from John Russell offensive in a
constitutional or even in a party sense, and the Opposition
leader abstained from attacking him, with a forbearance which, if
calculated, was very consistently maintained. Satisfactorily,
however, as the whole thing appears to have terminated for the
Government, they do not consider it to have given them any
permanent strength, or the prospect of a longer tenure of office;
for the Radicals, while one and all supported them on this Irish
vote, were not sparing of menace and invective, and plainly
indicated that, unless concessions were speedily made for them,
the Government should lose their support; and consequently, there
are many who are hoping and expecting, and many more who are
desiring, that concessions should be made, and by these means
that the Government concern should be again bolstered up. Some of
the Cabinet, more of the subordinates and hangers-on, and many of
what are called the old Whigs, are earnestly pressing this, and
they are very angry and very sorrowful because John Russell is
inflexible on this point. He has to sustain the assaults, not
only of the violent of his party, and of Ellice and the out-of-
door advisers, monitors and critics, but of his own family, even
of his father, who, after announcing that he had given up
politics and quitted the stage, has been dragged forward and
induced to try his parental rhetoric upon the conservative
immobility of his son. To the letter which the Duke wrote him,
Lord John merely replied that 'he would shortly see his opinions
in print;' and to Ellice's warm remonstrances and entreaties he
only dryly said, 'I have made up my mind.' His nephew, Lord
Russell,[12] who, from some extraordinary crotchet, has thought
fit to embrace republican opinions, and is an ultra-movement man,
but restrained in the manifestation of his opinions from personal
deference to his father and his uncle, with whom he lives on
excellent terms--said the other day to Lord Tavistock, 'Lord John
has undertaken a great task; he is endeavouring to arrest the
progress of the movement, and if he succeeds he will be a very
great man. He may succeed, and if he does it will be a great
achievement.' This Lord Tavistock told Lord John, who replied
that 'he was convinced of the danger which threatened the country
from the movement, and of the necessity of opposing its progress;
that he considered this duty paramount to all other
considerations. He did not desire the dissolution of the
Government to which he belonged; on the contrary, he wished to
remain in office; but nevertheless he considered the promotion of
party objects and the retention of office subordinate to the
higher and more imperative duty of opposing principles fraught
with danger to the State, and to that end he would devote his
best energies.' (It is impossible to give the exact words, and
these are not _the words_, but it is the exact sense of what he
said.)
[12] [William Russell, afterwards eighth Duke of Bedford,
born 30th June 1809, died May 1872.]
April 22nd, 1839 {p.192}
[Page Head: THE RADICALS AND THE WHIGS.]
The moderate Radicals are now very anxious to come to some
amicable understanding with the Government, and, if possible, to
prop up the concern. They are very angry with their more violent
compeers (Grote, Leader, &c.), and Fonblanque told me last night
that they would take the slightest concessions, the least thing
that would satisfy their constituencies, but that _something_
they must have, and that something he appeared to think they
should get. I asked him what was the _minimum_ of concession that
would do, and he said the rate-paying clauses, which would be
merely working out the original principle, the demolition of the
boroughs under 300 electors, and Ballot an open question. I told
him that I was persuaded these things were impossible; that Lord
John Russell never would consent to begin again the work of
disfranchisement, nor to make Ballot an open question; that he
_is alarmed_, and determined to stop. Clarendon had told me much
the same thing in the morning on the authority of his brother
Charles,[13] who is a very leading man, and much looked to among
them, probably (besides that he really is very clever) on account
of that aristocratic origin and connexion which he himself
affects to despise, and to consider prejudicial to him. Of course
this anxiety on the part of the moderate Radicals to come to
terms will increase the eagerness of the violent Whigs to strike
a bargain; but Lord John will continue, I believe, to forbid the
banns. These things would only be wedges, no sooner conceded than
fresh demands would be raised upon them; besides, they never
could, without abandoning every principle of independence and
losing all sense of honour, yield to contumely, menace and the
most insulting language, what they have so long and
pertinaciously refused to milder appeals and all the means of
persuasion and remonstrance. The great body of the Conservatives
certainly, and I believe the whole country, will make no
distinction between different sections and shades of Radicals,
but consider every concession made to one as made to all, and the
consequence would be fresh taunts against the Government for
being made of such _squeezable_ materials, without its prolonging
their Ministerial existence for a very long period. It would,
however, prevent the split between the great masses of Whigs and
Radicals, and secure a formidable Opposition, together with union
at the election whenever it took place. Fonblanque told me that
if the Government was broken up by the desertion of the Radicals,
the latter would lose all their seats at the next election, for
they are scarcely anywhere strong enough to come in without the
assistance of the Whigs.
[13] [Right Hon. Charles Pelham Villiers, born 19th January
1802, M.P. for Wolverhampton for very many years.]
April 24th, 1839 {p.193}
Graham called yesterday to ask how my friends were satisfied with
their speeches, and to say that they had been entirely so with
Lord John's, and, in consequence, able to express themselves with
the reserve and moderation which they had displayed. I told him
it had all done very well, plenty of moderation on both sides,
and I hoped good had been done. He said that Peel was still
suspicious about Lord John, whom he did not know personally as he
and Stanley did, and therefore could not bring himself to put the
same confidence in the sincerity and integrity of his intentions.
Confound the fellow, what a cold feeler and cautious stepper he
is! Strange that the two leaders should make themselves so
personally obnoxious as they do by their manners and behaviour.
Nevertheless John Russell, though frigid and forbidding to
strangers, is a more amiable man with his friends; but the other
has no friends. I have more than once remonstrated on the
impolicy of Lord John's carelessness in his treatment of people,
and I had an instance of the mischief it does the other day.
Sheil told me at Brooks's that one of his Irish members
(Macnamara) was close to Lord John in the House, and looked at
him in vain for a sign of recognition. Lord John stared, but made
no sign; the affronted Milesian frothed up instantly and said,
'Confound him, I'll vote against him.' They pacified him so far
as his vote was concerned; but Sheil naturally enough observed
that it was a very unwise thing to neglect people's little
vanities and self-love so wantonly and carelessly.
April 30th, 1839 {p.194}
Le Marchant told me yesterday that there is a great change come
over the spirit of the Reformers, and undoubted evidence of a
reaction. Joe Parkes, who recently went on a tour through the
country, and who, before he went, in an interview with Ben
Stanley, Gore, Anson, and Le Marchant, was full of menace and big
words about the necessity of concession and the strength of the
movement, returned quite crestfallen, and has since confessed
that he found matters no longer in the same state, and a general
lukewarmness, in many cases an aversion to the movement. Le
Marchant has since been in communication with the editors of the
'Sun' and of the 'Daily Advertiser,' both of whom are engaging
themselves in the service of Government, and they have owned the
same thing, that in the districts in which the Chartists have
appeared, their excesses have produced a regular reaction and
aversion to reform, and elsewhere that reasonable people, without
giving up their principles, are satisfied that the moment is not
come for enforcing them, and are for leaving things alone. This
information, which appears worthy of credit, is very important as
regards the condition of the country, and if it is acted upon by
the Radicals in the House of Commons, may still prolong the
existence of the Government. Nobody can well make out what Peel
is at with his Jamaica amendment, and though he says it is no
party question, they are whipping up in all directions to fight
another battle.
May 2nd, 1839 {p.194}
[Page Head: DISMISSAL OF THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE.]
The Duke of Newcastle has been dismissed from the Lieutenancy of
Nottinghamshire, as he ought to have been long ago. I met the
Duke of Wellington at the Ancient Concert, and asked him the
reason, which he told me in these words: 'Oh, there never was
such a fool as he is; the Government have done quite right, quite
right, they could not do otherwise.' There was a correspondence
between him and the Chancellor about the appointment of some
magistrates: he recommended two gentlemen of Derbyshire as
magistrates of Nottinghamshire, and the Chancellor told him he
meant to appoint likewise two others, one of whom was a Mr.
Paget. The Duke replied that he objected to Mr. Paget--first,
because he was a man of violent political opinions; and,
secondly, because he was a Dissenter. The Chancellor told him
that Mr. Paget was not a man of violent political opinions, and
as to his being a Dissenter, he considered that no objection, and
that he should therefore appoint him, together with the gentlemen
recommended by the Duke. The Duke wrote a most violent answer, in
which he said that his lordship had the power of making this
appointment if he chose to do so, and if he did, he would have
the satisfaction of knowing that he had done very wrong, and he
informed him that for the future he should hold no confidential
communication with him. The Chancellor (the Duke of Wellington
said) behaved in the most gentlemanlike manner possible; nobody
could behave better. He sent to the Duke of Newcastle to say that
he must be aware, on reflexion, that he ought not to have written
such a letter, and he would therefore return it to him, that he
might, if he pleased, put it in the fire, and let it be
considered as not having been written at all. The Duke replied
that he had no objection to withdraw the letter, _provided the
Chancellor would cancel the appointment_. Upon this, Lord John
Russell wrote him word that 'Her Majesty had no further occasion
for his services as Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of the
county of Notts.' Yesterday morning the Duke of Newcastle went to
Apsley House, and said to the Duke of Wellington, 'You have heard
what has happened to me?' 'Not I,' said the Duke, 'I have heard
nothing;' and then the Duke of Newcastle gave him Lord John's
letter to read. 'Well,' said he, 'but there is a correspondence
alluded to in this letter: where is it?' and then the Duke of
Newcastle put into his hands the correspondence with the
Chancellor. As soon as the Duke of Wellington had read it, he
said, 'They could not do otherwise; no Government could be
carried on if such a letter as this was submitted to.' 'What
shall I do?' said the Duke of Newcastle. 'Do?' said the Duke: 'Do
nothing.'
May 5th, 1939 {p.196}
Lord John Russell's letter to the electors of Stroud[14] came out
late on Friday evening, and three editions were sold of it
yesterday, and not a copy to be had. It is very sound and
temperate, will be a bitter pill to the Radicals, and a source of
vexation to his own people, but will be hailed with exceeding
satisfaction by all moderate and really conservative men of
whatever party. I saw Graham yesterday morning, who owned that it
had fully answered all the expectations held out by me as to his
intentions and opinions.
[14] [This letter appeared in the form of a pamphlet in
which Lord John Russell fearlessly stated his moderate
Whig opinions to the great disgust of the Radical
party.]
[Page Head: JAMAICA BILL.]
[Page Head: THE CABINET RESIGNS.]
The Jamaica Bill is about to produce a fresh crisis much more
difficult to get over than the last, and it puzzles me to make
out why Peel has chosen this ground on which to fight a great and
possibly a decisive battle.[15] The Government, it is true, have
placed themselves by their measure in a false position, because
on their own reasoning their Bill does not go far enough, and
ought to have extended to the dissolution instead of merely to
the suspension of the Assembly, and this was what the Colonial
Office authorities recommended. In a paper drawn up by Henry
Taylor for the use of the Cabinet, he set forth the
incompatibility of the present assembly with the new order of
things, and exposed the absurdity of a system falsely called
representative; but they did not venture to take so decided a
step, and preferred a half measure, which dissatisfies everybody,
and which would only defer the difficulty and embarrassment of a
final settlement. Still, having adopted this course, and
determined to deal with the Colony upon their own responsibility,
I cannot understand why Peel did not let them alone. There was no
popularity to be gained by taking this course; the country does
not care a straw for the constitution of Jamaica, the anti-
slavery feeling is all against the Assembly, and nobody will
believe that the Tories are animated by any high constitutional
scruples, or that they care about the question except as one on
which they can fight a battle. Peel (Graham said) 'offered his
plan in the sincere hope and expectation that Government would
accept it.' Perhaps it may be of the two preferable (though there
is a serious objection to it, in the lapse of time that would
occur before anything could be done), but the Government cannot
come down to Parliament with proposals for administering colonial
affairs in such a manner as they deem necessary and expedient,
and then at the bidding or suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, adopt
another plan of which, while he would be the author, they must be
the responsible executors. This would not be governing, but
handing over the Government to their opponents. If Peel really
was of opinion that this Bill was so unwise and inexpedient, that
no considerations of a general nature would justify him in
consenting to it, or in not opposing it, he was right to take the
course he has done; but not otherwise; for, as the Bill can only
be carried, if at all, by a small majority, it will go out to
Jamaica with diminished moral effect, and it was above all things
desirable that an Act so penal should be invested with all the
authority derivable from unanimity, or at least the concurrence
of an overwhelming majority. Now this is the consideration of
which the importance is admitted by both sides, and it might have
afforded Peel a good reason for giving way to the Government,
when he found they would not give way to him. As it is, the Bill
will go up to the Lords with the usual majority, and the Lords
will have to determine upon a course full of important
consequences. If they throw it out, it seems to me that Ministers
must resign, and no question could be devised on which they could
resign so advantageously for their own interests as a party, none
of which would be less popular for their opponents, and which
would afford so good an occasion and such great facilities for
keeping together the Whigs and Radicals in a firm and consentient
opposition. The great object of Peel's policy appears to have
been to avoid returning to office until he could do so in such
strength as to be able to carry on the Government with security,
and it was my belief that he never would return until he had some
sort of guarantee that this would be in his power. The great
desideratum, therefore, of all moderate men, was the dissolution
of the connexion between the Whigs and Radicals, and the ultimate
establishment of a Government upon the anti-movement principle,
and it was with reference to this paramount object that I was so
desirous of getting Peel's course shaped so as to harmonise with
John Russell's sentiments and conduct. But if the Government
resign upon this Jamaica question, all this fine plan will be
defeated. Great are the effects of party rancour, and if the
battle is fought on merely party grounds, and the Lords are to be
the instruments of achieving the victory, the Whigs and Radicals
will forget their present bickerings and mutual topics of
grievance and discontent, and bury their animosities in a common
determination to resist and defeat their political antagonists.
With the majority against him unbroken in the Commons, but
without an option as to taking or refusing office if tendered to
him (because he would have himself compelled the Government to
resign), Peel must dissolve, and he would encounter the election
with the whole antagonist force united against him, aided by the
anti-slavery feeling together with all the jealousy that could be
excited against the predominance of the House of Lords. Suppose
the general election were to give him a very large majority, even
then the great opportunity of separating the Whigs and Radicals
would have been lost, and there is every reason to believe that
when there is to be a fair fight for power, the Whigs will not be
nice as to the banners that are displayed in their front, and
that the majority of them will agree to many things of which they
do not approve, rather than mar combinations instrumental to the
overthrow of the Tory party, and their own restoration to power.
[15] [On the 6th May, Lord John Russell proposed in the
House of Commons to suspend the Constitution of Jamaica
for five years, because the Assembly of that Island had
refused to adopt the Prisons Act passed by the Imperial
Legislature. A division was taken on the question, that
'the Speaker do now leave the Chair,' and the
Government had a majority of five in a House of 583.
Upon this grave consequences ensued. Mr. Henry Taylor
argued, in the paper he submitted to the Cabinet on
this question, that in the existing state of society in
the West Indies, the forms of Constitutional Government
could only lead to the oppression of the blacks by the
whites, or of the whites by the blacks, and that the
inveterate feelings by which the Colonists were divided
would lead to measures of oppression, and in the end
would break out into acts of violence. He therefore
proposed the abolition of the Assemblies and the
substitution of Legislatures based on the model of
those existing in the Crown Colonies. This scheme was
approved by Lord Melbourne and by Lord Howick, but it
was feebly supported by Lord Glenelg and rejected by
the Cabinet. Lord John Russell then brought forward the
half-measure on which the division was taken. In the
opinion of Mr. Henry Taylor this decision led to
twenty-six years of misgovernment in the Colonies, and
at length to the outbreak of the negroes in Jamaica in
October 1865, which was only suppressed by the energy
of Governor Eyre. Government by the Crown, which the
Colonial Department had vainly advocated in 1839, was
established in 1866, with excellent results to the
Colony.]
May 10th, 1839 {p.199}
I left town on Monday, having in the morning seen Le Marchant,
who knows better than anybody the numbers and details of
divisions; and he told me that they should have a majority of
twenty: little, therefore, was I prepared to hear on Tuesday
morning that they had been left with only a majority of five. It
was not till they were in the House of Commons that they were
aware of the defections, and of the probability of a close
division, if not of a defeat. About ten of the Radicals voted
against them, and ten or a dozen stayed away; six of the Tories
voted with Government, but the balance was quite enough to reduce
the old majority to an equality. On Tuesday the Cabinet met, and
resolved to resign. The Queen had not been prepared for this
catastrophe and was completely upset by it. Her agitation and
grief were very great. In her interview with Lord John Russell
she was all the time dissolved in tears; and she dined in her own
room, and never appeared on the Tuesday evening. Melbourne
advised her to send for the Duke, and on Wednesday morning she
sent for him. By this time she had regained her calmness and
self-possession. She told him that she was very sorry for what
had occurred, and for having to part with her Ministers,
particularly Lord Melbourne, for whom she felt the warmest
regard, and who had acted an almost parental part towards her.
The Duke was excessively pleased with her behaviour and with her
frankness. He told her that his age and his deafness
incapacitated him from serving her as efficiently as he could
desire, and that the leader of the House of Commons ought to be
her Prime Minister, and he advised her to send for Peel. She
said, 'Will you desire him to come to me?' He told her that he
would do anything; but, he thought, under the circumstances, it
would be better that she should write to him herself. She said
she would, but begged him to go and announce to Peel that he
might expect her letter. This the Duke did, and when Peel
received it, he went to the Palace (in full dress according to
etiquette), and received her commands to form a Government. She
received him (though she dislikes him) extremely well, and he was
perfectly satisfied.
While the Tories were rejoicing in their victory, the Whigs,
greatly exasperated, were already beginning to meditate the
organisation of a strong Opposition, and providing the means of
carrying on an effectual war against the new Government. They do
not choose to look upon their expulsion as attributable to the
defection of their allies, but as the work of the Tories upon a
mere party question, and that a very unjustifiable one, and
treated in a very unjustifiable manner. I met Ellice and
Labouchere in the street, and found them full of menace and
sinister prediction, and to my assertion that all would go well
and _easily_, they shook their heads, and insisted that the
conduct of their opponents entitled them to no forbearance, and
that finding none, their difficulties and embarrassments would be
very great; and I found in other quarters that there is a
disposition to rally and marshal the party, and commence
offensive warfare; but others of the Whigs entertained no such
views, and looked upon the game as quite lost for the present;
and in point of fact, nothing is settled, fixed, combined, or
arranged as yet; and there has not been time to ascertain the
disposition or intentions of the leaders.
[Page Head: THE BEDCHAMBER DIFFICULTY.]
While, however, there was yesterday this uncertainty and
agitation in the Whig camp, and the Tories were waiting in
perfect security for the tranquil arrangement of the new
Government, a storm suddenly arose, which threatens to scatter to
the winds the new combinations, and the ultimate effects of which
it is impossible for anybody to foresee. The Queen insisted upon
keeping the ladies of her household, and Peel objected, but
without shaking her determination. He begged her to see the Duke
of Wellington, and she agreed to see the Duke and him together.
He had, however, before this gone to the Palace with Lord
Ashley,[16] whom he had taken with him, fancying that because he
had been in the habit of seeing a great deal of the Queen, he
might have some influence with her--a notion altogether
preposterous, and exhibiting the deficiency of Peel in worldly
dexterity and tact, and in knowledge of character. Ashley made no
impression on the Queen. When the Duke and Peel saw her, and
endeavoured to persuade her to yield this point, they found her
firm and immoveable, and not only resolved not to give way, but
prepared with answers to all they said, and arguments in support
of her determination. They told her that she must consider her
_Ladies_ in the same light as _Lords_: she said, 'No, I have
Lords besides, and these I give up to you.' And when they still
pressed her, she said, 'Now suppose the case had been reversed,
that you had been in office when I had come to the Throne, and
that Lord Melbourne would not have required this sacrifice of
me.' Finding that she would not give way, Peel informed her that
under these circumstances he must consult his friends; and a
meeting took place at his house yesterday afternoon.
[16] [Lord Ashley, then a member of the House of Commons,
afterwards seventh Earl of Shaftesbury: though a
follower of Sir Robert Peel, he was married to Lady
Emily Cowper, Lord Melbourne's niece, and this
circumstance probably induced Peel to invoke his
assistance.]
In the meantime the old Ministers were apprised of the difficulty
that had occurred, and Lord John Russell, who knew that there was
a meeting at Peel's to consider what was to be done, entreated
Melbourne, if the thing was broken off upon this difficulty, not
to give any advice, but to call the Cabinet and have a general
consultation. At nine in the evening he was summoned to a Cabinet
at Melbourne's house, and from this he inferred that negotiations
with Peel had closed. The ministers were collected from all
quarters: (Hobhouse from dinner at Wilton's, Morpeth from the
opera), and Melbourne laid before them a letter from the
Queen,[17] written in a bitter spirit, and in a strain such as
Elizabeth might have used. She said, 'Do not fear that I was not
calm and composed. They wanted to deprive me of my Ladies, and I
suppose they would deprive me next of my dressers and my
housemaids; they wished to treat me like a girl, but I will show
them that I am Queen of England!' They consulted, and a
suggestion was thrown out that Lady Normanby (and some other I
think) should resign. This was overruled, as was a proposition of
John Russell's, that the Queen should require from Peel a precise
statement of the extent of his demands. The end was, that a
letter was composed for her, in which she simply declined to
place the Ladies of her household at Peel's discretion. This was
sent yesterday morning; when Peel wrote an answer resigning his
commission into Her Majesty's hands; but recapitulating
everything that had passed. When the difficulty first arose, Peel
asked her to see the Duke; she acquiesced; he fetched him, and
the Duke was with her alone. The Duke it was who argued _the
principle_ with her--Peel had touched upon its application.
[17] Melbourne, it appears, from his own statement in the
House of Lords, was sent for at six o'clock on
Thursday.
[Page Head: THE WHIGS STAND BY THE QUEEN.]
It was speedily known all over the town that the whole thing was
at an end, and nothing could surpass the excitement and amazement
that prevailed. The indignant Tories exclaimed against intrigue
and preconcerted plans, and asserted that she refused to part
with _any_ of her Ladies, and that it was only a pretext to break
off the Tory Government; while the Whigs cried out against
harshness and dictatorial demands, and complained that it was
intended to make a thorough clearance, to strip her of all her
friends, and destroy her social comfort. The Radicals, who had
for the most part been terribly alarmed at the results of their
own defection, instantly made overtures to the Whigs; and I heard
at Brooks's that Ward had come over from the Reform Club, and
proposed a reconciliation without any concession, except that
Ballot should be made an open question. There appeared no
disposition to concede anything to the Radicals, who, they were
convinced, would join them without any conditions.
In the meantime Lord Melbourne and Lord John Russell went to the
Queen, who told them her whole story. I met the latter coming
from her; he said, 'I have just been for an hour with the Queen;
she told me her story, and ended by saying, 'I have stood by you,
you must now stand by me.' They thought her case a good one,
and resolved to stand by her. Such was the state of things and
such the case as reported to me by several members of the Whig
party yesterday morning, and my impression was that Peel had been
unreasonable in his demands and impolitic in breaking off the
negotiation on such grounds. Nevertheless I had some misgivings,
because I thought the Duke of Wellington unlikely to concur in
any proceeding harsh towards the Queen, or ill-considered in a
political sense; but the assertion was at the same time so
positive, that Peel had required the dismissal of _all_ the
ladies, and the Tories defended instead of denying this, that I
did not doubt the fact to have been so; and moreover I was told
that Peel's behaviour had created a strong sentiment of dislike
towards him in the Queen, and from her representations and the
language of her letter it was clear the impression on her mind
was that no consideration was intended to be shown to her
feelings and wishes, but, on the contrary, that they meant to
abuse their power to the utmost. At the ball last night I put the
question directly to Lord Normanby and Ben Stanley, and they both
declared that the Queen's understanding was that the demand for
power to dismiss the Ladies was unqualified by any intimation of
an intention not to exercise that power to the utmost extent;
that she believed they were _all_ to be taken from her, and under
this impression she had sent her ultimatum by which the whole
thing was terminated. But I had afterwards a conversation with
Lord Wharncliffe, who gave me an account of all that had passed,
placed the matter in a very different light, and proved beyond a
doubt that there was no lack of deference and consideration on
the part of Peel, but, on the contrary, the clearest indication
of an intention and desire to consult her wishes and feelings in
every respect, and that, instead of a sweeping demand for the
dismissal of _all_ her Ladies, he had approached that subject
with delicacy and caution, and merely suggested the expediency of
some partial changes, for reasons (especially when taken with
other things) by no means insufficient. So little disposition was
there on the part of Peel to regard her with distrust or to
fetter her social habits, that when she said, 'You must not
expect me to give up the society of Lord Melbourne,' he replied
that 'Nothing could be further from his thoughts than to
interfere with Her Majesty's society in any way, or to object to
her receiving Lord Melbourne as she pleased, and that he should
always feel perfectly secure in the honour of Lord Melbourne,
that he would not avail himself improperly of his intercourse
with her.' When she said that she should like to have Lord
Liverpool about her, he immediately acquiesced, and proposed that
he should be Lord Steward, and he suggested certain other
persons, whom he said he proposed because he believed they were
personally agreeable to her; but when he began to talk of 'some
modification of the Ladies of her household,' she stopped him at
once, and declared she would not part with any of them.
Thenceforward this became the whole matter in dispute; but there
had been some circumstances even in the first interview which
Peel and the Duke regarded as ominous and indicative of her
having been primed as to the part she should play. The principal
of these was an intimation of her desire that there should be _no
dissolution of Parliament_. This surprised Peel very much, but he
only replied that it was impossible for him to come to any
determination on that point, as he might be beaten on one of the
first divisions, in which case it would be inevitable. It was
indeed the fact of his taking the Government with a _minority_ in
the House of Commons which was his principal argument for
desiring the power of dismissing the Ladies, or rather of
changing the household, that he might not, he said, give to the
world the spectacle of a Court entirely hostile to him,
consisting of ladies whose husbands were his strongest political
opponents, thereby creating an impression that the confidence of
the Crown was bestowed on his enemies rather than on himself. In
the Duke's first interview with the Queen, he had entreated her
to place her whole confidence in Peel, and had then said that,
though some changes might be necessary in her household, she
would find him in all the arrangements anxious to meet her wishes
and consult her feelings. Notwithstanding her assurance to
Melbourne that she was calm, she was greatly excited, though
still preserving a becoming dignity in her outward behaviour.
[Page Head: THE TRUE STATE OF THE CASE.]
Having satisfied myself that there had been a complete
misunderstanding, which I think, as it was, might have been
cleared up if there had been less precipitation and more openness
and further endeavours to explain what was doubtful or ambiguous,
I began to turn in my mind whether something could not be done to
avert the impending danger, and renew the negotiation with Peel
while it was still time. Labouchere had had a conversation with
Graham, who had enlightened him, much as Wharncliffe had me; we
came home together, and I found what Graham had told him had made
a deep impression on him, and that he was as sensible as I am of
the gravity and peril of the circumstances in which affairs are
placed. I accordingly urged Lord Tavistock to endeavour to
persuade Melbourne to see the Duke of Wellington and talk it over
with him; he would at all events learn the exact truth as to what
had passed, which it most essentially behoves him to know before
he takes upon himself the responsibility of advising the Queen
and of meeting Parliament once more with all the necessary
explanations how and why he is still Minister, and from the Duke
likewise he would learn what really is the _animus_ of Peel and
his party, and what the real extent of their intended demands
upon the Queen. He, and he alone, can enlighten her and pacify
her mind; and if he is satisfied that there has been a
misapprehension, and that Peel has required nothing but what she
ought to concede, it would be his duty to advise her once more to
place herself in Peel's hands. This is the only solution of the
difficulty now possible, and this course, if he has sufficient
wisdom, firmness, and virtue to adopt it, may still avert the
enormous evils which are threatened by the rupture of the pending
arrangements.
CHAPTER VI.
The Whigs retain the Government--Motives of the Queen--Decision
of Ministers--Lord Brougham's Excitement--Ministerial
Explanations--State of Affairs in Parliament--Lord Brougham's
great Speech on the Crisis--Duke of Wellington's Wisdom and
Moderation--Visit of the Grand Duke Alexander--Macaulay returns
to Parliament--Disappointment of the Radicals--The Radicals
appeased--Visit to Holland House--Anecdotes of George Selwyn--
False Position of the Whigs--Downton Castle--Payne Knight--
Malvern--Troy House--Castles on the Wye--Tintern Abbey--Bath--
Salisbury Cathedral--Death of Lady Flora Hastings--Violent
Speech of the Duke--Conversation with the Duke of Wellington--
Lord Clarendon's _début_ in the House of Lords--Lord Brougham
attacks Lord Normanby--His fantastic Conduct--Pauper School at
Norwood.
May 12th, 1839 {p.207}
The Cabinet met yesterday, and resolved to take the Government
again; they hope to interest the people in the Queen's quarrel,
and having made it up with the Radicals they think they can
stand. It is a high trial to our institutions when the wishes of
a Princess of nineteen can overturn a great Ministerial
combination, and when the most momentous matters of Government
and legislation are influenced by her pleasure about her Ladies
of the Bedchamber. The Whigs resigned because they had no longer
that Parliamentary support for their measures which they deemed
necessary, and they consent to hold the Government without the
removal of any of the difficulties which compelled them to
resign, for the purpose of enabling the Queen to exercise her
pleasure without any control or interference in the choice of the
Ladies of her household. This is making the private gratification
of the Queen paramount to the highest public considerations:
somewhat strange Whig doctrine and practice! With respect to the
question of unfettered choice, a good deal may be said on both
sides; but although it would be wrong and inexpedient for any
Minister to exercise the right, unless in a case of great
necessity, I think every Minister must have the power of advising
the Queen to remove a Lady of her Court, in the same way as he is
admitted to have that of removing a man. Notwithstanding the
transaction of 1812, and Lord Moira's protection of George IV. in
the retention of his household, it is now perfectly established
in practice that the Royal Household is at the discretion of the
Minister, and it must be so because he is responsible for the
appointments; in like manner he is responsible for every
appointment which the Sovereign may make; and should any of the
Ladies conduct herself in such a manner as to lead the public to
expect or require her dismissal, and the Queen were to refuse to
dismiss her, the Minister must be responsible for her remaining
about the Royal person.
The pretension of the Queen was not merely personal, _pro hâc
vice_, and one of arrangement, but it went to the establishment
of a principle unlimited in its application, for she declared
that she had felt bound to make her stand where she did, in order
once for all to resist the encroachments which she anticipated,
and which would lead, she supposed, at last to their insisting on
taking the Baroness Lehzen herself from her. In a constitutional
point of view, the case appears to me to be much stronger than in
that of a Queen Consort, for the Minister has nothing to do with
a Queen Consort; he is not responsible for her appointments, nor
for the conduct of her officers, and she is a _feme sole_
possessed of independent rights which she may exercise according
to her own pleasure, provided only that she does not transgress
the law. It was a great stretch of authority when Lord Grey
insisted on the dismissal of Lord Howe, Queen Adelaide's
Chamberlain; but he did so upon an extraordinary occasion, and
when circumstances rendered it, as he thought, absolutely
necessary that he should make a public demonstration of his
influence in a Court notoriously disaffected to the Reform Bill.
[Page Head: UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURSE OF THE WHIGS.]
The origin of the present mischief may be found in the
objectionable composition of the Royal Household at the
Accession. The Queen knew nobody, and was ready to take any
Ladies that Melbourne recommended to her. He ought to have taken
care that the female part of her household should not have a
political complexion, instead of making it exclusively Whig as,
unfortunately for her, he did; nor is it little matter of wonder
that Melbourne should have consented to support her in such a
case, and that he and his colleagues should have consented to act
the strange, anomalous, unconstitutional part they have done.
While they really believed that she had been ill-used, it was
natural they should be disposed to vindicate and protect her; but
after the reception of Peel's letter they must have doubted
whether there had not been some misapprehension on both sides,
and they ought in prudence, and in justice to her, even against
her own feelings, to have sifted the matter to the bottom, and
have cleared up every existing doubt before they decided on their
course. But to have met as a Cabinet, and to have advised her
what answer to send to the man who still held her commission for
forming a Government, upon points relating to its formation, is
utterly anomalous and unprecedented, and a course as dangerous as
unconstitutional.[1] The danger has been sufficiently exemplified
in the present case; for, having necessarily had no personal
cognisance of the facts, they incurred the risk of giving advice
upon mistaken grounds, as in this instance has been the case.
_She_ might be excused for her ignorance of the exact limits of
constitutional propriety, and for her too precipitate recurrence
to the counsels to which she had been accustomed; but _they_
ought to have explained to her, that until Sir Robert Peel had
formally and finally resigned his commission into her hands, they
could tender no advice, and that her replies to him, and her
resolutions with regard to his proposals, must emanate solely and
spontaneously from herself. As it was, the Queen was in
communication with Sir Robert Peel on one side, and Lord
Melbourne on the other, at the same time; and through them with
both their Cabinets; the unanimous resolutions of the former
being by her conveyed to, and her answer being composed by, the
latter. The Cabinet of Lord Melbourne discussed the proposals of
that of Sir Robert Peel, and they dictated to the Queen the reply
in which she refused to consent to the advice tendered to her by
the man who was _at that moment_ her Minister, and it was this
reply which compelled him to resign the office with which she had
entrusted him.
[1] Melbourne explains away this objection by alleging that
the negotiation with Peel was over at six on Thursday;
that the Queen sent for him to tell him so; that he was
again become her Minister; and that he and his
colleagues properly advised the terms in which she
should convey her final decision. This explanation
seems to have gone down, but I can't imagine how: the
decision to persist in refusing Peel's demands became
_their_ decision, when they advised the letter in which
it was conveyed. I know not why more was not made of
this part of the case.
May 13th, 1839 {p.210}
[Page Head: THE DEBATE ON THIS TRANSACTION.]
Lord Tavistock went on Saturday to Buckingham Palace; found
Melbourne was not there, and followed him to his house, where the
Cabinet was sitting. He wrote him a letter, in which he said that
he had seen the Duke, and that his impression was that there had
been a misunderstanding between Peel and the Queen; and suggested
to Melbourne that he should see the Duke, who was very willing,
if he pleased, to talk the matter over with him. This letter was
taken in to the Cabinet, and they discussed its contents.[2]
Melbourne was not indisposed to see the Duke; but, after a
careful consideration of Peel's letter, they came to the
conclusion that there was no difference between the Queen's
statement to them and Peel's to her, and, therefore, no
misconception to correct. The Chancellor accordingly gave his
opinion, that there was no ground for an interview between
Melbourne and the Duke; so then ended the last hope of a
readjustment.
[2] Lord Grey was at Melbourne's house; Melbourne sent for
him, and consulted him, and he remained in another room
while the Cabinet was in deliberation. Lord Grey took
it up very warmly, and was strongly for supporting the
Queen, saying they could not do otherwise.
The question (they say) was all along one of _principle_, and
never of the _application_ of the principle; but the
extraordinary part of it is that they admit that the principle is
not maintainable, yet declare that they were bound _as
gentlemen_, when the Queen had recourse to them, to support her.
This is strange doctrine in Whig mouths. They have, in my
opinion, abandoned their duty to the country and to the Queen,
and they ought to have been impressed with the paramount
obligation of instructing her in the nature and scope of her
constitutional obligations and duties, and the limits of her
constitutional rights, and to have advised her what she ought to
do, instead of upholding her in doing that which was agreeable to
her taste and inclination.
In the meantime Brougham wrote a violent letter to Lord
Tavistock, imploring him, while it was still time, to arrest the
perilous course on which his friends had entered, and full of
professions of regard for him and his. Tavistock went to him in
the evening, found him in a state of furious excitement, abusing
the Ministry greatly, and many of them by name in the grossest
terms, and pouring forth a torrent of invective against men and
things. After a time he became more cool, and half promised that
he would not speak at all; but when he learnt, what he was not
aware of, that Lord Spencer was come to town and would be in the
House of Lords, he broke out again, and said that if they had
brought him up to support that miserable rotten concern, he must
speak. Lord Spencer was not, however, brought up by them; he knew
nothing of passing events till he read them in the 'Times' on
Saturday, at Barnet, and his reflexion on them was, that if he
should be sent for, he should advise the Queen to send for Peel
again and concede the point. He is now, however, disposed, in
case of need, to defend his friends in the House of Lords; but if
they can secure Brougham's silence as the price of his, the
Ministers will be glad enough to _pair_ them off.
May 19th, 1839 {p.211}
At Mickleham (for Epsom) from Tuesday to Friday, and, of course,
nothing done, written, heard, or thought of, save and except the
Derby. The explanations went off, on the whole, very well,
without acrimony, and as satisfactorily as the case allowed.
Peel's speech was excellent (though Lord Grey did not approve of
it, and regretted not having the power to answer it), and without
any appearance of art or dexterity he contrived to steer through
all the difficult points and to justify himself without saying a
word offensive to the Queen. Lord John Russell was very nervous,
feeble and ineffective. In the other House Melbourne made, as all
allow, a capital speech; Clarendon, a good and fair judge, told
me that he never heard Melbourne speak so well throughout; while
the Duke was painful to hear, exhibiting such undoubted marks of
caducity: it did not, however, read ill. Melbourne made one
admission, for which Lord John Russell was very angry with him,
and that was of the 'erroneous impression' on the Queen's mind,
because his argument was that there was 'no mistake.' Lord Grey
and Lord Spencer would either of them have spoken, but it was
deemed better they should not, or Brougham would have been
unmuzzled, and as it was he adhered to his engagement to Lord
Tavistock and held his peace. He had said, 'If you let off
Althorp or old Grey, I must speak.'
June 1st, 1839 {p.212}
Laid up with the gout and confined to my room for ten days, very
ill and utterly disinclined to write. Nothing new of consequence,
but little things keep oozing out, throwing light on the recent
transaction, and all tending to the same conclusion. In the
meantime Parliament met, but nothing has been done. Lord John
Russell began by deferring the Education question, which he will
be obliged to abandon, for the Church has risen up and put forth
all its strength against it, and having been joined by the
Wesleyans, will, without difficulty, defeat it. The Bishop of
London made a most eloquent philippic against it at Exeter Hall
the other day. Government have brought in another Jamaica Bill,
not very different from Peel's proposed measure, and which they
will probably contrive to pass.
The Radicals have been again bestirring themselves, and trying to
turn the present occasion to account and extract some concessions
from the Government. Warburton has been in communication with
Lord John Russell, and they expect some declarations from him and
Melbourne of their future intentions, and some indications of a
disposition to give way on some of the favourite Radical
measures. Melbourne's intention was to be elicited by certain
questions of which Lord Winchilsea gave notice, and which he
actually put last night, as to the principles on which the
Government was to be conducted. Melbourne replied in a very
guarded and somewhat didactic style, but, so far from evincing
any disposition to make Radical concessions, he intimated with
sufficient clearness that he was resolved to make none whatever,
and that he would not sacrifice his conscientious convictions for
any political or party purpose.
[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM ATTACKS MINISTERS.]
After this, up got Brougham, and that boiling torrent of rage,
disdain, and hatred, which had been dammed up upon a former
occasion when he was so unaccountably muzzled, broke forth with
resistless and overwhelming force. He spoke for three hours, and
delivered such an oration as no other man in existence is capable
of: devilish in spirit and design, but of superhuman eloquence
and masterly in execution. He assailed the Ministers with a storm
of invective and ridicule; and, while he enveloped his periods in
a studied phraseology of pretended loyalty and devotion, he
attacked the Queen herself with unsparing severity. He went at
length and in minute detail into the whole history of the recent
transaction, drew it in its true colours, and exposed its origin,
progress, and motives, and thus he laid bare all the arts and
falsehoods by which attempts had been made to delude and agitate
the country. If it were possible to treat this as a party
question, his speech would be a powerful party auxiliary, most
valuable to the Tories as a vindication of them, for it was the
peculiar merit of this speech that it abounded in truths and in
great constitutional principles of undoubted authority and
unerring application. The Duke of Wellington rose after Brougham:
in a short speech, replete with moderation and dignity, he
abstained from entering upon the past, but fastened upon
Melbourne's declaration, and gave him to understand that as long
as he adhered to such principles as he had then declared he would
be governed by, he might appeal to Parliament confidently for
support.
These three speeches have all in their different ways produced a
great effect: Melbourne's will not satisfy the Radicals, though
they catch (as dying men at straws) at a vague expression about
'progressive reforms,' and try (or pretend) to think that this
promises something, though they know not what. Brougham's speech
was received by the Tory Lords with enthusiastic applause,
vociferous cheering throughout, and two or three rounds at the
conclusion. But the Duke's assurance of support to Melbourne
exasperated his own people to the greatest degree, produced a
sulky article in the 'Times,' and the usual complaints at White's
and the Carlton of the Duke's being in his dotage, and so forth.
Even some of his real admirers thought he 'had overdone it,' and
whilst at Brooks's they did not quite know what to make of it, at
the Carlton they were in the same doubt how to interpret
Melbourne's cautious ambiguities. Both, however, were clear
enough: Melbourne meant to say he would 'go no further,' and the
Duke meant to pat him on the back, and promise him that while he
adhered to that resolution he should have no vexatious opposition
to fear; but his meaning was made still more clear, for he told
my brother this afternoon that 'it was of the greatest importance
to nail Melbourne to his declaration, and that they must do what
they could to help the Queen out of the difficulty in which she
was placed.' He looks to the Crown of England; he wants to uphold
_it_ and not to punish _her_; and he does not care to achieve a
Tory triumph at the expense of the highest Tory principle; he
thinks the Monarchy is in danger, and he sees that the danger may
be more surely averted by still enduring the existence of the
present Government, depriving them of all power to do evil, and
converting them into instruments of good, than by accelerating
their fall under circumstances calculated to engender violent
animosities, irreconcileable enmities, wide separation of
parties, and the adoption of extreme measures and dangerous
principles by many who have no natural bias that way. I entirely
concur with him, and if it were possible to restore matters to
something like the state they were in before the Bedchamber
crisis, nothing would be so desirable; nothing so desirable as
that the Whigs and the Radicals should be furnished with fresh
occasion to fall out, and the dissolution of the Government be
the final consequence of their dissensions. Also it is expedient
that time should be given for the angry waters to become smooth
and calm once more, albeit the smoothness is only on their
surface.
Yesterday the Grand Duke Alexander[3] went away after a stay of
some three weeks, which has been distinguished by a lavish
profusion--perhaps a munificence--perfectly unexampled; he is by
no means remarkable in appearance one way or the other, and does
not appear to have made any great impression except by the
splendour and extent of his presents and benefactions: he has
scattered diamond boxes and rings in all directions, subscribed
largely to all the charities, to the Wellington and Nelson
memorials, and most liberally (and curiously) to the Jockey Club,
to which he has sent a sum of £300, with a promise of its annual
repetition.
[3] [Afterwards the Emperor Alexander II. of Russia. He
ascended the throne in 1855 and perished by
assassination in the streets of St. Petersburgh on the
13th March, 1881.]
[Page Head: MACAULAY ELECTED FOR EDINBURGH.]
Macaulay is gone to Edinburgh to be elected in the room of
Abercromby, so he is again about to descend into the arena of
politics. He made a very eloquent and, to my surprise, a very
Radical speech, declaring himself for Ballot and short
Parliaments. I was the more astonished at this, because I knew he
had held very moderate language, and I remembered his telling me
that he considered the Radical party to be reduced to 'Grote and
his wife,' after which I did not expect to see him declare
himself the advocate of Grote's favourite measure and the darling
object of the Radicals.
June 7th, 1839 {p.215}
Macaulay's was a very able speech and a good apology for the Whig
Government, and as he has always been for Ballot, he is not
inconsistent. On Sir H. Fleetwood's motion the other night (for
giving votes for counties to ten-pound householders), John
Russell spoke out, though in a reforming tone, and threw the
Radicals into a paroxysm of chagrin and disappointment. The
Tories had heard he was going to give way, and Peel, who is
naturally suspicious and distrustful, believed it; but when he
found he would not give way, nor held out any hopes for the
future, Peel nailed him to that point and spoke with great force
and effect. This debate was considered very damaging to Whigs and
Radicals, and likely to lead to a dissolution--first, of
Parliament, and then of Government. But the Radicals are now
adopting a whining, fawning tone, have dropt that of bluster and
menace, and, having before rudely insisted on a mighty slice of
the loaf, are now content to put their tails between their legs
and swallow such crumbs as they can get. Peel has written and
published a very stout letter, in reply to a Shrewsbury
declaration presented to him, in which he defends his recent
conduct, and declares he will never take office on any other
terms.
[Page Head: THE WHIGS SUCCUMB TO THE RADICALS.]
Notwithstanding Lord John Russell's speech on Fleetwood's motion,
and Melbourne's anti-movement declaration in the other House,
they have to their eternal disgrace succumbed to the Radicals,
and been squeezed into making Ballot an open question. For John
Russell I am sorry. I thought he would have been stouter. The
Radicals are full of exultation, and the Government underlings,
who care not on what terms they can retain their places, are very
joyful. I rode with Howick yesterday for a long time and talked
it over with him. He pretended it was no concession after
Vivian's being allowed to vote last year, and he owned that he
considered the question as virtually carried; he is himself
moderate and means still to vote against it, sees all the
danger--not so much from Ballot itself as from its inevitable
train of consequences--and still consents to abandon the contest.
I asked him, if he was not conscious that it was only like buying
off the Picts and Scots, and that fresh demands would speedily
follow with redoubled confidence; and he owned he was. It may
prolong for a brief period the sickly existence of the
Government, and if a dissolution comes speedily, Whigs and
Radicals may act in concert at the elections; but if they attempt
to go on with the present Parliament fresh demands will rapidly
ensue, and then there must be fresh concessions or another
breach. It is a base and disgusting truckling to allies between
whom and themselves there is nothing but mutual hatred and
contempt.
June 14th, 1839 {p.217}
At Holland House from Tuesday till Thursday--not particularly
agreeable. Melbourne came one day, but was not in spirits. Lord
Holland told me some stories of George Selwyn, whom he had known
in his younger days, and many of whose good sayings he remembers.
He describes him as a man of great gravity and deliberation in
speaking, and, after exciting extraordinary mirth by his wit and
drollery, gently smiling and saying, 'I am glad you are pleased.'
The old Lord Foley (father of the last) was much discontented
with his father's will, who, knowing that he was in debt and a
spendthrift, had strictly tied up the property: he tried to set
aside the will by Act of Parliament, and had a Bill brought into
the House of Lords for the purpose. George Selwyn said, 'Our old
friend Foley has worked a miracle, for he has converted the Jews
from the Old to the New Testament.'
June 24th, 1839, Ludlow {p.217}
I left London on Friday last by railroad, went to Wolverhampton
(the vilest-looking town I ever saw), and posted in my carriage
from thence to this place, where I only arrived at a quarter-past
nine. This journey takes (losing no time) about eleven and a half
hours--one hundred and fifty miles--of which thirty-four by road.
The road from Bridgenorth to Ludlow is very striking and commands
exceedingly fine views.
The day before I left town I saw Lord Tavistock, who told me
divers things. I asked him what could induce Lord John to consent
to making Ballot an open question, and he replied, that nothing
else could have prevented the dissolution of the Government, and
that _three_ of the Ministers--he did not say which--threatened
to resign instanter if this concession was not made. Here then,
as I said to him, was another example of the evils of that
catastrophe which broke up the embryo Government of Peel and
brought them back again: unable to go on independently and as
they desire to do, they are obliged to truckle, and are squeezed
into compliances they abhor, and all this degradation they think
themselves bound to submit to because the principle on which
their Government stands, and which predominates over all others,
is that of supporting the Queen. No Tory Government ever ventured
to dissociate its support of the Queen from its measures and
principles as a party, in the way these men do. Macaulay made his
first re-appearance in the Ballot debate in a speech of unequal
merit, but Peel and Graham complimented him on his return amongst
them.
I am greatly delighted with this country, which is of surpassing
beauty, and the old Castle of Ludlow, a noble ruin, and in
'ruinous perfection.' On Saturday I explored the Castle and
walked to Oakley Park, Robert Clive's, who is also the owner of
the Castle, which he bought of the Crown for £1,500. The gardens
at Oakley Park are very pretty and admirably laid out and kept,
and the park is full of fine oaks. Yesterday I walked and rode
over the hills above Ludlow, commanding a panoramic prospect of
the country round, and anything more grand and picturesque I
never beheld. But above all, the hills and woods of Downton
Castle, with the mountains of Radnorshire in the distance,
present a scene of matchless beauty well worth coming from London
to see.
June 26th, 1839, Delbury {p.218}
I rode to Downton Castle on Monday, a gimcrack castle and bad
house, built by Payne Knight, an epicurean philosopher, who after
building the castle went and lived in a lodge or cottage in the
park: there he died, not without suspicion of having put an end
to himself, which would have been fully conformable to his
notions. He was a sensualist in all ways, but a great and self-
educated scholar. His property is now in Chancery, because he
chose to make his own will. The prospect from the windows is
beautiful, and the walk through the wood, overhanging the river
Teme, surpasses anything I have ever seen of the kind. It is as
wild as the walk over the hill at Chatsworth, and much more
beautiful, because the distant prospect resembles the cheerful
hills of Sussex instead of the brown and sombre Derbyshire moors.
The path now creeps along the margin, and now rises above the bed
of a clear and murmuring stream, and immediately opposite is
another hill as lofty and wild, both covered with the finest
trees--oaks, ash, and chestnut--which push out their gnarled
roots in a thousand fantastic shapes, and grow out of vast masses
of rock in the most luxuriant and picturesque manner. Yesterday I
came here, a tolerable place with no pretension, but very well
kept, not without handsome trees, and surrounded by a very pretty
country.
June 28th, 1839, Malvern {p.219}
[Page Head: LUDLOW, MALVERN, ROSS.]
Returned to Ludlow yesterday; came here to-day: the road from
Ledbury to Malvern wonderfully fine, and nothing grander than the
view of Eastnor Castle.
July 3rd, 1839, Troy House {p.219}
[Page Head: GOODRICH CASTLE, TINTERN ABBEY.]
Stayed at Malvern two days, clambering to the top of the hills
which overhang the place (for town it is not), from which the
views are very fine over a rich but generally flat country; the
prospect is grand from its great extent. There is a curious and
interesting church there, formerly of some priory, with a
handsome gateway. I came through Eastnor Park in the way to
Ledbury, exceedingly fine, and the castle something like Belvoir
apparently, but I was not permitted to approach it. Nothing
particular in the road till Ross, a very pretty town, where I
first met the Wye, but, alas, in its muddiest state: this was the
abode of 'The Man of Ross.' Very pretty road from Ross to
Monmouth, through which latter place I walked, and passed by a
very old house, which, as I afterwards heard, is said to have
been the abode of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and they show his study.
Troy, a plain, good-looking house, imperfectly kept up and poorly
furnished, as a house is likely to be whose owners never inhabit
it. It was built by the Duke of Beaufort in 1689, who came to
sulk here on the expulsion of the last of the Stuarts, having a
deeply-rooted sentiment of hereditary loyalty. _Multa fecerunt_
and _multa tulerunt_, certainly, for that unhappy race. Here they
show a chair in which _a plot_ was contrived against Charles I.--
that is, 'in which the president of the conspirators is said to
have sat.' The story was obscure, but I did not think it
advisable to press the narrator for explanations. Likewise a
cradle, which tradition assigns to Henry V. (Harry of Monmouth),
which is evidently old enough and was splendid enough in a rude
style to justify any such tradition; the only unfortunate thing
is, that there is a rival cradle somewhere else with the same
claim. Mr. Wyatt, the Duke's agent, received me with great
civility and hospitality, having been enjoined by the Duke to
make me his guest and himself my _cicerone_. Accordingly we set
forth on Monday morning and went to Usk Castle, a ruin of which
not much is left besides a picturesque round tower; neither the
Castle nor the country is very remarkable, but we brought home a
crimped salmon, for which Usk is famous (and where the crimping
is said to be a secret unattainable even to the vendors of Wye
and Severn salmon), which was, without exception, the most dainty
fish I ever ate. From Usk we returned to Raglan Castle, a most
noble and beautiful ruin; there has often been a notion of
restoring it, and an estimate was made of the probable expense,
which was calculated at £30,000; but the idea and the estimate
are equally preposterous: it would be reconstructing a very
unmanageable house and destroying the finest ruin in England, and
the cost would infallibly be three times £30,000. As there had
been a question of its restoration, I expected to find greater
and more perfect remains, but, though some of the apartments may
be made out, it is a vast wreck. The strange thing is that the
second Marquis of Worcester, when his possessions were restored
to him, and when the damage done to the castle might easily have
been repaired, should not have done it nor any of his immediate
descendants. Great pains are now taken to preserve the beauties
of this majestic fabric and to arrest the further progress of
decay. Yesterday I rode to Goodrich Castle, stopping to see some
remarkable views of the Wye, particularly one called Simmons Yat
or Rock, which is very beautiful (and must be much more so when
the river is clear and transparent); and a curious rock called
the Buck-stone, which was probably a Druidical place of worship,
but of which nothing is positively known, though conjecture is
busy. Goodrich Castle, which was partly battered down by the
Cromwellians like Raglan, is more ancient, and was much stronger
than the latter; but, though not so beautiful and splendid, it is
an equally curious and interesting ruin, with many of its parts
still more perfect than anything at Raglan. I was exceedingly
delighted with Goodrich, and there was a female _custos_, zealous
and intelligent, whose husband, she told us, was continually
occupied in clearing away rubbish and exposing the remains of the
old Castle. We then went to Goodrich Court, a strange kind of
bastard castle built by Blore, and which the possessor, Sir
Samuel Meyrick, has devoted to the exhibition of his collection
of armour. There are only a few acres of ground belonging to him,
on which he has built this house, but it is admirably situated,
overhanging the Wye and facing the Castle, of which it commands a
charming view. After being hurried through the armoury, which was
all we were invited to inspect, we embarked in a boat we had sent
up, and returned to Monmouth down the Wye through some beautiful
scenery, but which it was too cold to enjoy.
July 4th, 1839, Clifton {p.221}
I came here last night, the wind having changed to S.W., and
summer having come with it. I left Troy in the morning and went
to Tintern Abbey: most glorious, which I could not describe if I
would, but which produced on me an impression similar in kind and
equal in amount to that which I felt at the sight of St. Peter's.
No description nor any representation of it can do justice, or
anything like justice, to this majestic and beautiful ruin, such
is its wonderful perfection viewed in every direction, from every
spot, and in the minutest detail. That the remains should be so
extensive and so uninjured is marvellous, for there can be no
doubt that this Abbey might be restored to its former grandeur.
Much has been done by Mr. Wyatt, the Duke's agent, both to
preserve the Abbey and to develope its beauties by cutting away
the trees and ivy, and clearing away the accumulation of earth;
by the latter means several tombs and many detached fragments of
beautiful design and workmanship have been found, and I did my
best to encourage him to pursue his researches.
Casting many lingering looks behind, I left Tintern and went to
Windcliffe, from the summit of which there is a very fine view;
but the Wye, instead of being an embellishment, is an eyesore in
the midst of such scenery: it looks like a long, slimy snake
dragging its foul length through the hills and woods which
environ its muddy stream. We dined in a moss-cottage at the foot
of Windcliffe, and then proceeded to Chepstow, a very curious and
striking ruin, and which I should have seen with much greater
interest and admiration if Tintern had not so occupied my
thoughts and filled my mind that I had not eyes to do justice to
Chepstow. I went all over the ruins, however, and examined them
very accurately; for it is one of the great merits of these
different castles, Raglan, Goodrich, and Chepstow, that they are
wholly dissimilar, and each is therefore a fresh object of
curiosity. I crossed the old passage, as it is called, in a
ferry, and came on to Clifton.
[Page Head: BATH, SALISBURY CATHEDRAL.]
_Bath._--After taking a cursory view of Clifton from the Roman
Camp and part of Bristol, I came to Bath, where I have not been
these thirty years and more. I walked about the town, and was
greatly struck with its handsomeness; thought of all the
vicissitudes of custom and fashion which it has seen and
undergone, and of the various characters, great and small, who
have figured here. Here the great Lord Chatham used to repair
devoured by gout, resentment, and disappointment, and leave the
Government to its fate, while his colleagues waited his pleasure
submissively or caballed against his power, according as
circumstances obliged them to do the first or enabled them to do
the second. Here my uncle, Harry Greville, the handsomest man of
his day, used to dance minuets while all the company got on
chairs and benches to look at him, and a few years since he died
in poverty at the Mauritius, where he had gone to end his days,
after many unfortunate speculations, in an office obtained from
the compassion of Lord Bathurst. _Sic transit gloria mundi_, and
thus its frivolities flourish for their brief hour, and then
decay and are forgotten. An old woman showed me the Pump-room and
the baths, all unchanged except in the habits and characters of
their frequenters; and my mind's eye peopled them with Tabitha
Bramble, Win Jenkins, and Lismahago, and with all the inimitable
family of Anstey's creation, the Ringbones, Cormorants, and
Bumfidgets--Tabby and Roger.[4]
[4] _Humphrey Clinker_ and Anstey's _Bath Guide_.
July 5th, 1839, Salisbury {p.223}
I saw the Abbey Church at Bath this morning, which is handsome
enough, but not very remarkable, unless for the vast crowds of
its tombstones in every part; it has been completely repaired by
the corporation at a great expense. I went to Stonehenge, of
which no description is necessary; thence to Wilton; very fine
place; hurried through the gallery of marbles, but looked longer
at the pictures, which I understand and taste better; saw the
gardens and the stud, and then came here; went directly to the
Cathedral, with which I was exceedingly delighted, having seen
nothing like it for extent, lightness, and elegance. There is one
modern tomb by Chantrey which is very fine, that of Lord
Malmesbury, erected by his sister; but, however skilfully
executed or admirably designed, I do not like such monuments so
well, nor think them so appropriate to our cathedrals, as the
rude effigies of knights and warriors in complete armour, with
their feet on couchant hounds, or those stately though sometimes
gaudy and fantastic monuments, in which, among crowds of
emblematical devices and armorial bearings, the husband and the
wife lie side by side in the richest costume of the day, while
their children are kneeling around them; these, with the
venerable figures of abbots and bishops, however rudely
sculptured, give me greater pleasure to look upon than the
choicest productions of Roubillac, Nollekens, or Chantrey, which,
however fine they may be, seem to have no business there, and to
intrude irreverently among the mighty dead of olden time. This
cathedral is in perfect repair within and without; the colour of
the stone is singularly beautiful, and it is not blocked up with
buildings, Bishop Barrington having caused all that were adjacent
to be removed. The chapter house and cloisters are exceedingly
fine, but the effect is spoilt in the former by great bars of
iron which radiate in all directions from a ring attached to the
supporting pillar, and which have been put there (probably
without any necessity) to relieve it of a portion of the
superincumbent weight. It is remarkable that wherever I have gone
in my travels, I have found the same complaints of the
mischievous propensities of that silly, vulgar, vicious animal,
called the public. Amongst the beauties of nature or of art,
rocks, caves, or mountains, in ruined castles and abbeys, or
ancient but still flourishing cathedrals, the same invariable
love of pilfering and mutilating is to be found: some knock off a
nose or a finger, others deface a frieze or a mullion from sheer
love of havoc, others chip off some unmeaning fragment as a
relique or object of curiosity; but the most general taste seems
to be that of carving names or initials, and some of the ancient
figures are completely tattooed with these barbarous engravings:
this propensity I believe to be peculiar to our nation, and not
to be found in any part of the Continent, where, indeed, it would
probably not be permitted, and where detection and punishment
would speedily overtake the offender. It is quite disgusting to
see the venerable form of a knight templar or a mitred abbot
scarred all over with the base patronymics of Jones and Tomkins,
or with a whole alphabet of their initials.
July 7th, 1839 {p.224}
I came to town yesterday from Basingstoke by railroad; found that
Lady Flora Hastings was dead, and a great majority in the House
of Lords in favour of an Address to the Crown against the
proposed Committee of Council on Education, the Bishop of London
having made an extraordinarily fine speech.
July 14th, 1839 {p.224}
Nothing new; proceedings in Parliament very languid. The Queen
has appointed Lady Sandwich very dexterously, for she gets one of
the favoured Paget race and the wife of a Tory peer, thereby
putting an end to the exclusively Whig composition of the
Household. This is a concession with regard to _the principle_.
July 19th, 1839 {p.225}
[Page Head: DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S ANGRY VEIN.]
There have been angry debates in the Lords about the Birmingham
riots, chiefly remarkable for the excitement, so unlike his usual
manner, exhibited by the Duke of Wellington, who assailed the
Government with a fierceness which betrayed him into much
exaggeration and some injustice. Lord Tavistock, who, although a
partisan, is a fair one, and who has a great esteem and respect
for the Duke, told me that he had seen and heard him with great
pain, and that his whole tone was alarmingly indicative of a
decay of mental power. This is not the first time that such a
suspicion has been excited: George Villiers told me, soon after
he came over, how much struck he had been with the change he
observed in him, and from whatever cause, he is become in
speaking much more indistinct and embarrassed, continually
repeating and not always intelligible, but his speeches, when
reported, present much the same appearance, and the sense and
soundness (when the reporters have lopped off the redundancies
and trimmed them according to their fashion) seem to be
unimpaired. It is, however, a serious and melancholy thing to
contemplate the possibly approaching decay of that great mind,
and I find he always contemplates it himself, his mother's mind
having failed some years before her death. It will be sad if,
after exploits as brilliant as Marlborough's, and a career far
more important, useful, and honourable, he should be destined for
an end like Marlborough's, and it is devoutly to be hoped that
his eyes may be closed in death before 'streams of dotage' shall
begin to flow from them. The Tories, with whom nothing goes down
but violence, were delighted with his angry vein, and see proofs
of vigour in what his opponents consider as evidence of decay;
his bodily health is wonderfully good, which is perhaps rather
alarming than reassuring as to the safety of his mind.
July 22nd, 1839 {p.225}
[Page Head: RADICAL MAGISTRATES.]
I met the Duke yesterday at dinner and had much talk with him. He
is very desponding about the state of the country and the
condition in which the Government have placed it. He complains of
its defenceless situation from their carrying on a war (Canada)
with a peace establishment; consequently that the few troops we
have are harassed to death with duty, and in case of a serious
outbreak that there is no disposable force to quell it; that the
Government are ruled by factions, political and religious. On
Saturday they had been beaten on a question relating to the Poor
Laws[5] of great importance; and he said that they must be
supported in this, and extricated from the difficulty. I was glad
to meet him and see (for it is some time since I have talked to
him) whether there was any perceptible change in his manner or
any symptom indicative of decay. Without there being anything
tangible or very remarkable, I received the impression that there
was not exactly the same vigour of mind which I have been used to
admire in him, and what he said did not appear to me indicative
of the strong sense and acuteness which characterise him. If he
has no attack, I dare say he will be able to continue to act his
part with efficacy for a long time to come. I asked him in what
manner Government would prosecute the inquiry they had promised
into the conduct of the Birmingham magistrates? He said what they
ought to do was to order the Attorney-General to prosecute them
for a corrupt neglect of their duty, a thing they would as soon
put their hands in the fire as do. Such is their position, so
dependent upon bad men, that they are compelled to treat with the
utmost tenderness all the enemies of the Constitution. There can
be no doubt that the appointments to the magistracy have been
fraught with danger, and made on a very monstrous principle. When
Lord John Russell resolved and avowed his resolution to
neutralise the provision of the Act which gave the appointment of
magistrates to the Crown instead of to the Town Council (as they
had proposed) by taking the recommendations of the Council, he
incurred the deepest responsibility that any Minister ever did,
for he took on himself to adopt a course practically inconsistent
with the law, for the express purpose of placing political power
in particular hands, to which the law intended it should not be
confided; and on him, therefore, rested all the responsibility of
such power being wisely and safely exercised by the hands to
which he determined to entrust it; and when he appoints such a
man as Muntz,[6] ex-Chartist and ex-Delegate, what must be the
impression produced on all denominations of men as to his bias,
and of what use is it to make professions, and deliver speeches
condemnatory of the principles and conduct of Chartists and
associators, if his acts and appointments are not in conformity
with those professions? Mr. Muntz, he says, has abandoned
Chartism, and is no longer the man he was: but who knows that?
For one man who knows what Muntz is, a hundred know what he was,
and in the insertion of his name in the list the bulk of the
world will and can only see, if not approbation of, at least
indifference to the doctrines such men have professed, and the
conduct they have exhibited to the world. It is the frightful
anomaly of being a Government divesting itself of all
conservative character, which constitutes the danger of our day.
As the 'Times,' in one of its spirited articles, says, this very
morning, 'that it cares not to see the Monarchy broken in pieces
so that they may hurl its fragments at the heads of their
opponents.'
[5] An instruction to the Committee to introduce a clause
allowing out-door relief in all cases of able-bodied
paupers married previously to the passing of the Act.
[6] [Whatever the antecedents of Mr. Muntz may have been,
he lived to justify Lord John Russell's choice. He was
not only a good magistrate, but member for Birmingham
for many years, and a useful member. He was the first
man who, in our time, wore a long beard in the House.]
July 25th, 1839 {p.227}
Lord Clarendon made his first appearance in the House of Lords
the night before last in reply to Lord Londonderry on Spanish
affairs, with great success and excellent effect, and has
completely landed himself as a Parliamentary speaker, in which,
as he is certain to improve with time and practice, he will
eventually acquire considerable eminence; and nothing can prevent
his arriving at the highest posts. He is already marked out by
the public voice for the Foreign Office, for which he is
peculiarly well fitted, and there is no reason why he should not
look forward to being Prime Minister in some future combination
of parties, a post which he would fill better than any of the
statesmen who now play the principal parts in the political
drama. The Government have at last taken fright, and have
proposed troops and police to afford the country some sort of
security during the recess and the winter. They have sent down
Maule (the Solicitor to the Treasury) to Birmingham to
investigate the evidence adducible against the magistrates, but I
do not much expect that they will proceed to any extremities
against them. It is too probable that 'silebitur toto judicio de
maximis et notissimis injuriis,' for 'non potest in accusando
socios verè defendere is, qui cum reo criminum societate
conjunctus est.'
August 9th, 1839 {p.228}
[Page Head: FREAKS OF LORD BROUGHAM.]
Brougham brought on his motion on Tuesday,[7] in spite of various
attempts to dissuade him; but he could not resist the temptation
of making a speech, which he said he expected would be the best
he had ever delivered. He spoke for three hours in opening, and
an hour and a quarter in reply, and a great performance by all
accounts it was. The Duke of Wellington said it was the finest
speech he had ever heard in Parliament. Normanby was miserably
feeble in reply, and exhibited, by common consent, a sad failure,
both on this occasion and on that of the Canada Bill. He is quite
unequal to the office which has been thrust upon him, and he
cannot speak upon great subjects, having no oratorical art or
power of dealing skilfully and forcibly with a question. It was a
very damaging night to the Government as far as reputation[8] is
concerned, but in no other way, for they are perfectly callous,
and the public entirely apathetic. Melbourne was very smart in
reply to Brougham, but did not attempt to deal with the question.
The case, after all, is not a very strong one, and, though
Normanby was much to blame in releasing prisoners and commuting
sentences in the manner and to the extent he did, the principle
on which he acted was sound, and it has proved beneficial. Had he
known how, and been equal to the task, he might have made a fine
defence by taking a high instead of a deprecatory line, and by a
confident appeal to results; but it required more of an orator
and a statesman than he is to handle his case with sufficient
effect, and to stand up against such a master of his art as
Brougham, backed by a favourable audience. This curious and
versatile creature is in the highest spirits, and finds in the
admiration which his eloquence, and the delight which his
mischievousness excite on the Tory benches and in Tory society, a
compensation for old mortifications and disappointments. After
acting Jupiter one day in the House of Lords, he is ready to act
Scapin anywhere else the next; and the day after this great
display he went to dine at Greenwich with the Duchess of
Cambridge and a great party, where he danced with Lady Jersey,
while Lyndhurst capered also with the Dowager Lady Cowper. After
dinner they drank, among other toasts, Lady Jersey's health, and
when she said she could not return thanks, Brougham undertook to
do it for her, speaking in her person. He said, that 'She was
very sorry to return thanks in such a dress, but unfortunately
she had quarrelled in the morning with her maid, who was a very
cross, crabbed person, and consequently had not been able to put
on the attire she would have wished, and in the difficulty she
had had recourse to her old friend Lord Brougham, who had kindly
lent her his best wig and the coat which he wore upon state
occasions.' After more nonsense of this kind, that 'she was very
sorry she could not say more, but that in the peculiar situation
she then was in, she could not venture to remain any longer on
her legs.'
[7] [Lord Brougham moved on the 6th August five resolutions
censuring the Irish policy of the Government: they were
carried in the House of Lords by 86 votes to 52.]
[8] 'L'une des qualités indispensables d'un Gouvernement
c'est d'avoir cette bonne renommée qui repousse
l'injustice. Quand il l'a perdue et qu'on lui impute
tous les crimes, les torts des autres et ceux même de
la fortune, il n'a plus la faculté de gouverner, et
cette impuissance doit le condamner ... à se retirer.'
(Thiers, t. x. p. 276.) Applicable to our Government
now.
August 10th, 1839 {p.229}
I went to Norwood yesterday to see Dr. Kay's[9] Poor Law School,
supposed to be very well managed, and very successful. As I
looked at the class to whom a lesson was then being read, all the
urchins from eight to eleven or twelve years old, I thought I had
never seen a congregation of more unpromising and ungainly heads,
and accordingly they are the worst and lowest specimens of
humanity; starved, ill-used children of poor and vicious parents,
generally arriving at the school weak and squalid, with a
tendency to every vice, and without having received any moral or
intellectual cultivation whatever; but the system, under able and
zealous teachers, acts with rapid and beneficial effect on these
rude materials, and soon elicits manifestations of intelligence,
and improves and developes the moral faculties. When one sees
what is done by such small means, it is impossible not to reflect
with shame and sorrow upon the little, or rather the nothingness,
that is accomplished when the material is of the best
description, and the means are unlimited,--upon the total absence
of any system throughout places of education, either public or
private, and consequently at the imperfect and defective
education which is given to the highest and richest class of
society, who are brought up thus stupidly at an enormous expense,
acquiring little knowledge, and what they do acquire, so loosely
and incompletely as to be of the smallest possible use. When one
sees what is done here, it makes one think what ought to be done
elsewhere, and then contrast the possible with the actual state
of the case.
[9] [Afterwards Sir James Kay Shuttleworth, Bart. Dr. Kay
was a zealous promoter of national education, and had
recently been appointed to the Education Department of
the Privy Council Office, then in its infancy.]
CHAPTER VII.
Review of the Session--Ministerial Changes--Effect of Changes in
the Government--A Greenwich Dinner--Dover Dinner to the Duke of
Wellington--A Toast from Ovid--Decay of Tory Loyalty--
Unpopularity of Government--Brougham's Letter to the Duke of
Bedford--Character of John, Duke of Bedford--Brougham at the
Dover Dinner--Brougham and Macaulay--The Duke's Decline--Duke
of Wellington consulted on Indian and Spanish Affairs--Baron
Brunnow arrives in England--False Reports of Lord Brougham's
Death--Insulting Speeches of the Tories--Holland House--Lord
Brougham and Lord Holland--The Queen's Marriage is announced--
Remarkable Anecdote of the Duke of Wellington--The Mayor of
Newport at Windsor--Ampthill--Lord John Russell's Borough
Magistrates--Lord Clarendon's Advice to his Colleagues--
Prospects of the Government--Opening of the Session--Duel of
Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Horsman--Lord Lyndhurst's View of
Affairs--Prince Albert's Household--The Privilege Question--
Prince Albert's Allowance--Precedence of Prince Albert--Lord
John Russell and Sir Robert Peel--Judgement on the Newport
Prisoners--A Vote of Want of Confidence moved--The Newport
Prisoners--Prince Albert's Precedency--Sir Robert Peel and his
Party--Sir Robert Peel's Speech and Declaration--Precedence
Question--The Queen's Marriage--Illness of the Duke of
Wellington--The Precedence Question settled--The Duke opposed
to Peel on the Privilege Question--Change in the Health of the
Duke--Prince Albert's Name in the Liturgy--Success of Pamphlet
on Precedence--Judicial Committee Bill--Lord Dudley's Letters--
Amendment of Judicial Committee--King's Sons born Privy
Councillors, other Princes sworn--The Duke returns to London--
Lord Melbourne's Opinion on Journals.
August 15th, 1839 {p.231}
[Page Head: A SINKING MINISTRY.]
This eventful Session and season has at length closed, Lyndhurst
having wound up by a _résumé_ of the acts of the Government, in
one of those 'exercitations,' as Melbourne calls them, which are
equally pungent for their severity, and admirable for their
lucidity. Melbourne made a bitter reply, full of personalities,
against Lyndhurst, but offering a meagre defence for himself and
his colleagues. Those who watch the course of events, and who
occasionally peep behind the curtain, have but a sorry spectacle
to contemplate:--a Government miserably weak, dragging on a
sickly existence, now endeavouring to curry a little favour with
one party, now with another; so unused to stand, and so incapable
of standing, on any great principles, that at last they have, or
appear to have, none to stand on. Buffeted by their antagonists,
and often by their supporters in Parliament, despised by the
country at large, clinging to office merely to gratify the Queen,
while they are just sufficiently supported in the House of
Commons to keep their places, and not enough to carry their
measures; for so meagre are their majorities, and so little do
the public care for those majorities, or for the Ministers or
their measures, that the Lords do not scruple to treat the
Ministerial Bills with undisguised contempt. At the beginning of
this Session, the weakness of the Government, and the
impossibility of their going on, were so obvious, that the more
wise and moderate of them began to prepare for their retirement,
and Lord John Russell, by the publication of his Stroud letter,
and the expression of those opinions which I was the means of
conveying to Peel, evinced his determination to make the
dissolution of the Government ancillary to the ascendency of true
Conservative principles. The break-up came sooner than had been
expected, and when Ministers resigned, on the majority of five on
the Jamaica Bill (which they need not have done), they acted
wisely, for they were enabled to retire with dignity, Peel and
the Opposition having been clearly and flagrantly in the wrong
upon this particular measure--so wrong, that it has been, and
still is, matter of astonishment to me why they gave battle upon
it, and I suspect that Peel was by no means elated at his own
success on that occasion. However, out they went upon the Jamaica
question, and though they fancy Peel did not really wish to form
a Government, and that the difficulties he made were only a
pretext for escaping from his position, this is not the case; he
had no misgivings or fears, and was quite ready to undertake the
task. However, _Diis aliter visum_: the Queen kept Lord
Melbourne, and they came back to accumulated difficulties, and
without any augmentation of parliamentary strength or popular
sympathy to sustain them. They made one miserable effort, and
tossed a sop to the Radicals, by making the Ballot an open
question, the grace and utility of which were entirely marred by
Lord Howick's speech, so that they got all the discredit of this
concession without any compensatory advantage. They had begun the
campaign by the abrupt expulsion of Glenelg (nobody has ever made
out exactly why) and by bringing over Normanby in breathless
haste to supersede him, without any reasonable probability of his
giving such an accession of vigour and capacity to the Government
as would justify this operation, and accordingly as more than
ordinary success was requisite for a man promoted under such
circumstances, the deeper were the mortification and
disappointment at his failure. The Irish Committee, which put him
on the defence of his administration there, distracted his
attention and disturbed his mind, and he turned out to be unequal
to his situation. His defence of himself upon Ireland was very
weak, and his whole parliamentary conduct of colonial affairs
lamentably inefficient. Then Mr. Spring Rice kept falling into
continual discredit by his financial incompetence, so that day
after day, from one cause or another, the Ministry sank in
estimation, and got more weak and ridiculous. Of this they were
not at all unconscious, and it was settled that something was to
be done, though the difficulty both as to the manner and the
matter was exceedingly great. Rice himself was eager to escape,
and tried hard to be Speaker; but though the Cabinet had resolved
he should be the Government candidate, it was found that no
adequate support could be depended upon for him, and he was
obliged, and they were obliged, to let Lefevre stand instead; at
which Rice himself was so sulky that he showed his spite by
contriving to arrive too late from Tunbridge for the division.
They scrambled on till the end of the Session, when the changes
which had long been discussed and battled were to take place, and
then, naturally, came into play all the vanity, selfishness, and
rival pretensions, which a sense of common danger could not
silence. In the arrangement of all these things, Melbourne is
said to have severely suffered, so repugnant is it to his nature
and habits to be the arbiter and adjuster of rival claims and
pretensions.
It seems to have been arranged long ago that Normanby and John
Russell should change places, ostensibly that the Colonial
Minister might be in the House of Commons, and really because
Normanby broke down, so that it was necessary to harness Lord
John to the Colonial machine. Then they determined to send
Poulett Thomson to Canada, without any consideration of the
effect such an appointment would produce, either here or there,
and his vacancy opened a fresh embarrassment about the Board of
Trade. Labouchere having quitted the Vice-Presidency, and gone to
the Colonial Office to work for them when they were in
difficulty, was considered to have made a sacrifice, and he
demanded as its reward that he should step into Poulett Thomson's
place, and his seat in the Cabinet. Melbourne wanted to offer the
Board of Trade to Clarendon, and wrote to him to beg he would not
go abroad without seeing him, and intimated that he had something
to propose to him. On the other hand, Howick put in a claim for
Charles Wood, and argued that as he had long taken a labouring
oar in the boat, and in this Session, when they had got into a
scrape about the Navy, Wood had successfully defended the
Government in the House of Commons in a very good speech,--this
eminent service, together with a long career of usefulness, gave
him a superior claim to promotion. The details of the contest
between these various candidates I do not know, but the result
was that Labouchere got the place, Howick and Charles Wood both
resigned, and Clarendon had a conversation with Melbourne, in
which the latter informed him, not without embarrassment, that he
had been in hopes he should have had the Board of Trade to offer
him, but that Labouchere's claim had been deemed not postponable,
and all he had to offer him was the Mint without the Cabinet.
Clarendon refused this with perfect good humour, though certainly
not much flattered at the offer, and he took the opportunity of
putting Melbourne in possession of his thoughts, both as to his
own position and intentions, and the condition and prospects of
the Government, with respect to which he did not mince matters,
or fail to paint them in their true colours. He explained his own
desire to try himself more in debate than he had been yet enabled
to do, to see what he was fit for, and in the meantime owned that
he had no particular desire to associate himself with such a
rickety concern. The conversation was frank and characteristic,
and must have been amusing. Melbourne acknowledged that he was
quite right, and that the position of his Government was such as
Clarendon described it.
[Page Head: POULETT THOMSON SENT TO CANADA.]
Nothing strikes one more forcibly in the contemplation of these
things, than the manner in which the public interests are
complimented away for the sake of individual pretensions, and
even in this there is an apparent caprice which is inexplicable.
Glenelg, an honourable and accomplished man, is thrust out under
very humiliating circumstances. Poulett Thomson, we are told,
'must have been' Chancellor of the Exchequer, if not Governor of
Canada (a post he is by way of taking as a favour to his
colleagues), 'he could not be passed over.' Why he could not, and
in what his right consisted, it is difficult to say, nor why he
is entitled to such amazing deference, while poor Glenelg was so
unceremoniously treated. Poulett Thomson is clever and
industrious, but his elevation, when compared with that of
others, and with his own merit, as well as original means of
raising himself, exhibits a very remarkable phenomenon, and as
Lord Spencer, his early patron, has pretty well withdrawn from
public affairs, it is not very obvious how or why Poulett Thomson
is enabled to render his small pretensions so largely available.
The Duke would not believe they meant to send him to Canada, and
said they had much better leave Colborne there; but this is what
they fancy they can't do, and that they must send out somebody
who is to solve the political problem of settling the future form
of government, and so Poulett goes to finish what Durham began.
September 4th, 1839 {p.235}
The changes in the Government have been received with
considerable indifference, nobody much caring, and the generality
of people finding fault with some or all of them. Normanby told
me yesterday that he was fully sensible of the inconvenience of
such changes, and of the bad effect they are calculated to
produce, but that the appointment of Poulett Thomson was John
Russell's doing, that he had been bent upon it, and had carried
it, and as he (Normanby) could not consent to it, and would not
be immediately responsible for it, nothing was left but to change
offices, and let the appointment of Poulett Thomson to Canada be
Lord John's own doing, who would thus administer the affairs of
the Colony with a Governor of his own choice. He added, that it
had been originally intended (when he left Ireland) that he
should take his present office, but other circumstances had
obliged him at that time to go to the Colonies. While Normanby
quits the Colonies, because Thomson goes to Canada (as he says),
Howick (as _he_ says) resigns, because Normanby goes to the Home
Office. But the world believes that the change of the one takes
place, because Normanby is unequal to the work of the Colonies,
and the resignation of the other, because Howick was not himself
appointed Colonial Secretary. The ostensible ground for the
change is, that the Minister who brings forward the Canada
question in the House of Commons may be well versed in all the
official details, and have immediate personal control over the
local administration; and the excuse for sending out Thomson, and
accepting Colborne's resignation, is the necessity of appointing
a Governor thoroughly acquainted with all that has passed both
abroad and at home, cognisant of the intentions, and possessed of
the confidence of the Cabinet. All this will appear to furnish
inadequate grounds for recalling Colborne, who has acted with
sense and vigour, albeit not pretending to be a statesman or a
legislator. A story is told, which shows the levity of the
Government people, and how they make game of what might be
thought matter of anything but pleasantry to them. At the end of
the season there is always a fish dinner at Greenwich, the
whipper-in (Secretary of Treasury), Ben Stanley, in the chair;
and this is on the plan of the Beefsteak Club, everybody saying
what he pleases, and dealing out gibes and jests upon his friends
and colleagues according to the measure of his humour and
capacity. Normanby, still smarting from the attacks of Brougham,
was made the mark for these jocularities, after his health being
drunk thus: 'Lord Normanby and the liberation of the Prisoners.'
At a subsequent period, Rutherford, the Lord Advocate, attacked
the Attorney-General, and said he had long known his learned
friend as the advocate of liberty, but he had lately seen him in
quite a new capacity, prosecuting in the Tory fashion, and having
people shut up in jail in all parts of the country. Campbell said
it was very true that he had lately had a very unpleasant duty to
perform, and that he had been the unwilling instrument of
incarcerating many of Her Majesty's subjects, but that he had all
along been consoled by the reflexion that there was every
probability of his noble friend Lord Normanby making a progress,
during the recess, and letting them all out again. Normanby,
however, did not like the witticism, and complained afterwards
that the dinner was very dull, and the jokes exceedingly heavy.
[Page Head: A GREENWICH DINNER.]
The Dover dinner to the Duke of Wellington,[1] which took place
the other day, did not present an agreeable spectacle. Brougham,
who had thrust himself in among the party, was pitched upon, as
having the best gift of the gab, to propose the Duke's health,
which he did in a very tawdry speech, stuffed with claptraps and
commonplaces. It was a piece of bad taste to select Brougham (who
had nothing to do with Dover) for the performance of this office,
which would have been more appropriately discharged by the local
authority in the chair, although he might not have been able to
make such a flourish as the practised orator favoured the company
with. The Duke himself hates to be thus bepraised, and it is
painful to see Brougham and him in any way connected, though for
so ephemeral a purpose. The Duke's health might be proposed in
three lines of Ovid, which express the position he fills more,
and probably better, than the most studied oration could do:--
Si titulos, annosque tuos numerare velimus,
Facta premant annos. Pro te, fortissime, vota
Publica suscipimus, Bacchi tibi sumimus haustus.
It turned out a complete _Tory_ celebration. There was an almost
unmixed array of Tory names at the banquet, and one Whig lord
(Poltimore), who happened to be at Dover declined attending.
[1] [A great entertainment was given to the Duke of
Wellington as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports on the
30th August. Lord Brougham attended it, and delivered
an oration of the most hyperbolical panegyric.]
September 5th, 1839 {p.238}
Among other bad signs of these times, one is the decay of
_loyalty_ in the Tory party; the Tory principle is completely
destroyed by party rage. No Opposition was ever more rabid than
this is, no people ever treated or spoke of the Sovereign with
such marked disrespect. They seem not to care one straw for the
Crown, its dignity, or its authority, because the head on which
it is placed does not nod with benignity to them. An example of
this took place the other day, when at a dinner at Shrewsbury the
company refused to drink the health of the new Lord Lieutenant,
the Duke of Sutherland (a man not personally obnoxious), because
the Duchess of Sutherland is at the head of the Queen's female
household. This reproach does not apply to the leaders of the
party, who are too wise and too decorous to hold such language or
to approve of such conduct;[2] but is the _animus_ which
distinguishes the tail and the body, and they take no pains to
conceal it.
[2] This was before the Bradshaw and Roby exhibitions.
September 7th, 1839 {p.238}
The result of the Cambridge and Manchester elections proves (if
any proof was wanting), how utterly the cause of Government is
lost in the country, and fully confirms the report of their
universal unpopularity: Cambridge lost by one hundred, and
Manchester barely won. Poulett Thomson told me just before that
the Liberals had a certain majority (for any candidate) of
several hundreds.
September 14th, 1839 {p.238}
[Page Head: BROUGHAM'S LETTER ON EDUCATION.]
Brougham has sent to the press a letter to the Duke of Bedford on
Education, of which he thus speaks in a letter to Lord
Tavistock:... 'I have sent my letter to the Duke to the press at
Edinburgh. I wrote it in eight and a half hours the day I came
here; but if I am to judge, who should not, it is by far the best
thing I ever did, and the only eloquent. My whole heart was in
it, both from affection to your excellent father, and to the
subject. I hope it will do good, for the time is going away under
me, and I shall be called to my great account before I have done
any good on earth. Therefore I must make a new attempt at having
something to show.' The production will be probably very good in
its way and very eloquent, but the note is characteristic--a
mixture of pride and humility, humbugging and self-deceitful.
What cares he for the Duke of Bedford, whom he scarcely sees from
one end of the year to the other, and why should he care? They
have very little in common--neither the _idem velle_ nor _idem
nolle_; and a more uninteresting, weak-minded, selfish character
does not exist than the Duke of Bedford.[3] He is a good-natured,
plausible man, without enemies, and really (though he does not
think so) without friends; and naturally enough he does not think
so, because there are many who pretend, like Brougham, a strong
affection for him, and some who imagine they feel it. Vast
property, rank, influence, and station always attract a sentiment
which is dignified with the name of friendship, which assumes all
its outward appearance, complies with its conditions, but which
is really hollow and unsubstantial. The Duke of Bedford thinks of
nothing but his own personal enjoyments, and it has long been a
part of his system not to allow himself to be disturbed by the
necessities of others, or be ruffled by the slightest self-
denial. He is affable, bland, and of easy intercourse, making
rather a favourable impression on superficial observers; caring
little, if at all, for the wants or wishes of others, but
grudging nobody anything that does not interfere with his own
pursuits, and seeing with complacency those who surround him lap
up the superfluities which may chance to bubble over from his cup
of pleasure and happiness. It is a farce to talk of friendship
with such a man, on whom, if he were not Duke of Bedford,
Brougham would never waste a thought.
[3] [These remarks relate to John, sixth Duke of Bedford,
born 6th July, 1766, died 29th October, 1839. He was
the father of the Lord Tavistock often mentioned in
these Journals, and of Lord William and Lord John
Russell.]
September 17th, 1839 {p.240}
Finding the Duke of Wellington was in town yesterday, I called on
him. He talked to me a great deal about Brougham and the Dover
dinner, and told me a comical anecdote with reference to his
giving the toast of the Duke's health at the dinner. The
Committee invited him and, as the chairman was a man who could
not speak at all, they, thinking it a catch to get so great an
orator to do the office, proposed to Brougham to give the toast
of the night. He accepted, and then they found that Lord
Guilford, a man of the first rank and consequence in the county,
and therefore entitled to this distinction, was highly affronted
at the preference of Brougham to him. They got embarrassed, and
desired to take the toast from Brougham and give it to Lord
Guilford, and when he got down there this was suggested to him;
but he said 'it could not be, for he had not only written his
speech beforehand, but had already sent it to be published, so
that no alteration was then possible.' The consequence was, Lord
Guilford would not come to the dinner, and he was only pacified
afterwards by the Duke himself, who went to call upon him for the
purpose of soothing down his ruffled plumage; this he succeeded
in doing by telling him this story, and nothing the Duke said
reconciled him so much to what had passed, as the fact of
Brougham's having written his speech beforehand.
He told me what Brougham had said of Macaulay (whom he hates with
much cordiality), when somebody asked if he was to be Secretary
at War. 'No, Melbourne would not consent to it: he would not have
him in the Cabinet, and could not endure to sit with ten parrots,
a chime of bells, and Lady W----.'
The more I see of the Duke, the more am I struck with the
impression that he is declining; that he is not what he was a
year or two ago. He is vigorous and hearty, cheerful, lively; his
memory does not seem to be impaired; he talks with sense and
energy. If anybody asserted that they saw symptoms of mental
decay, it would be easy to deny the fact, and to support the
denial by ready and numerous examples of his force and sagacity
in discussion, or in the transaction of business; but
nevertheless I am persuaded that a change has come over him, that
it is gradually spreading more and sinking deeper, and that we
must begin to make up our minds to the deprivation of his noble
spirit, full of honesty, wisdom, and patriotism as it is.[4]
[4] [The Duke, however, lived and flourished for thirteen
years after this prediction.]
September 21st, 1839 {p.241}
[Page Head: THE AFGHAN EXPEDITION.]
I dined at Holland House last night, where, among others, were
General Alava, and Sir John Hobhouse, the first in high glee at
the termination of the war in Spain, and the last at the success
of the Indian expedition.[5] Hobhouse told me that Auckland had
displayed extraordinary qualities, and was the ablest Governor
India had seen for a great length of time. Alava said that the
last transactions in Spain and the mediation of Lord John Hay had
reflected the highest honour on our Government, and that we had
acted with a discretion, a delicacy, and a disinterestedness
beyond all praise. But both Alava and Hobhouse told me what is
very remarkable as showing the great reliance which even his
political opponents place in the wisdom and patriotism of the
Duke. Hobhouse said that he had had some time ago a very long
conversation with the Duke, in which he had made him acquainted
with all the means employed for the accomplishment of their
Indian objects, and that the Duke, who had previously anticipated
their failure, had, after hearing all these details, expressed
himself perfectly satisfied, and admitted that they had every
assurance of success. He did not go into the policy of the
measure, which it would not have been proper or advisable to do,
but merely treated the question of military resources and their
employment.
[5] [This was the expedition to replace Shah Sooja on the
throne of Afghanistan, which was so auspiciously
commenced and so deplorably terminated. Sir John
Hobhouse was greatly elated at the enterprise and very
confident of the result. He said to me soon afterwards
that we must encounter the policy of Russia, and that
the theatre of the struggle was Central Asia. I replied
that I should have preferred the Baltic.--H.R.]
So, too, Alava, as soon as intelligence reached him and
Palmerston of the overtures of Maroto, asked leave to communicate
it to the Duke, which was immediately conceded. He was therefore
informed of all that was going on, and it met with his fullest
approbation; and yet all this time the great organ of the Tories
is raving against the Government in the most frantic manner, for
having been instrumental to this happy termination of the most
frightful and revolting civil war that ever afflicted any
country.[6]
[6] [The active support given to Espartero by the British
Government under the Quadruple Treaty, and the
operations of Lord John Hay on the northern coast of
Spain, which stopped the supplies of the Carlists,
contributed to bring the contest for the Crown of Spain
to an end, and on the 15th August Don Carlos
surrendered himself to the French Government at
Bayonne.]
September 23rd, 1839 {p.242}
Lady Holland asked me the other night what I thought of their
prospects, and I told her I thought them very bad. She said, 'The
fact is, we have nothing to rely upon but the Queen and Paddy.'
This has since struck me as being an epigrammatic but very
correct description of their position.
Last night there came to Holland House after dinner Brunnow and
Nesselrode's son, the first (not unlike Brougham, and would be
very like if his nose moved about), a very able man, and said to
be 'la pensée intime de l'Empereur,' sent over to see what can be
done about the Eastern Question, which I take to be a very
difficult matter.[7] I had much talk with Dedel (who told me
this) about Palmerston. I said it was well known he was very able
with his pen, but I did not know how he was in Conference. He
replied: 'Palmerston comes to any Conference so fully and
completely master of the subject of it in all the minutest
details, that this capacity is a peculiar talent with him; it is
so great, that he is apt sometimes to lose himself in the
details.'
[7] [Baron Brunnow was sent to England at this time by the
Emperor Nicholas to make the first overtures for the
intervention of the Great Powers in the quarrel between
the Sultan and the Pasha of Egypt. This overture was
rejected by the Cabinet in 1839, but accepted on the
Baron's return to England in the following year, and it
led to the celebrated treaty of the 15th July, 1840,
and the quarrel with France, the true object of
Nicholas having been the severance of the Western
Powers. M. de Brunnow remained in England as Minister
or Ambassador for nearly thirty-five years.]
London, November 8th, 1839 {p.243}
Six weeks nearly of an absolute blank. Left town October 1,
Newmarket, then Cromer for ten days, Newmarket, London,
Riddlesworth, Newmarket again, Euston, and back on Monday last.
Nothing very remarkable has happened in this interval. Lord
Clarendon[8] accepted the Privy Seal, not very willingly, but
feeling that he could not, with decency, refuse it. They consider
his accession to the Government a matter of great importance, and
the Tories own it to be so, such a reputation has he acquired by
the brilliant manner in which he conducted the mission in Spain,
and by his popular and engaging qualities.
[8] [George William Frederic Villiers, fourth Earl of
Clarendon, succeeded his uncle in the title in
December, 1838. He had filled for some years with
distinguished ability the office of British Minister at
Madrid. He now returned to England; married Lady
Katharine Barham, eldest daughter of the Earl of
Verulam and widow of John Forster-Barham, Esq., in June
1839, and entered the Cabinet for the first time as
Lord Privy Seal.]
[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM'S PRETENDED DEATH.]
Nothing has excited so much interest as the hoax of Brougham's
pretended death,[9] which was generally believed for twenty-four
hours, and the report elicited a host of criticisms and
panegyrics on his life and character, for the most part
flattering, except that in the 'Times,' which was very able but
very severe, and not less severe than true. As soon as it was
discovered that he was not dead, the liveliest indignation was
testified at the joke that had been played off, and the utmost
anxiety to discover its origin. General suspicion immediately
fixed itself on Brougham himself, who, finding the bad impression
produced, hastened to remove it by a vehement but indirect denial
of having had any share in, or knowledge of, the hoax. But so
little reliance is placed upon his word, that everybody laughs at
his denials, and hardly anybody has a shadow of a doubt that he
was himself at the bottom of it. He has taken the trouble to
write to all sorts of people, old friends and new, to exonerate
himself from the charge; but never was trouble more thrown away.
D'Orsay says that he carefully compared the (supposed) letter of
Shafto with one of Brougham's to him, and that they were
evidently written by the same hand. The paper, with all its
marks, was the same, together with various other minute
resemblances, leaving no doubt of the fact.
[9] [A letter from Brougham purporting to be from Mr.
Shafto was received by Mr. Alfred Montgomery, which
contained the particulars of Lord Brougham's death by a
carriage accident. Mr. Montgomery brought the letter to
Lady Blessington's at Gore House, where I happened to
be, and I confess we were all taken in by the hoax.
Montgomery went off in a post-chaise to break the news
to Lord Wellesley at Fernhill; and meeting Lord Alfred
Paget in Windsor Park, he sent the news to the Castle.
The trick was kept up for twenty-four hours, but the
next day I received a note from Brougham himself, full
of his usual spirits and vitality.--H.R.]
[Page Head: VIOLENCE OF THE TORIES.]
Next to this episode, Jemmy Bradshaw's speech at Canterbury has
attracted the greatest attention, and he has been for many days
the hero of newspaper discussion. This speech, which was a tissue
of folly and impertinence, but principally remarkable for a
personal attack of the most violent and indecent kind upon the
Queen, was received with shouts of applause at a Conservative
dinner, and reported with many compliments, and some gentle
reprehension by the Tory press. His example has since been
followed in a less offensive style by two others calling
themselves Tories--a Mr. Roby and a Mr. Escott. Of these rabid
and disloyal effusions, the Government papers have not failed to
make the most, by pointing out the disaffected and almost
treasonable character of modern Toryism when embittered by
exclusion from office; and there is no doubt that, contemptible
as the authors are, their senseless and disgusting exhibitions
are calculated to do great mischief; for, if no other evil
ensued, it is one of no small consequence to sour the mind of the
Queen still more against the whole Tory party, and fasten upon
her an impression which it will be difficult to efface, that she
is odious and her authority contemptible in their eyes, so long
as she is unfavourable to them, and commits herself to other
hands than theirs. Peel is to be pitied for having to lead such
an unruly and unprincipled faction. Everything seems disjointed,
all is confusion; moderate men, desirous of good government,
stability, security, and safe amendment of political evils or
errors, can find no resting-place. The Tories, the professors and
protectors of Conservative principles, the abhorrers of changes,
who would not have so much as a finger laid upon the integrity of
the Constitution, are ready to roll the Crown in the dirt, and
trample it under their feet; and the Government, to whom the
maintenance of the Constitution is entrusted, whose especial duty
it is to uphold the authority of the laws, are openly allied
with, and continually truckling to, those factions, or sections
of factions, which make no secret of their desire and
determination to effect changes which nobody denies to be
equivalent to revolution; and then we have the weight of the
Crown thrown into the scale of this unholy alliance, from the
mere influence of personal predilections and antipathies. To such
a degree is principle dormant, or so entirely is it thrust into
the background by passion, prejudice, or the interest of the
passing hour.
November 13th, 1839 {p.245}
At Holland House for three days last week. Lord Holland told many
stories of Lord Chatham, some of which I had heard before, and
some not. His stories are always excellent, and excellently told,
and those who have heard them before can very well bear to hear
them again. I think I have somewhere inserted the 'Sugar' story,
which Lord Harrowby told me many years ago, but without the
vivacity and good acting of Lord Holland. Another of his sayings
was in the House of Lords, when, on I forget what question, he
was unsupported: 'My Lords, I stand like our First Parents--
alone, naked, but not ashamed.' This was fine. Lord Holland said
there was nothing like real oratory in Parliament before the
American war.
He had received several letters from Brougham in a most strange,
incoherent style, avowedly for the purpose of thanking Lady
Holland for the interest he heard she had shown about him when
his death was reported, and at the same time to explain that he
had no hand in the report, which he did with the utmost solemnity
of asseveration;[10] but he took this opportunity to descant on
the conduct of the party towards him, of the press, of the
people, and of the leading Whigs, talked of the flags of truce he
had held out, and how they had been fired on, and that he must
again arm himself for another fight. All this in a curious,
disjointed style. As these letters were considered flags of
truce, Lady Holland fired upon them an invitation to dinner, but
he would not come. I met him on Sunday, and asked him why he did
not come, but he would not give any answer whatever. On that
occasion he talked for two hours without stopping, abusing one
person after another, particularly Fonblanque, and then telling
the whole history of the Reform Bill and of the famous
dissolution, and of all his own exploits on that occasion. It was
amusing enough, but he talks too much, and his talk has the grand
fault of not impressing his hearers with an idea of its truth; it
is lively, energetic, vivacious, abundant, but it is artificial
and unsatisfactory, because liable to suspicion and doubt.
[10] It was well known, eventually, that the hoax was
entirely his own, and the letter dictated by himself.
Windsor Castle, November 15th, 1839 {p.246}
Here for a Council. I sat next to Baroness Lehzen at dinner--a
clever, agreeable woman. She complained of Peel's having said in
the House of Commons that he did not mean to turn her out, and
says he ought to have said he could not, and that he had nothing
to do with her, as she is not in the public service. I defended
Peel. In the evening, Lord Melbourne told me to search the
Council books and see what was the form of declaration of the
Sovereign's marriage, so that matter is pretty clearly settled.
November 23rd, 1839 {p.246}
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S BETROTHAL.]
At Wolbeding for three days. Then news came of the Duke's
illness, which, though it turned out to be exaggerated, will, I
fear, prove to have given him a shake. The Council being summoned
to declare the Queen's marriage to-day, I have come up to town
for it, and am just returned from the declaration, which took
place in the lower apartments of the palace. About eighty Privy
Councillors present, all who were within call having attended.
Peel, Lyndhurst, and the Duke. The Duke arrived last night for
the purpose; he looked very old, very feeble, and decrepit. I
thought a great change was observable in him, but he was cheerful
as usual, and evidently tried to make the best of it. The Queen
had sent in the morning to enquire after him, and the answer was,
'He had had a restless night.' All the Privy Councillors seated
themselves, when the folding-doors were thrown open, and the
Queen came in, attired in a plain morning-gown, but wearing a
bracelet containing Prince Albert's picture. She read the
declaration in a clear, sonorous, sweet-toned voice, but her
hands trembled so excessively that I wonder she was able to read
the paper which she held. Lord Lansdowne made a little speech,
asking her permission to have the declaration made public. She
bowed assent, placed the paper in his hands, and then retired.
November 26th, 1839 {p.247}
The Queen wrote to all her family and announced her marriage to
them. When she saw the Duchess of Gloucester in town, and told
her she was to make her declaration the next day, the Duchess
asked her if it was not a nervous thing to do. She said, 'Yes;
but I did a much more nervous thing a little while ago.' 'What
was that?' 'I proposed to Prince Albert.'
The Duke of Cambridge hunted Brougham round the room, saying,
'Oh, by God, you wrote the letter; by God, you did it
yourself.'[11] Brougham is in a state of prodigious excitement.
He has had a reconciliation with Normanby, and another with
Durham--the first at Lady Clanricarde's, the other at Lady
Tankerville's, where they casually met. He was overflowing with
sentiment and eagerness to be friends with both.
[11] [Meaning the letter to Alfred Montgomery which
announced Lord Brougham's death.]
November 27th, 1839 {p.247}
The Queen settled everything about her marriage herself, and
without consulting Melbourne at all on the subject, not even
communicating to him her intentions. The reports were already
rife, while he was in ignorance; and at last he spoke to her,
told her that he could not be ignorant of the reports, nor could
she; that he did not presume to enquire what her intentions were,
but that it was his duty to tell her, that if she had any, it was
necessary that her Ministers should be apprised of them. She said
she had nothing to tell him, and about a fortnight afterwards she
informed him that the whole thing was settled. A curious
exhibition of her independence, and explains the apprehensions
which Lady Cowper has recently expressed to me of the serious
consequences which her determined character is likely to produce.
If she has already shaken off her dependence on Melbourne, and
begins to fly with her own wings, what will she not do when she
is older, and has to deal with Ministers whom she does not care
for, or whom she dislikes?
December 14th, 1839 {p.248}
I was at Oatlands a fortnight ago, where I met Croker--not
overbearing, and rather agreeable, though without having said
much that was peculiarly interesting. Two things struck me. He
said he dined and passed the evening _tête-à-tête_ with the Duke
of Wellington (then Sir Arthur Wellesley) before his departure
for Portugal to take the command of the army. He was then Irish
Secretary, and had committed to Croker's management the bills he
had to carry through Parliament. After dinner he was very
thoughtful, and did not speak. Croker said, 'Sir Arthur, you
don't talk; what is it you are thinking about?' He said, 'Of the
French. I have never seen them; they have beaten all Europe. I
think I shall beat them, but I can't help thinking about them.'
Another _tête-à-tête_ he had with the Duke was at the time of the
Reform Bill, when he went down with him for a week to
Strathfieldsaye, during which time he was more low-spirited and
silent than Croker said he ever saw him before or since. He
reproached himself for what he had done, particularly about
Catholic Emancipation, the repeal of the Test Act, and his
resignation in '30. Very curious this, not alluding among the
topics of self-reproach to his persevering and mischievous
opposition to the Emancipation, which he at length conceded in a
manner so fraught with future evil, however inevitable; nor to
his famous Anti-reform declaration, which, though containing
little if anything that was untrue, was so imprudent that its
effects were enormous and irretrievable. Such is the blindness,
the obstinate reluctance to the admission of error, which besets
even the wisest and the best men; for if the Duke of Wellington
could have divested his mind of prejudice, and reflected calmly
on the past, or looked over the political map of bygone events
with the practical sagacity he usually displayed, he never could
have failed to perceive the true causes of them. People often
take to themselves unmerited blame, to screen themselves from
that which they are conscious they deserve.
[Page Head: THE MAYOR OF NEWPORT AT COURT.]
On Monday last I went to Windsor for a Council. There we had Sir
Thomas Phillips, the Mayor of Newport, who came to be knighted.
They were going to knight him, and then dismiss him, but I
persuaded Normanby that it would be a wise and popular thing to
keep him there and load him with civilities--do good to the
Queen, encourage others to do their duty--and send him back
rejoicing to his province, to spread far and wide the fame of his
gracious reception. He said, that etiquette would not permit one
of his rank in life to be invited to the Royal table. I said,
that this was all nonsense: if he was good enough to come and be
knighted, he was good enough to dine there, and that it was a
little outlay for a large return. He was convinced; spoke to
Melbourne, who settled it, and Phillips stayed. Nothing could
answer better, everybody approved of it, and the man behaved as
if his whole life had been spent in Courts, perfectly at his ease
without rudeness or forwardness, quiet, unobtrusive, but with
complete self-possession, and a _nil admirari_ manner which had
something distinguished in it. The Queen was very civil to him,
and he was delighted. The next morning he went to Normanby, and
expressed his apprehension that he might not have conducted
himself as he ought, together with his grateful sense of his
reception; but the apology was quite needless.[12]
[12] [On the 4th November a Chartist riot occurred at
Newport in Monmouthshire. The leaders were John Frost
and Zephaniah Williams. The Mayor, Mr. T. Phillips,
behaved with great gallantry, and ordered the troops to
load. The mob, said to be 20,000 strong, first fired on
the troops, who then returned the fire with effect and
dispersed the assemblage. John Frost, the leader of
this disturbance, had unluckily been made a magistrate
by Lord John Russell some time before. His trial is
subsequently adverted to.]
December 25th, 1839 {p.250}
At Ampthill (Baron Parke's) last Friday. Took down with me David
Dundas, a Whig lawyer, and a very agreeable accomplished man,
plenty of pleasant talk. Went over to Wrest, Lord de Grey's new
house--built, decorated, and furnished by himself--and very
perfect in all ways. Heard on Sunday a Mr. Howorth preach--an
admirable preacher, who ought to be promoted in the Church, just
as Dundas ought in the State.[13]
[13] [Sir David Dundas afterwards became Solicitor-General
and declined a judgeship.]
December 31st, 1839 {p.250}
We are arrived at the end of the year, and the next will begin
with the Chartist trials. Parliament is about to meet. Parties
are violent, Government weak, everybody wondering what will
happen, nobody seeing their way clearly before them. The general
opinion is, that the Opposition mean to take the Government if
they can by storm, and will assault every weak point. The
weakest, to my mind, is John Russell's appointment of Frost to
the magistracy, which, if skilfully handled, may be brought
against him with great effect. Frost was appointed in pursuance
of a system Lord John chose to establish, for the purpose of
defeating the intentions of Parliament; and he did it upon his
own responsibility in spite of warnings against it, and now we
see some of the fruits of this policy. I told Normanby this, and
he owned the truth of it, and moreover he told me that the system
he found established by Lord John had proved very embarrassing to
him, as it was very difficult for him to throw it over, and
unless he did so he should be compelled to make, or sanction,
objectionable appointments. Such have been the consequences of
Lord John's unstatesmanlike and perhaps unconstitutional conduct,
adopted under the influence of resentment.
[Page Head: LORD CLARENDON TAKES OFFICE.]
Lord Clarendon, who has just joined the Government with a lively
sense of the tottering character of the concern he has entered,
is resolved, as far as his influence may avail, to urge them to
cast aside all attempts to catch votes, and cajole supporters, by
partial concessions and half-and-half measures, to look the
condition of affairs steadily in the face, and act in all things
according to the best of their minds and consciences, as if they
were as strong a Government as Pitt's, and without any regard to
consequences, so that they may either live usefully or die
honourably. This is the true course, and that which I have urged
him to enforce with all his credit. We had some talk about
foreign affairs. He thinks there is danger of Palmerston's
getting too closely connected with Russia, while keeping France
in check upon the complicated Eastern Question. He also spoke of
a curious pamphlet, just published by Marliani, a Spaniard, who
went in 1838 with Zea Bermudez on a mission to Berlin and Vienna,
stating that a proposal had been made to Austria for a marriage
between the young Queen of Spain and a son of the Archduke
Charles, by which the Austrian alliance and influence would again
be substituted for the French, and the object of the Family
Compact defeated; and that Metternich would have listened eagerly
to this if he had dared, and was only prevented and induced to
entreat the Spaniards to go away by his overwhelming dread of
Russian indignation.
January 14th, 1840 {p.251}
At Wrest for the last week. It is a new house built by Lord de
Grey, without architects or any professional aid, and a great
work for an amateur to have accomplished. Returned yesterday, and
found London beginning to fill for Parliament. Everybody asks his
neighbour, will the Government be able to go on--a question which
nobody pretends to answer on any good grounds of probability.
Electioneering casualties during the recess have brought the two
parties (supposing all the Whig alliance to cohere) nearer to an
equality than they were before, and they are so bitter against
each other, that the Tories will certainly drive the Ministry out
if they can, and take the chance of being themselves able to
govern. But with reference to the state of public affairs and the
composition of the Government, the Ministry presents a much more
respectable appearance than it has heretofore done; the Cabinet
contains men of character, of experience, and of great
acquirements, and Clarendon, who has just taken his seat among
them and has added to it a good diplomatic reputation, tells me
that they are not only very united, agreed in general principles,
and only differing to an extent that any thirteen men must
occasionally differ on particular points; but that they are as
Conservative a Cabinet as possible. And so, no doubt, they are in
their hearts and wishes, and so they would be, if the
Conservatives would allow them to keep their places, and give
them strength enough to maintain Conservative interests. It is
impossible to doubt that the best thing that could happen in the
present situation of the country would be the continuance in
office of the present Government, with the consent and
acquiescence of the Tories, so long as they administered the
government on just, moderate, and constitutional principles, and
with a full understanding that any departure therefrom would be
followed by their unrelenting hostility. But this would require a
large amount of patriotism and self-denial from a great party,
who, besides a consciousness of strength, have their minds full
of bitter animosity, and an impatience for party victory, and the
acquisition of official power; and in their eager desire for
revenge and triumph, they overlook all considerations, and are
ready to incur any risk and take all consequences.
As far as the state of public affairs is concerned, Ministers
have not at all a bad case to bring before the country. The great
interests, on which the eyes of the world have been fixed, are
prosperous and ably administered. Ebrington in Ireland, Auckland
in India, and now Poulett Thomson in Canada, have contributed in
their different ways to the favourable _exposé_ of the
Government, nor is there any point on which they are particularly
vulnerable, or any grave reproach to which they have rendered
themselves obnoxious. But all this will not avail to make them
strong, or render their tenure of office secure and permanent.
They are not popular, all parties distrust them, none believe
that they have any fixed principles from which no considerations
would induce them to swerve, and the unfortunate circumstances
under which they so improperly took office again in March last,
and their apparent wavering between antagonist principles, and
readiness to yield to pressure when they could not escape it,
have given a worse opinion of their character than they really
deserve.
January 17th, 1840 {p.253}
[Page Head: OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.]
Parliament met yesterday. The Queen was well enough received--
much better than usual--as she went to the House. The Speech was
harmless. Some had wished to have something about the Corn Laws
in it, but this was overruled by the majority. They said nothing
about Prince Albert's Protestantism, and very properly, for
though they might as well have done so in the Speech to the Privy
Council (merely not to give a handle to their opponents for
cavilling and clamouring), it would have been an acknowledgement
of error, and a knocking under to clamour, to do so now. The
Duke, however, moved an amendment, and foisted in the word
Protestant,--a sop to the silly. I was grieved to see him descend
to such miserable humbug, and was in hopes he was superior to it,
and would have rather put down the nonsense than have lent his
sanction to it. He is said to be very well, strong in body and
clear in mind, but I fully expect that he will give, in the
course of this Session, evident proofs of the falling-off of his
mind.
In the House of Commons they are bent upon mischief, and speedy
mischief; for Sir J. Yarde Buller gave notice directly of a
motion of want of confidence, so that the strength of the two
parties will be tested forthwith. This was a regular concerted
party move, and took their opponents completely by surprise. It
proceeds from the boiling impatience of the party, indoors and
out. The Tory masses complain that nothing is done; and so, to
gratify them, an immediate assault is resolved upon. Lord
Wharncliffe said to me yesterday morning that the real obstacle
to the Tories coming into office was the Queen. This was the only
difficulty; but her antipathy to Peel rendered him exceedingly
reluctant to take office, and there were many among the party who
felt scruples in forcing an obnoxious Ministry upon her. This is,
in fact, the real Tory principle, but I doubt many of the Tories
being influenced by it.
Bradshaw[14] and Horsman went out yesterday morning. The former
called out the latter on account of a speech at Cockermouth, in
which, in allusion to the famous Canterbury _Victorippick_, he
had said that Bradshaw had the tongue of a traitor and the heart
of a coward. Though six weeks had elapsed between the speech and
the challenge, Horsman did go out, and they exchanged shots;
after which Bradshaw made a sort of stingy apology for his
insults to the Queen, and the other an apology for his offensive
expressions. Gurwood went out with Bradshaw, which he had better
not have done.[15] He said, 'he had never read Bradshaw's speech,
and was ignorant what he had said.' As Gurwood is a man of honour
and veracity, this must be true; but it is passing strange that
he alone should not have read what everybody else has been
talking about for the last two months, and that he should go out
with a man as his second on account of words spoken, and not
enquire what they were.
[14] [Mr. Bradshaw had used very unbecoming and disloyal
language in speaking of the Queen at a public dinner or
meeting at Canterbury some weeks before. Mr. Horsman, a
strong Whig, and Member for Cockermouth, had censured
Bradshaw for his disloyalty--hence this strange duel.]
[15] [Colonel Gurwood, the Duke of Wellington's confidential
friend, and editor of his Despatches, had just been
appointed to the Governorship of the Tower.]
January 18th, 1840 {p.254}
[Page Head: HORSMAN AND BRADSHAW DUEL.]
Everybody talks of this duel, and the Whigs abuse Gurwood, and
accuse him of ingratitude, for having acted for Bradshaw in such
a quarrel, when he has just been loaded with favours--a pension
and a place; for, though the latter was given by the Duke of
Wellington, it was with the concurrence of Government, who might
either have reduced his salary or taken away his pension, and did
neither. Gurwood has acquired a title to public gratitude by
being instrumental to the publication of the Wellington
Despatches; but he is a silly fellow; his conduct in this duel
shows it. He certainly ought to have declined to meddle; but he
told George Anson (who was Horsman's second) he never did decline
when asked; and he not only said he had never read Bradshaw's
speech, but when George Anson offered to show it to him he
refused to read it. I should have declined discussing the matter
with him unless he did read it. Bradshaw behaved very well. After
the shots, Gurwood asked if Horsman would retract. Anson said,
'No, not till Bradshaw did, or apologised.' Gurwood then said to
Anson, 'Will you propose to him to do so? I cannot.' So he did.
Bradshaw was deeply affected; owned he had been miserable ever
since; said he could not live without honour, but would say
anything that Anson and Gurwood (and he felt his honour as safe
with the former as the latter) would agree that he could and
ought to say; and George Anson drew up his apology, and did not
make it stronger, because he would not press him hard. The fact
is, he is much indebted to Horsman for getting him out, in some
measure, of a very bad scrape.
The Queen has been attacked for going down in person to
Parliament, just after the news arriving of the Landgravine's
death; but she consulted her relations, the Princess Augusta
particularly, who advised her to go, said it was a public duty,
and that they had all been brought up in the doctrine that the
discharge of the duties of their station was to supersede
everything. So she went.
I met Burge[16] this morning, who is very much disgusted at no
mention being made of Jamaica in the Speech, and at the speech of
John Russell; who, in alluding to the omission, spoke very
disparagingly of the Assembly, or at least, what will there
appear so. But he admits, nevertheless, that Lord John Russell is
by far the best Secretary of State he ever had to deal with, and
that in his general conduct towards the island they have ample
cause for satisfaction.
[16] [William Burge, Esq., Q.C., for many years agent for
the island of Jamaica, and author of a valuable work
entitled 'Commentaries on Colonial Law.']
January 22nd, 1840 {p.255}
Dined at Lady Blessington's the day before yesterday: a queer
_omnium gatherum_ party--Prince Louis Napoleon, General
Montholon, Lord Lyndhurst, Brougham, Sir Robert Wilson, Leader,
and Roebuck. Droll to see Lyndhurst, the most execrated of the
Tories, hand-and-glove, and cracking his jokes, with the two
Radicals. After dinner I had a talk with him. He said the Duke
had been all against the motion on the 28th, but that unless they
had agreed to it, the party would have been broken up; said he
did not care about coming in. If they did, a dissolution would
give them a majority of sixty, but that this would not enable
them to stand against the Queen's hostility and determination to
trip up their heels whenever she could;[17] that the Opposition
would become more Radical, the Queen herself Radical; they should
be driven out, and the country ruined. He thought the Duke strong
in body and clear in mind, but more excitable. I said I thought
that to those who knew him a change was perceptible; that it was
impossible to cite any particular thing in proof of it; but that
conversation with him left such an impression. Lyndhurst replied
that this was exactly his own opinion, but that the Duke's
authority with the party was undiminished, and indispensably
necessary to keep them together. The Tories are very angry with
Peel for taking such a strong part as he has done on the
Privilege question, which nothing but his influence prevents
their turning into a regular party debate. The House has gone
floundering on upon it, wasting a great deal of time and
ingenious speaking, and having got into a difficulty from which
there is no convenient extrication.
[17] [A very erroneous prediction. They did come in in the
following year, and the Queen gave her entire
confidence and support to Sir Robert Peel's
Government.]
The Judges are much censured for their behaviour at Newport:[18]
first, for not themselves deciding the point that was raised;
next, for not asking the jury for the reasons of their
recommending the criminals to mercy; and the Chief Justice's
charge to the jury was thought a very weak and poor performance.
[18] [This relates to the trial of Frost and others by a
Special Commission at Newport for the riots of the
preceding year.]
Yesterday morning[19] the Duke of Bedford came to me, to beg I
would suggest some Lord for the situation of Chief of Prince
Albert's establishment, for they can get none who is eligible.
They want a Peer, a Whig, and a man of good sense, character and
education, something rather better than common, and such an one
willing to put on Court trappings they find not easily to be had.
We made out a list, to be shown to Melbourne, who had consulted
the Duke of Bedford, and asked him for a man. We talked over the
bitter hostility between the Queen and the Tories, and he said,
that Melbourne did everything he could to mitigate her feelings,
and to make her understand that she must not involve the whole
party in the reproach which justly attaches to a few foolish or
mischievous zealots, so much so that lately when the Queen was
inveighing against the Tories to somebody (he would not say to
whom), and complaining of their behaviour to her, she added, 'It
is very odd, but I cannot get Lord Melbourne to see it in that
light.'
[19] John, sixth Duke of Bedford, had died on the 20th
October, 1839, and my friend Tavistock had become Duke
of Bedford.
January 24th, 1840
[Page Head: THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.]
The Privilege question[20] occupies everybody's thoughts, and
there is much interest and curiosity to see the sequel of it. The
state of the House of Commons upon it is curious: all the Whigs
for Privilege, and the chiefs of the Tories with them; with some
of the lawyers (except Sugden) the same way; but Follett, who at
first was heartily with Peel, has latterly taken no part, though
he has voted with the majority. On the other side are the great
bulk of the Tories and all the second-rate lawyers--the only
eminent ones that way being Sugden, Pemberton, and Kelly. The
debates have elicited some admirable speeches on both sides, of
which Peel's three nights ago, when he explained the law better
than the lawyers could, has been the most remarkable. The Tories
are very angry with him for taking it up so warmly, and they will
not be the more pleased at the complimentary speech of John
Russell, in which he told him that nothing but his taking the
course he had done had enabled the House to assert its privilege
at all, as it could not have been made a mere party question. The
Government are getting into better spirits about their prospects,
and so many of the Tories acknowledge that there would be danger
and difficulty in changes just now, that there will probably be
none. Mr. Walter was beaten hollow in Southwark in spite of an
Anti-Poor Law cry, by the help of which his friends were very
sanguine about his success.
[20] [The Privilege question arose out of a prosecution of
Messrs. Hansard by one Stockdale, for the publication
of a libel on himself in the Parliamentary Debates.
Hansard pleaded the authority of Parliament, but the
Court of Queen's Bench rejected the plea and gave
judgement against Hansard. The House of Commons, on the
motion of Lord John Russell, who was supported by Sir
R. Peel, defended their printers, and committed the
Sheriffs of London for levying damages on Hansard. Peel
afterwards acknowledged that he had been misled by the
advice of Sir F. Pollock and had gone too far; in fact,
it appears from the text that the weight of legal
authority was against him. The dispute was settled at
last by legislation. See _infra_, February 21st, 1840.]
January 26th, 1840 {p.258}
The Government are triumphant at all their elections, and raised
to the skies by their success, which they construe into an
indication of reaction in their favour. It is certainly a great
thing for them, for it produces a good moral effect, besides the
influence it will have on the division next week, and it tends to
show that if a dissolution were to take place, the Conservatives
would not be in so much better, nor the Whigs in so much worse a
position, as the former have been for some time boasting of, and
the latter apprehending. Everybody (except those who have an
interest in defending it) thinks the allowance proposed for
Prince Albert very exorbitant: £50,000 a year given for pocket
money is quite monstrous, and it would have been prudent to
propose a more moderate grant for the sake of his popularity.
Prince George of Denmark had £50,000 a year (as it is said), but
the Queen gave it him, and he had a household four times more
numerous than is intended for Prince Albert.
January 29th, 1840 {p.258}
On Monday night Government were beaten by 104 on the question of
reducing the Prince's allowance from £50,000 to £30,000 a year.
They knew they should be beaten, but nevertheless John Russell
would go doggedly on and encounter this mortifying defeat,
instead of giving way with the best grace he could. He lost his
temper, and flung dirt at Peel, like a sulky boy flinging rotten
eggs; in short, exposed himself sadly. His friends were much
annoyed that he did not give way, as soon as he found that there
was no chance of carrying it, and that many Government supporters
would vote against it; besides the mortification to the Prince,
there was something mean and sordid in squabbling for all the
money they could get, and the sum given him is _satis superque_
for all his wants.
[Page Head: NATURALISATION OF PRINCE ALBERT.]
In the Lords, they introduced the Naturalisation Bill in such a
slovenly and objectionable form, that the Duke desired it might
be put off, which (although he pledged and committed himself in
no manner) they immediately construed into a resolution to oppose
the Precedence part of it. The Queen is bent upon giving him
precedence of the whole Royal Family. The Dukes of Sussex and
Cambridge, who each want some additions to their incomes, have
signified their consent; the King of Hanover (whom it does not
immediately concern) has refused his. On this they brought in
their Bill. Her Majesty was, however, more provoked at what
passed in the House of Lords, than at the defeat in the Commons.
I asked Charles Gore why John Russell did not avail himself of
the momentary connexion he had with Peel on the Privilege
question, to ask him what his views were about the allowance, and
tell him that it was so desirable to avoid any division on such a
question that he wished to propose nothing that was likely to be
objected to. Gore said that upon a former occasion, when Lord
John had spoken in such a spirit to Peel, he had been met by him
in such an ungracious manner that it was impossible for him ever
to do so again. This was about the Speakership, when he wrote a
private note to Peel, beginning 'My dear Sir,' and asking him to
tell him what the intentions of his party were about opposing the
Government Speaker, because he was anxious if possible not to
bring people up to town without necessity; to which he replied in
the coldest and driest terms, 'Sir Robert Peel presents his
compliments to Lord John Russell,' expressing his surprise at his
letter, saying he had no right to call upon him for any
explanation of his intentions, and refusing to give any
information whatever. I do not think John Russell had any right
to make such a communication to him, and it was, I fancy, very
unusual, but Peel might as well have answered it good-humouredly.
The judges have given their decision upon the two points raised
for the Newport prisoners,[21] and their fate now rests with the
Government. They decided, by a majority of nine to six, that the
objection was valid, and by nine to six that it was not taken in
time. Upon such accidents do the lives of men depend. It is well
known that the law can have no certainty, because so much must
always be left to the discretion of those who administer it; but
such striking illustrations of its uncertainty, and of the extent
to which the chapter of accidents is concerned in it, seldom
occur, and make one shudder when they do.[22] No doubt, however,
is cast over the guilt of the men, and the Government may very
properly leave them to their fate, if they are not afraid of
shocking public opinion by doing so. The world at large does not
distinguish accurately or reason justly, swallows facts in gross,
and jumps to conclusions. Many will say it is hard to put men to
death when the judges are nearly equally divided on their case,
the majority admitting that the law would save them if it had
been urged soon enough in their favour. It rather seems to turn
the tables on the prosecution; and whereas the prisoners are
availing themselves of a mere quibble, of a technical objection,
strained to its extremest point, the effect may be that of
exhibiting the Government as availing itself of the technicality
in point of time to overthrow the more important legal objection.
The case appears to have been very ably argued, especially by
Kelly.
[21] [The ringleaders in the Newport riots were convicted
and might have been hanged; but two technical
objections to the sentence having been taken, though
not allowed by the judges, the Government remitted the
capital sentence. They had a narrow escape.]
[22] Parke said, that if the objection had been decided on
the spot they would have escaped, as he and Williams
were for it, while the Chief Justice was against it.
January 30th, 1840 {p.260}
The great debate in the House of Commons has now lasted two
nights,[23] without being very interesting. Sir George Grey made
a brisk, dashing speech quite at the beginning, which was very
effective, but when read, disappoints, as there does not seem a
great deal in it. Last night Macaulay failed. He delivered an
essay, not without merit, but inapplicable, and not the sort of
thing that is wanted in such a debate. He had said he should not
be of use to them, and he appears to have judged correctly. The
Tories affected to treat his speech with contempt, and to talk
and laugh, which was a rudeness worthy of the noisy and ignorant
knot that constitutes the tail of that party. Howick attacked
everybody all round, and explained his own motive for leaving
office, not alluding to the Secretary of State's office; and
Graham made one of his usual speeches.
[23] [Sir John Yarde Buller moved a resolution that 'Her
Majesty's Government, as at present constituted, does
not possess the confidence of this House,' which was
defeated after a long debate by 308 votes to 287.]
January 31st, 1840 {p.261}
Macaulay's speech, which was said to be a failure, reads better
than Sir George Grey's, which met with the greatest success--the
one fell flat upon the audience, while the other was singularly
effective. So great is the difference between good manner and
bad, and between the effect produced by a dashing, vivacious,
light, and active style, and a ponderous didactic eloquence, full
of matter, but not suited in arrangement or delivery, and in all
its accessory parts, to the taste of the House.
[Page Head: THE MONMOUTH CONVICTS.]
The question of sparing the lives of the Monmouth prisoners or
not is everywhere discussed, with an almost general opinion that,
under all the circumstances, the Government cannot let the law
take its course. It is impossible for any reasoning to be more
fallacious, because, if pushed to its just conclusion, it must
result that they ought to escape altogether, which nobody expects
or desires. The case has been very curious from the beginning;
and end how it may, no criminals ever had so many chances
afforded them of escape; never were there nicer points for the
decision of different people or different stages of the business,
or more blunders committed by almost all concerned. In the first
place, Maule, the Crown solicitor, failed to comply with the
letter of the Act, and did not furnish the prisoners with lists
of the jury and the witnesses _at the same time_ ten days before
the trial. He gave them one list ten days before, and the other
fifteen days before. The Attorney-General was aware of the fact,
and aware that a question would arise upon it; the judges
appointed to the special Commission were apprised of it by their
Associates, and they communicated with each other upon it. They
considered whether they should convey the expression of their
doubts upon this point to the Government, so that the difficulty
might be rectified; but they agreed that their duty was to try
the cause, and not to interfere in any way whatever, and they
accordingly held their peace. It was in the power of the
Attorney-General to postpone the trial for ten days, which would
have removed every difficulty and objection, but he was so
certain that the objection could not be maintained, that he would
not do so, and chose to run the risk, unwisely, as it has turned
out. The trial came on, and the counsel for the prisoners,
instead of urging the objection _in limine_, suffered them to
plead; whereas, if they had refused to plead, they would have
escaped altogether.[24] The trial proceeded; they were found
guilty, and recommended to mercy, but the Chief Justice never
asked the jury upon what grounds, leaving it doubtful whether the
jury thought that there were any extenuating circumstances, or
whether they were actuated by terror, or mere repugnance to the
infliction of capital punishment. It was probably the great
importance of the case, and the fact of the Chief of the
Commission being against the objection, which induced the other
two who were in its favour to agree to refer it to the other
judges; for if it had been settled on the spot the trials would
have ended at once. Moreover it was believed that the judges
thought very lightly of the objection, and Brougham told me they
were _unanimous_, so ill-informed was he of their real opinions.
[24] This is not so. If they had raised the objection before
the prisoners pleaded, the Attorney-General could have
put the trial off, and of course if the judges thought
the objection valid, he would have done so.
[Page Head: THE PRECEDENCE OF PRINCE ALBERT.]
Yesterday morning I met Lord FitzGerald, when we walked together,
and I begged him to find some expedient for settling _à
l'amiable_ the question of Precedence, so as to pacify the Queen
if possible, who was much excited about it. He spoke very
despondingly of the general state of affairs, but said that he
was as anxious as anybody to avoid unpleasant discussions upon
it, and to satisfy her if possible, but that the House of Lords
were running breast high upon it. I begged him to see the Duke of
Wellington, to tell him what her feeling was, and entreat him to
take measures to settle it quietly. He said he would see him, and
that he was convinced if the Duke had his own way, he would be
disposed to do this; but that if it was left to Lyndhurst and
Ellenborough, it was impossible to answer for what they might do.
His own impression was, that they might and ought to give him
precedence for her life over the rest of the Royal Family (though
it was very awkward with regard to the King of Hanover, when he
refused his consent), but not over a Prince of Wales, to which,
he thought, they never would consent. We talked the matter over
in all its bearings, and the result was, that he undertook to go
to the Duke and tell him what I had said. I had (not an hour ago)
a confirmation of what he said as to Ellenborough, for I met him
at his own door (next mine), when I said to him, 'What are you
going to do about the precedence?' To which he said, 'Oh, give
him the same which Prince George of Denmark had: place him next
before the Archbishop of Canterbury.' I said, 'That will by no
means satisfy the Queen;' at which he tossed up his head, and
said, 'What does that signify?'
FitzGerald afterwards talked to me of Peel and his party, of
their violent language on account of his conduct in the Privilege
question, and of his annoyance at their separation from him--not
the lawyers, or those really competent to form an opinion, but
the great mass destitute of the knowledge or understanding
necessary to form an opinion--and only opposing him because he
supported John Russell. Amongst other things, when we were
talking of the event of May last, and of the Queen's antipathy to
Peel, he said that it was altogether unaccountable, for even from
his last interview he had come away not dissatisfied with her
manner, and he owned that he had no doubt Melbourne did his best
honestly to drive out of her mind the prejudices which have so
great an influence upon her; and at that very crisis, he told me
as a proof of it, that at the ball at Court, Melbourne went up to
Peel and whispered to him with the greatest earnestness, 'For
God's sake, go and speak to the Queen.' Peel did not go, but the
entreaty and the refusal were both characteristic. FitzGerald
said, that nothing would induce Peel to continue (after this
fight) a worrying war with the Government; and added, what is
very true, that though a weak Opposition was a very bad thing,
there was no small danger and difficulty in leading a strong one.
February 4th, 1840 {p.264}
After four nights' debate and division, at five in the morning,
Government got a majority of twenty-one, just what was (at last)
expected. Peel spoke for three hours, and so elaborately as to
fatigue the House, so that his speech probably seems much better
to the reader than to the hearer of it. The Opposition all along
abstained from attacking the Government upon their measures, and
Peel directed his artillery against their compromise of principle
in making Ballot an open question, and the general laxity of
their political morality. But the most important part of his
speech was his declaration of the principles by which he meant to
be governed in office or out; and his manly and distinct
announcement to his followers, that they must support him on his
own terms, and that if they did not like them, he was sorry for
it, and they might look elsewhere for a leader if they chose it.
There can be no doubt that it was wise and bold thus to cast
himself on public opinion, and to put forth a manifesto, which
leaves no doubt of his future conduct, and from which there is no
retreat for him, and by which all his adherents must be equally
bound. On the other hand, Lord John, considering he rose at three
in the morning, when he and the House must have been pretty well
exhausted, made a very good and honourable speech, and ended with
a declaration quite as Conservative as Peel's was on the other
hand Liberal, so much so that it is really difficult to say what
difference there now is between them, nor does there appear any
reason why (circumstances permitting) they should not act
together to-morrow. As far as the two _parties_ are concerned,
taking debate and division, perhaps no great advantage has been
gained by either, but I think the discussion has been beneficial
by eliciting the above declaration from the respective leaders.
[Page Head: ROYAL PRECEDENCE REFUSED.]
The Precedence Question has fallen to the ground, and is left
unsettled, in a manner much to be regretted. After my interview
with FitzGerald, I went to Clarendon and told him what had
passed. He went to the Cabinet, and prevailed on Duncannon to
speak to Melbourne and get him to communicate with the Duke, for
the purpose of settling the question if possible amicably.
Melbourne said he would, but did not. On Friday the Cabinet
agreed to give up the precedence over the Prince of Wales; but to
a question of Brougham's the Chancellor said, he had no other
concession to offer. It was then agreed that the discussion
should be taken on Monday. On Saturday Clarendon spoke to
Melbourne himself, and urged him to consider seriously the
inconvenience of a battle on this point, and prevailed upon him
to go to the Duke of Wellington and talk it over with him. He
wrote to the Duke, who immediately agreed to receive him; when he
went to Apsley House, and they had an hour's conversation.
Melbourne found him with one of his very stiffest crotchets in
his head, determined only to give the Prince precedence after the
Royal Family; and all he could get from him was, that it would be
_unjust_ to do more. All argument was unavailing, and he left him
on Saturday evening without having been able to make any
impression on him, or to move him by a representation of the
Queen's feelings to make concessions to meet those the Government
were prepared to make; for the Queen would have been content to
accept precedence for her life, and saving the rights of the
Prince of Wales. This, however, they would not consent to; and so
determined were they to carry their point, that they made a grand
whip up, and brought Lord Clare all the way from Grimsthorpe, to
vote upon it. Under these circumstances the Government resolved
to withdraw the clause, and they did so, thus leaving the Prince
without any specific place assigned by Parliament, and it remains
with the Queen to do what she can for him, or for courtesy, tacit
consent, and deference for her Consort to give him the precedence
virtually which the House of Lords refuses to bestow formally. I
think the Duke has acted strangely in this matter, and the
Conservatives generally very unwisely. _Volentibus non fit
injuria_, and the Dukes of Sussex and Cambridge, who alone were
concerned, had consented to the Prince's precedence. The King of
Hanover, it seems, was never applied to because they knew he
would have refused; and they did not deem his consent necessary.
There is no great sympathy for the lucky Coburgs in this country,
but there is still less for King Ernest, and it will have all the
effect of being a slight to the Queen out of a desire to gratify
him. There certainly was not room for much more dislike in her
mind of the Tories; but it was useless to give the Prince so
ungracious and uncordial a reception, and to render him as
inimical to them as she already is. As an abstract question, I
think his precedence unnecessary; but under all the circumstances
it would have been expedient and not at all unjust to grant it.
February 13th, 1840 {p.266}
The discussion about the Precedence question induced me to look
into the authorities and the ancient practice, and to give the
subject some consideration. I came to the conclusion that she has
the power to give him precedence everywhere but in Parliament and
in Council, and on the whole that _her husband_ ought to have
precedence. So I wrote a pamphlet upon it, setting forth the
result of my enquiry and my opinion. I have been in many minds
about publishing it, and I believe I shall, though it is
certainly not worth much.
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S MARRIAGE.]
The wedding on Monday went off tolerably well.[25] The week
before was fine, and Albert drove about the town with a mob
shouting at his heels. Tuesday, Wednesday, and to-day, all
beautiful days; but Monday, as if by a malignant influence, was a
dreadful day--torrents of rain, and violent gusts of wind.
Nevertheless a countless multitude thronged the park, and was
scattered over the town. I never beheld such a congregation as
there was, in spite of the weather. The Queen proceeded in state
from Buckingham House to St. James's without any cheering, but
then it was raining enough to damp warmer loyalty than that of a
London mob. The procession in the Palace was pretty enough by all
accounts, and she went through the ceremony with much grace and
propriety, not without emotion, though sufficiently subdued, and
her manner to her family was very pretty and becoming. Upon
leaving the Palace for Windsor she and her young husband were
pretty well received; but they went off in a very poor and shabby
style. Instead of the new chariot in which most married people
are accustomed to dash along, they were in one of the old
travelling coaches, the postilions in undress liveries, and with
a small escort, three other coaches with post-horses following.
The crowds on the road were so great that they did not reach the
Castle till eight o'clock.
[25] [Queen Victoria was married to Prince Albert of Saxe-
Coburg-Gotha on the 10th February, 1840.]
February 15th (Saturday), 1840 {p.267}
The Duke of Wellington had a serious seizure on Thursday.[26] He
dines early, and he rode out after dinner. The first symptom of
something wrong was, that he could not make out the numbers on
the doors of the houses he wanted to call at. He went to Lady
Burghersh, and when he came away, the footman told his groom he
was sure his Grace was not well, and advised him to be very
attentive to him. Many people were struck with the odd way he sat
on his horse. As he went home this got more apparent. When not
far from Apsley House he dropped the reins out of his left hand,
but took them up with the other, and when he got to his own door,
he found he could not get off his horse. He felt his hand
chilled. This has been the first symptom in each of his three
attacks. He was helped off. Hume was sent for, came directly, and
got him to bed. He had a succession of violent convulsions, was
speechless, and his arm was affected. They thought he would have
died in the night. The doctors came, physicked but did not bleed
him, and yesterday morning he was better. He has continued to
mend ever since, but it was a desperate blow, and offers a sad
prospect. He will probably again rally, but these things must be
always impending, and his mind must be affected, and will be
thought to be so. Lyndhurst asked me last night what could be
done. He said, 'The Duke ought now to retire from public life,
and not expose himself to any appearance of an enfeebled
understanding. Above all things to be deprecated is, that he
should ever become a dotard like Marlborough, or a driveller like
Swift.' 'How,' he said, 'would Aberdeen do?' He owned that nobody
could replace the Duke or keep the party in order, and he said
that the consequence would be it would break up, that '_there are
many who would be glad of an opportunity to leave it_.' This I
told him I did not believe, but it certainly is impossible to
calculate on the consequences of the Duke's death, or, what is
nearly the same thing, his withdrawal from the lead of the party.
[26] [The Duke was seventy when he had this seizure,
supposed at the time to be fatal, at least to his
faculties. But he lived for twelve years after it and
continued during the greater part of that time to
render great public services and to lead the Tory
party.]
February 16th, 1840 {p.268}
The Duke of Wellington, although his life was in such danger on
Thursday night, that the chances were he would die, has thrown
off his attack in a marvellous manner, and is now rapidly
approaching to convalescence, all dangerous symptoms subsiding.
The doctors, both Astley Cooper and Chambers, declare that they
have never seen such an extraordinary power of rallying in
anybody before in the whole course of their practice, and they
expect that he will be quite as well again as he was before. It
is remarkable that he has an accurate recollection of all the
steps of his illness from the first perception of uneasy
sensations to the moment of being seized with convulsions. He
first felt a chillness in his hand, and he was surprised to find
himself passing and repassing Lady Burghersh's house without
knowing which it was. He called, however, and went up; and to her
enquiry--for she was struck with his manner--he replied that he
was quite well. Going home he dropped the rein, but caught it up
with the other hand. When he arrived at his door, the servants
saw he could not get off his horse, and helped him, and one of
them ran off instantly for Hume. The Duke walked into his
sitting-room, where Hume found him groaning, and standing by the
chimney-piece. He got him to bed directly, and soon after the
convulsions came on.
[Page Head: PAMPHLET ON ROYAL PRECEDENCE.]
I have sent forth my pamphlet, and there seems a chance of its
being read. Lord Melbourne said to me, 'What is to be done about
this Precedence?' I said, 'I have told you[27] what I think is to
be done. Have you sent my pamphlet to the Queen?' 'I have sent it
her, and desired her to show it to Prince Albert; and I have sent
it to the Chancellor, and desired him to give me his opinion on
the law, as it requires great consideration and great care.'[28]
I asked him, 'if he had any doubt about the law, that is, about
_my_ law.' He said, 'he had doubts whether the Act of Henry VIII.
was not more stringent.' I told him I had consulted Parke,
Bosanquet, and Erskine, that we had read the Act together, and
they were all clear that the Prerogative was not limited except
as to Parliament and the Council. At all events, I said, he ought
not to be made a Privy Councillor till after this matter was
settled, and to that he agreed; and it was settled that he should
not be sworn at the Council to-morrow. So thus it stands, and if
the Chancellor sees no objection, my plan will be adopted, and I
shall have settled for them, having no earthly thing to do with
it, what they ought to have settled for themselves long ago, and
have avoided all the squabbling and bad blood which have been the
result of their unlucky Bill. In the meantime the Duke read my
pamphlet yesterday, and to-day I went there to hear what he said
to it, and found that he agreed with me entirely, and that he is
all for the adoption of my suggestion. This I forthwith
despatched to Clarendon, who was gone to the Levée, and desired
him to tell Melbourne of it.
[27] I had already sent my pamphlet to Melbourne and to a
few other people.
[28] [Mr. Greville contended in his pamphlet that the Act of
Henry VIII. for 'Placing the Lords' applied only to
their precedence in the House of Lords and in the Privy
Council, which being statutory could not be changed;
but that it was competent to the Crown to confer any
precedence elsewhere. Prince Albert was not a Peer, and
he was not at this time a Privy Councillor; therefore,
the provisions of the statutes of Henry VIII. did not
apply to him. He was subsequently introduced into the
Privy Council, where by courtesy rank was given him
next the Queen when no other member of the Royal Family
was present. As this pamphlet has some legal and
historical interest, it is reprinted in the Appendix to
this volume.]
February 21st, 1840 {p.270}
On Thursday morning I got a note from Arbuthnot, desiring I would
call at Apsley House. When I got there, he told me that the Duke
of Cambridge had sent for Lord Lyndhurst to consult him; that
they were invited to meet the Queen on Friday at the Queen
Dowager's, and he wanted to know what he was to do about giving
precedence to Prince Albert. Lord Lyndhurst came to Apsley House
and saw the Duke about it, and they agreed to report to the Duke
of Cambridge their joint opinion that the Queen had an
unquestionable right to give him any precedence she pleased, and
that he had better concede it without making any difficulty. The
Duke acquiesced, and accepted the invitation. Melbourne told me
the Queen was well satisfied with my pamphlet, but 'she remarked
that there was a very high compliment to the Duke of Wellington
at the end of it.' I asked if she had said it was a _just one_.
He said, 'No, she did not say that.'
[Page Head: BILL ON THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.]
I heard from Arbuthnot this morning that the Duke has set his
face resolutely against any Bill in the House of Lords to settle
the Privilege question; and that Lyndhurst, though not so strong
in his opinion as the Duke, is resolved to abide by his
determination, and to go with him. The Duke, in fact, goes as far
as any of the opponents of the Privilege, for he not only thinks
that the dicta of the Judges are not to be questioned, but that
the House of Commons ought not to have the Privilege at all--that
is, that their papers ought not to be sold, and that they ought
not to be circulated without anything being previously weeded out
of them which the law would consider libellous. This strong
opinion of his renders the question exceedingly difficult and
embarrassing, for it was become very clear that nothing but the
intervention of the House of Lords could untie so ravelled a
knot. All the Tories are in a state of mingled rage and despair
at the impetuosity with which Peel has plunged into this matter,
and at the irretrievable manner in which he has identified
himself with Lord John Russell upon it. Stanley and Graham have
always voted with him, but have never once opened their lips,
from which it is sufficiently clear that they don't go nearly so
far as he does, and now Graham is acting as a sort of mediator
and negotiator, to try and effect some compromise or arrangement,
but the case seems nearly hopeless. Peel, on the other hand, is
evidently as much annoyed and provoked with his party as his
party with him. The other day, Arbuthnot, Peel, and Graham met at
Apsley House, and talked upon every subject, Arbuthnot told me,
but that of Privilege, on which none of them touched--a pretty
clear proof how tender the ground is become. The Tory press has
grown very violent, and treats Peel with no more forbearance for
his conduct on this question than the Whig and Radical did John
Russell for his speech about Church rates; so rabid and
unscrupulous are all Ultras of whatever opinion. I told Melbourne
how matters stood, at which he seemed mightily disconcerted.
February 25th, 1840 {p.271}
Yesterday I saw the Duke of Wellington, whom I had not seen for
above six months, except for a moment at the Council just after
his first illness. He looked better than I expected--very thin,
and his clothes hanging about him, but strong on his legs, and
his head erect. The great alteration I remarked was in his voice,
which was hollow, though loud, and his utterance, which, though
not indistinct, was very slow. He is certainly now only a ruin.
He is gone to receive the Judges at Strathfieldsaye, and he will
go on again when he comes back to town, and hold on while he can.
It is his desire to die with the harness on his back, and he
cannot endure the notion of retirement and care of his life,
which is only valuable to him while he can exert it in active
pursuits. I doubt if he could live in retirement and inactivity--
the life of a valetudinarian.
Besides the Precedence question, another is now raised about the
Liturgy. The Queen wants to insert the Prince's name in it; they
sent to me to know if Prince George's (of Denmark) had been
inserted, and I found it had not. There was a division of
opinion, but the majority of the Cabinet were disposed to put in
Prince Albert's. Before deciding anything they consulted the
Archbishop of Canterbury. Yesterday, however, on looking into the
Act of Uniformity, I satisfied myself that the Queen has not the
power to insert his name; and I believe that the insertion, on
former occasions, of Princesses of Wales was illegal, and could
not have been sustained if it ever had been questioned. This I
imparted to Lords Lansdowne and Clarendon, to deal with the fact
as they pleased; and I asked the opinions of Parke, Bosanquet,
and Lushington, who were sitting at the Judicial Committee, and
they all agreed that she had not the power, under the 25th sec.
of the Act of Uniformity.
March 5th, 1840 {p.272}
The Duke of Wellington returned to town; went up with the Oxford
address, and dines at the Palace on Monday. So he is again in
harness; but he is a broken man, and I fear we shall see him show
himself in eclipse, which will be a sorry sight. He has consented
to waive his objections to the settlement by Bill of the
Privilege question, so it probably will be settled; and high time
it is that it should be. It is curious to see how little interest
the public takes in it, not caring a straw for the House of
Commons, or the sheriffs, and regarding the squabble with extreme
apathy. There has been a great delay in getting ready the patent
of precedence for Prince Albert, because the law officers can't
make up their minds as to the terms of it, and whether
exceptional words should be introduced or not. My pamphlet has
succeeded far beyond my hopes or expectations, and got me many
compliments, which I never looked for from such a trifle. Peel
said civil things to FitzGerald about it; only the Royal Family
and the Cambridges don't like it, on account of my having
explained the status of Prince George (of Cambridge); and they
fancy, in the event of his going to Germany, it might be
injurious to him, which seems very fanciful; but their pride is
hurt.
March 6th, 1840 {p.273}
[Page Head: JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL.]
The Chancellor spoke to me at the Council on Thursday about his
Judicial Committee[29] Amendment Bill, and begged to have any
information about practice, and any suggestions, I could give
him. Some of the provisions of his Bill appeared objectionable,
and I consulted Dr. Lushington about it. He agreed, particularly
as to the plan of making the Master of the Rolls (as Vice-
President) the organ of the court, and making it imperative on
him to give judgement in all cases. Yesterday I went to the
Chancellor and told him the objections to which I thought his
plan was liable, which he received very candidly and thankfully,
and seemed only anxious to hear and consider anything that could
be suggested. He is very different from Brougham, who, when he
framed the original Bill, was full of tricks and mystery, and
tried to make a job of it and create patronage for himself,
besides being very obstinate about the details which were then
objected to. The Chancellor said he would send me the Bill, which
he wished me to examine, and return with any observations I
thought fit.
[29] [This Bill with reference to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council did not pass. It would have made the
Master of the Rolls head of the Court, and its chief
organ.]
Prince Albert was gazetted last night. His precedence is not
fixed by patent under the Great Seal, but by Warrant (I suppose,
under the Sign Manual).
Copleston has got £1,000 for the little volume of Dudley's
letters[30] which he has just published. They are very well in
their way--clever, neatly written, not very amusing, rather
artificial, such as everybody reads because they were Dudley's,
but which nobody would think worth reading if they were
anonymous. A mighty proof of the value of a name.
[30] [Copleston, Bishop of Llandaff and Dean of St. Paul's,
was an intimate friend of the late Lord Dudley, and
published part of their correspondence; but the
executors of Lord Dudley, who were the Bishop of Exeter
and Lord Hatherton, caused part of it to be
suppressed.]
March 12th, 1840 {p.274}
The Chancellor sent me his Bill, after which I called on him, and
told him all my objections, and made several suggestions, which
he received very well, and begged me to put in writing what I had
said to him. This I did, and sent the paper to him, which he said
he would send to Lushington, whom I had begged him to consult. I
met Lyndhurst at Lady Glengall's, and had some talk with him
about it, and found he agreed pretty well with me, and that he is
strongly in favour of appointing a permanent Chief of our court,
for _ministerial_ purposes. The Chancellor has himself been very
unwillingly compelled to propose this scheme of reform, for he
hates all alterations, and does not like to begin cleansing the
Augean stable of the Court of Chancery.
When I was with the Chancellor the other day, he said a
difficulty had been started about making Prince Albert a Privy
Councillor before he was of age, and asked me if there was
anything in it. I found, on looking into the books, that the
Royal Dukes had not been brought into Council till they were of
age, but probably that was because they could not take their
seats in the House of Lords before; but I also found very clear
proofs that George III.'s sons had not been sworn but
_introduced_ in his reign, and this puzzled me, for I remembered
to have sworn several of them at different times, during the
present and two last reigns. I therefore wrote to the Duke of
Sussex, and asked him what had occurred in his case. His reply
cleared the matter up. He said the King's sons are _born_ Privy
Councillors, and that they are declared sworn by the King
whenever he pleases; that accordingly he was merely introduced
into Council in 1807; but after the death of George III., when he
stood in a different relation to the reigning Sovereign, he was
sworn; and again at the accessions of King William IV. and Queen
Victoria. I found an account in the Council Books of the form
with which the Prince of Wales was introduced into Council in
1784, and this I sent to Melbourne to show to the Queen,
suggesting that Prince Albert should be introduced upon the same
terms as Prince George of Denmark had been, and with the same
ceremonies as the Prince of Wales in 1784.
The Duke of Wellington has reappeared in the House of Lords, goes
about, and works as usual, but everybody is shocked and grieved
at his appearance. Lyndhurst expressed his alarm to me, lest he
should go on until it became _desirable_ that he should retire,
and his regret that his friends could not prevail upon him to do
so while he still can with dignity. He dined at the Palace on
Monday, and was treated with the greatest civility by the Queen.
Indeed, she has endeavoured to repair her former coldness by
every sort of attention and graciousness, to which he is by no
means insensible.
[Page Head: CREEVEY'S JOURNAL.]
Her Majesty went last night to the Ancient Concert (which she
particularly dislikes), so I got Melbourne to dine with me, and
he stayed talking till twelve o'clock. He told us, among other
things, that he had seen Dudley's Diary (now said to be
destroyed), which contained very little that was interesting upon
public matters, but the most ample and detailed disclosures about
women in society, with their names at full length. Melbourne
expressed his surprise that anybody should write a journal, and
said that he had never written anything, except for a short time
when he was very young, and that he had soon put in the fire all
that he had written. He talked of Creevey's Journal, and of that
which Dover is supposed to have left behind him; both of whom, at
different times and in different ways, knew a good deal of what
was going on. Melbourne said Creevey had been very shrewd, but
exceedingly bitter and malignant; and I was rather surprised to
hear him talk of Lord Dover as having been very bitter also, an
underhand dealer and restless intriguer. I knew very well that he
had ambition and vanity, which were constantly urging him to play
a part more than commensurate with his capacity, and that he
delighted in that sort of political _commérage_ which gave him
importance (and this was the great cause of his friendship with
Brougham, who was just the man for him, and he for Brougham), but
I did not think it was his nature to be bitter, or that he ever
intended to be mischievous--only busy and bustling, within the
bounds of honour and fairness.
CHAPTER VIII.
The ex-King of Westphalia--The Duke of Wellington at Court--
Failure of the Duke's Memory--Dinner at Devonshire House to
Royalties--Government defeated on Irish Registration Bill--The
King of Hanover's Apartments--Rank of Foreign Ministers--The
Duchess of Inverness--War with China--Murder of Lord William
Russell--Duke of Wellington on the China War--Weakness of
Government--Duke of Wellington's Conduct towards the
Government--The Queen shot at--Examination of the Culprit--
Retrospect of Affairs--Conciliatory Policy--Advantages of a
Weak Government--The Eastern Question--Lord Palmerston's Daring
and Confidence--M. Guizot and Mr. Greville--Pacific Views of
Louis Philippe--M. Guizot's Statement of the Policy of France--
Growing Alarm of Ministers--Alarm of Prince Metternich--Lord
John Russell disposed to resist Palmerston--History of the
Eastern Negotiation--A Blunder of M. Guizot--Important
Conversation with Guizot--Conflict between Lord John Russell
and Lord Palmerston--Energetic Resolution of Lord John--Lord
Palmerston holds out--Conciliatory Proposals of France--
Interview of Lord Palmerston and Lord John.
March 13th, 1840 {p.277}
[Page Head: JEROME BONAPARTE.]
I met Jérome Bonaparte yesterday at dinner at Lady Blessington's,
Count de Montfort, as he is called. He is a polite, urbane
gentleman, not giving himself any airs, and said nothing royal
except that he was going to Stuttgard, 'pour passer quelques
jours avec mon beau-frère le Roi de Würtemberg.' But these
brothers of Napoleon were nothing remarkable in their palmy days,
and one's sympathies are not much excited for them now. They rose
and fell with him, and, besides their brief enjoyment of a
wonderful prosperity, they have retired upon far better
conditions than they were born to. They are free and rich, and
are treated with no inconsiderable respect.
March 14th, 1840 {p.277}
Went to the House of Lords, and saw the Chancellor, who told me
he had forwarded the paper I sent him to Dr. Lushington, who
concurred in my suggestions, and he had ordered the Privy Council
Bill to be altered accordingly. Fell in with the Duke of
Wellington, who took my arm, told his cabriolet to follow, and
walked the whole way back to Apsley House, quite firm and strong.
He looks very old and worn, and speaks very slowly, but quite
distinctly; talked about the China question and other things, and
seemed clear enough. He was pleased with his reception at Court,
and told me particularly how civil Prince Albert had been to him,
and indeed to everybody else; said he never saw better manners,
or anybody more generally attentive. The Duchess of Kent talked
to him, and in a strain of satisfaction, so that there is
something like sunshine in the Palace just now.
March 18th, 1840 {p.278}
The first symptom of a failure in the Duke of Wellington's memory
came under my notice the day before yesterday. I had been
employed by Gurwood to negotiate with Dr. Lushington about some
papers written by the Duke when in Spain, which had fallen into
the Doctor's hands, and I spoke twice to the Duke on the subject,
the last time on Friday last, when I walked home with him from
the House of Lords. It was settled that the Doctor should write
to the Duke about them, who was to write an answer, after which
they were to be given up. But when the Doctor's letter arrived,
the Duke had forgotten the whole thing, and could not remember
what Lushington it was, and actually wrote a reply (which was not
sent, because my brother set him right) to Stephen Lushington,
the ex-Secretary to the Treasury. This is so remarkable in a man
so accurate, and whose memory is generally so retentive, that I
can't help noticing it, as the first clear and undoubted proof of
his failure in a particular faculty.
[Page Head: DINNER AT DEVONSHIRE HOUSE.]
I dined yesterday at Devonshire House, a dinner of forty people
to feast the Royalties of Sussex and Capua with their quasi-
Consorts, for I know not whether the Princess of Capua is
according to Neapolitan law a real Princess any more than our
Cecilia is a real Duchess,[1] which she certainly is not, nor
takes the title, though every now and then somebody gives it her.
However, there they were yesterday in full possession of all the
dignities of their husbands. The Duke made a mystery of the order
in which he meant them to go out to dinner, and would let nobody
know how it was all to be till the moment came. He then made the
Duke of Sussex go out first with the Princess of Capua, next the
Prince with Lady Cecilia, and he himself followed with the
Duchess of Somerset, and so on. After dinner the Duke of Sussex
discoursed to me about the oath and other matters. He is
dissatisfied on account of the banners of the Knights of the
Garter having been moved in St. George's Chapel, to make room for
Prince Albert's, I suppose; but I could not quite make out what
it was he complained of, only he said when such a disposition had
been shown in all quarters to meet Her Majesty's wishes, and
render to the Prince all honour, they ought not to push matters
farther than they can properly do, &c. ... something to this
effect. He is not altogether pleased with the Court; that is
evident.
[1] [The Duke of Sussex was married to Lady Cecilia
Underwood, though not according to the provisions of
the Royal Marriage Act. But the marriage was
recognised, and his lady was shortly afterwards created
by the Queen Duchess of Inverness.]
March 26th, 1840 {p.279}
Ministers were defeated by sixteen on Stanley's motion about
Irish Registration.[2] O'Connell made a most blackguard speech,
alluding with wretched ribaldry to the deathbed of Stanley's
mother-in-law, from which he had come to urge his motion, out of
deference to those whom he had brought up for it. One of the
worst of those disgraceful and stupid brutalities, which will
obliterate (if possible) the fame of the great things O'Connell
has done in the course of his career. What will Government do
upon this? It is impossible for anything to be more embarrassing.
It is humiliating to go on, after another great defeat, and it is
a bad question for them to dissolve upon. Weak in itself, and
with all the moral deformity of its O'Connellism, it will produce
no sympathy in this country, and not even a cry to stand upon at
a general election.
[2] [Lord Stanley's Irish Registration Bill, providing for
an annual revision of the lists by revising barristers,
was carried against the Government by 250 to 234 votes.
The Bill made considerable progress, and was warmly
supported by the Opposition, but eventually Lord
Stanley saw reason to abandon it. See _infra_, August
13, 1840.]
March 29th, 1840 {p.280}
They did not care about this division, but made very light of it.
However, it adds an item to the account against them, and is (say
what they will) a bad thing. It is bad too, to establish as a
principle that no defeats, nor any number of them, signify, as
long as they are not upon vital questions; it produces not only a
laxity of opinion and feeling upon public matters, but an
indifference and _insouciance_ on the part of their supporters,
which may some day prove very mischievous; for if they once are
permitted to assume that defeats do not signify, they will not be
at the trouble of attending when inconvenient, nor will they
encounter unpopularity for the sake of Government, and they will
very soon begin to judge for themselves, or to mistake what are
and what are not vital questions. Upon this occasion, Lord
Charles Russell went away the morning of the division without a
pair.
[Page Head: THE KING OF HANOVER'S APARTMENTS.]
Yesterday, at dinner at Normanby's, I met Lord Duncannon,[3] who
showed me the correspondence between him and the King of Hanover
about the apartments at St. James's. The case is this: When the
Queen was going to be married, the Duchess of Kent told Duncannon
that she must have a house,[4] and that she could not afford to
pay for one (the greater part of her income being appropriated to
the payment of her debts). Duncannon told her that there were no
royal apartments unoccupied, except the King of Hanover's at St.
James's; and it was settled that he should be apprised that the
Queen had occasion for them, and be requested to give them up.
Duncannon accordingly wrote a note to Sir F. Watson, who manages
the King's affairs here, and told him that he had such a
communication to make to his Majesty, which he was desirous of
bringing before him in the most respectful manner, and that the
arrangement should be made in whatever way would be most
convenient to him. Watson informed him that he had forwarded his
note to the King, and shortly after Duncannon received an answer
from the King himself, which was neither more nor less than a
flat refusal to give up the apartments. Another communication
then took place between Duncannon and Watson, when the latter
said that it would be very inconvenient to the King to remove his
things from the apartments without coming over in person, as the
library particularly was full of papers of importance. Duncannon
then proposed that the library and the adjoining room, in which
it was said that his papers were deposited, should not be
touched, but remain in his possession; that they should be walled
off and separated from the rest of the suite, which might be
given up to the Duchess for her occupation. This proposal was
sent to the King, who refused to agree to it, or to give up the
apartments at all. Accordingly the Queen was obliged to hire a
house for her mother at a rent of £2,000 a year. I told Duncannon
that they were all very much to blame for submitting to the
domineering insolence of the King, and that when they thought it
right to require the apartments, they ought to have gone through
with it, and have taken no denial. It was a gross insult to the
Queen to refuse to give up to her an apartment in her own palace,
which she desired to dispose of; and they were very wrong in
permitting such an affront to be offered to her. So Duncannon was
himself of opinion; but Melbourne, who is all for quietness,
would not allow matters to proceed to extremities, and preferred
knocking under--a mode of proceeding which is always as
contemptible as it is useless. The first thing is to be in the
right, to do nothing unbecoming or unjust, but with right and
propriety clearly on your side, to be as firm as a rock, and,
above all things, never to succumb to insolence and presumption.
[3] [Lord Duncannon was at this time First Commissioner of
Works, and the arrangements with reference to the Royal
Palaces fell within his department.]
[4] The Duchess, for particular reasons, objected to going
back to Kensington.
We had M. Guizot at dinner.[5] They all say he is agreeable, but
I have not been in the way of his talk. He is enchanted and
elated with his position, and it is amusing to see his
apprehension lest anybody should, either by design or
inadvertence, rob him of his precedence; and the alacrity with
which he seizes on the arm of the lady of the house on going out
to dinner, so demonstrative of the uneasy grandeur of a man who
has not yet learnt to be familiar with his own position. With
reference to diplomatic rank, I only heard last night, for the
first time, that the Duke of Sutherland had, some time ago,
addressed a formal remonstrance to Palmerston, against Foreign
Ministers (not Ambassadors) having place given them at the Palace
(which means going first out to dinner over himself _et suos
pares_), a most extraordinary thing for a sensible man to have
done, especially in such high favour as his wife and her whole
family are. He got for answer, that Her Majesty exercised her own
pleasure in this respect in her own palace. The rule always has
been that Ambassadors (who represent the persons of their
Sovereigns) have precedence of everybody; Ministers (who are only
agents) have not; but the Queen, it appears, has given the _pas_
to Ministers Plenipotentiaries, as well as to Ambassadors, and
ordered them to go out at her dinners before her own subjects of
the highest rank.[6]
[5] [M. Guizot had just been appointed French Ambassador in
London under the Government of M. Thiers, who took
office on the 1st March of this year.]
[6] [It was afterwards settled by Her Majesty that Foreign
Ministers should take precedence _after_ Dukes and
before Marquesses.]
April 3rd, 1840 {p.282}
They have made Lady Cecilia Underwood a duchess. Everybody
considers it a very ridiculous affair, but she and the Duke are,
or affect to be, enchanted, though nobody can tell why. She is
Duchess of Inverness, though there would have been more meaning
in her being Countess of Inverness, since Earl of Inverness is
his second title. However, there she was last night at the ball
at Lansdowne House, tucked under the Duke's arm, all smiles, and
shaking hands vehemently in all directions in acknowledgement of
congratulations. I was curious (as others were) to see what it
would all come to, and what, in fact, she was to take (in the way
of royalty) by her motion, and, as I thought, this was just
nothing. The Queen sat at the end of the room, with the Duchess
of Cambridge on one side of her, and a chair (for Prince Albert)
on the other. The Duke of Sussex took the Duchess of Inverness
half way up the room, deposited her amidst a cluster of people,
and then went alone to pay his respects to the Queen. Lady
Lansdowne wrote to the Queen to ask her pleasure whether the
Duchess of Inverness should be asked to sup at her table. Her
Majesty replied that she could not object to the Duchess of
Inverness supping there, provided care was taken that she did not
go out or take place before any other duchess. I saw Prince
Albert for the first time. He is exactly like the drawing of him:
a handsome face without much expression; but without speaking to
him and hearing him speak, it is difficult to judge of his looks.
Everybody speaks well of him.
April 13th, 1840 {p.283}
[Page Head: WAR WITH CHINA.]
The China debate[7] went off on the whole well enough for the
Government, though they only got a majority of ten, owing in
great measure to the number of casualties on their side. Poyntz
died the night before the division, and the breath was hardly out
of his body before an express was despatched by the Tory whipper-
in, to desire that nobody would on any account pair with Captain
Spencer (his son-in-law). In this nice balance of parties, human
life seemed only to be of interest as votes are influenced by it.
Macaulay recovered his reputation on this occasion, and made a
good speech. Palmerston closed the debate with a capital speech,
but neither side appears to me to have really hit the right nail
on the head, or to have worked out the strong parts of the case.
Follett did more than anybody. Thesiger made his first
appearance, but not with any great success. We had on the Friday
a Council for the Order to seize Chinese ships, &c., and on the
Saturday another for completing the forms. There was a
considerable discussion as to whether the Order (being of a
warlike nature) should be signed by the Privy Councillors, and
there was no case _exactly_ in point. However, they decided,
after much enquiry and examination into precedent, that it should
not be.[8]
[7] [On April 7 Sir James Graham moved a Vote of Censure on
Ministers for the measures which had plunged the
country in hostilities with China. Mr. Macaulay
followed him, and made an able speech. The Resolution
was rejected after three nights' debate by 271 to 261
votes.]
[8] [Orders in Council for Reprisals and Capture of Ships
constitute a Declaration of War, and are signed by all
the Privy Councillors present. This course was taken in
1854 on the Declaration of War against Russia.]
May 15th, 1840 {p.284}
A month, and nothing written here, or written, read, or done,
elsewhere. Went to Newmarket for the Craven meeting, then to
Bretby for a week, then Newmarket again, and back to London on
Friday.
Just after I got back to Newmarket, the intelligence arrived of
the extraordinary murder of Lord William Russell, which has
excited a prodigious interest, and frightened all London out of
its wits. Visionary servants and air-drawn razors or carving-
knives dance before everybody's imagination, and half the world
go to sleep expecting to have their throats cut before morning.
The circumstances of the case are certainly most extraordinary,
and though every day produces some fresh cause for suspecting the
man Courvoisier, both the fact and the motives are still
enveloped in great mystery. People are always ready to jump to a
conclusion, and having made up their minds, as most have, that he
must have done the deed, they would willingly hang him up at
once. I had the curiosity to go the day before yesterday to
Tothill Fields Prison to see the man, who had just been sent
there. He is rather ill-looking, a baddish countenance, but his
manner was calm though dejected, and he was civil and respectful,
and not sulky. The people there said he was very restless, and
had not slept, and that he was a man of great bodily strength. I
did not converse with him.
May 17th, 1840 {p.284}
Just after writing the above, I went to the house in Norfolk
Street, to look at the premises, and the places where the watch
and other things were found hidden. It was impossible not to be
morally convinced that the house had not been broken into, that
the indications of such violence were fabricated, and that the
goods must have been secreted by Courvoisier, consequently, that
by him the murder was committed; but there is as yet no evidence
to convict him of the actual commission of the deed, and though I
believe him to be guilty, I could not, on such a case as there is
as yet, find him so if placed on a jury. I am very sceptical
about evidence, and know how strangely circumstances sometimes
combine to produce appearances of guilt where there may be none.
There is a curious case of this mentioned in Romilly's Memoirs,
of a man hanged for mutiny upon the evidence of a witness who
swore to his person, and upon his own confession after
conviction, and yet it was satisfactorily proved afterwards that
he had been mistaken for another man, and was really innocent. He
had been induced to confess at the instigation of a fellow-
prisoner, who told him it was his best chance of escaping.
[Page Head: NARROW ESCAPE OF A CULPRIT.]
Lord Ashburton, when we were talking of this, told me an anecdote
of General Maitland (Sir Thomas), which happened at some place in
the West Indies or South America. He had taken some town, and the
soldiers were restrained from committing violence on the
inhabitants, when a shot was fired from a window, and one of his
men killed. They entered the house, went to the room from the
window of which the shot had been fired, and found a number of
men playing at billiards. They insisted on the culprit being
given up, when a man was pointed out as the one who had fired the
shot. They all agreed as to the culprit, and he was carried off.
Sir Thomas considering that a severe example was necessary,
ordered the man to be tied to the mouth of a cannon, and shot
away. He was present, but turned his head away when the signal
was given for blowing this wretch's body to atoms. The explosion
took place, when to his amazement the man appeared alive, but
with his hair literally standing 'like quills upon the fretful
porcupine,' with terror. In the agony of the moment he had
contrived to squeeze himself through the ropes, which were
loosely tied, and get on one side of the cannon's mouth, so that
the ball missed him. He approached Maitland and said, 'You see,
General, that it was the will of Heaven my life should be spared;
and I solemnly assure you that I am innocent.' Maitland would not
allow him to be executed after this miraculous escape, and it
turned out, upon further enquiry, that he _was_ innocent, and it
was some other man who had fired the shot.
[Page Head: DUKE OF WELLINGTON SUPPORTS GOVERNMENT.]
For the last month there has been something like a cessation of
political warfare, not from any diminished desire on the part of
the Opposition to harass the Government, but from want of means
to do so. In the House of Lords the other night, Lord Stanhope
brought on the China Question; when the Duke of Wellington got
up, and to the delight of the Government, and the dismay and
vexation of the Tories, threw over Stanhope (in a very good
speech), asserted the justice of our quarrel with China, refused
to discuss the question of policy at all, warmly defended and
eulogised Elliot, moved the previous question, and then quitted
the House, without waiting to hear Stanhope's reply. It was
gratifying to see his energy and vigour, and to see them exerted
on one of those occasions when his great mind and patriotic
spirit never fail to show themselves. Whenever a question has, in
his view, assumed a national character, he scatters to the wind
all party considerations; such he now considers the Chinese war
to be. We are involved with China, nation against nation, and he
will not by word or deed put in jeopardy the smallest of the
mighty interests at stake, for the sake of advancing some party
purpose, and damaging the Government. In like manner, he thinks
that Elliot has bravely, faithfully, and to the best of his
ability, done his duty; that if he has committed errors of
judgement they should be overlooked, and that he should be
supported, encouraged, and defended. This is the real greatness
which raises him so far above all the ordinary politicians of his
day, and which will confer on his memory imperishable renown. It
is rendered the more striking by his conduct on Friday on the
Irish Municipal Bill, which is a mere party question, where he
showed that he could be as violent as any Tory could desire. I
called on Barnes[9] on Saturday, and found him much disgusted at
the Duke's China speech, and anxious to know how it could have
happened. When I told him that it was always so with him, and
that he never would be merely factious, Barnes said (which, is
true enough) that it is extraordinary, if he had intended to
adopt such a tone in the House of Lords, that he should have
allowed Graham to bring forward his motion in the House of
Commons, and it certainly does place Graham in a mortifying
position, for the Duke's speech is a complete answer to Graham's
motion.
[9] [The editor of the 'Times' newspaper.]
May 26th, 1840 {p.287}
At Newmarket last week. While there the debate took place on the
Registration Bill, carried by a majority of only three, by the
defection of Howick and Charles Wood, which was caused, as is
said, entirely by the influence of Lord Grey, who is always out
of humour with the Government, glad to give them a knock, though
ostensibly their friend. However this may be, there was nothing
inconsistent in their conduct, and Wood accounted for his vote
very fairly. The Tories were triumphant for a moment, but these
defeats are now so common and so unproductive of any
consequences, that after the first shouting was over nobody
seemed to attach much importance to it. The Cambridge and Ludlow
elections having gone against them is of greater consequence,
because they show that the tide is running that way, and that a
dissolution must in all probability be ruinous to them. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget seems to have been very
successful, and all agree that he did his part exceedingly well.
Yesterday I met the Duke of Wellington. He was walking in the
garden of the park adjoining his own, promenading two young
ladies--Lord Salisbury's daughters--arm in arm. He left them and
took me to walk with him to Lansdowne House. He began discoursing
about the state of affairs, and lamenting that there was, and
could be, no strong Government, and that there never would be
till people were convinced by experience of the necessity of
having one. He then said, 'If other people would do as I do,
support the Government when they can, and when the Government
ought to be supported, it would be much better.' I said I agreed
with him, and that it had given me the greatest pleasure to read
his speech on China. He said, 'All I know is, that it is
absolutely necessary that question should be settled, and the
justice of our cause be made manifest.' I said, I was sure it was
what he would feel, and that he had done just what I expected,
but that he must be aware there were many of his own people who
were by no means so well pleased, but, on the contrary, to the
last degree annoyed and provoked at his speech. He replied, 'I
know that well enough, and I don't care _one damn_. I was afraid
Lord Stanhope would have a majority, and _I have not time not to
do what is right_.'
June 12th, 1840 {p.288}
[Page Head: THE QUEEN SHOT AT.]
On Wednesday afternoon, as the Queen and Prince Albert were
driving in a low carriage up Constitution Hill, about four or
five in the afternoon, they were shot at by a lad of eighteen
years old, who fired two pistols at them successively, neither
shots taking effect. He was in the Green Park without the rails,
and as he was only a few yards from the carriage, and, moreover,
very cool and collected, it is marvellous he should have missed
his aim. In a few moments the young man was seized, without any
attempt on his part to escape or to deny the deed, and was
carried off to prison. The Queen, who appeared perfectly cool,
and not the least alarmed, instantly drove to the Duchess of
Kent's, to anticipate any report that might reach her mother,
and, having done so, she continued her drive and went to the
Park. By this time the attempt upon her life had become generally
known, and she was received with the utmost enthusiasm by the
immense crowd that was congregated in carriages, on horseback,
and on foot. All the equestrians formed themselves into an
escort, and attended her back to the Palace, cheering vehemently,
while she acknowledged, with great appearance of feeling, these
loyal manifestations. She behaved on this occasion with perfect
courage and self-possession, and exceeding propriety; and the
assembled multitude, being a high-class mob, evinced a lively and
spontaneous feeling for her--a depth of interest which, however
natural under such circumstances, must be very gratifying to her,
and was satisfactory to witness.
Yesterday morning the culprit was brought to the Home Office,
when Normanby examined him, and a Council was summoned for a more
personal examination at two o'clock. A question then arose as to
the nature of the proceeding, and the conduct of the examination,
whether it should be before the Privy Council or the Secretary of
State. We searched for precedents, and the result was this: The
three last cases of high treason were those of Margaret
Nicholson, in 1786; of Hatfield, in 1800 (both for attempts on
the life of the Sovereign); and of Watson (the Cato Street
affair), for an attempt on the Ministers in 1820. Margaret
Nicholson was brought before the Privy Council, and the whole
proceeding was set forth at great length in the Council Register.
There appeared no entry of any sort or kind in the case of
Hatfield; and in that of Watson there was a minute in the Home
Office, setting forth that the examination had taken place
_there_ by Lord Sidmouth, assisted by certain Lords and others of
the Privy Council. There was, therefore, no uniform course of
precedents, and Ministers had to determine whether the culprit
should be brought before the Privy Council, or whether he should
be examined by the Cabinet only--that is, by Normanby as
Secretary of State, assisted by his colleagues, as had been done
in Watson's case. After some discussion, they determined that the
examination should be before the Cabinet only, and consequently I
was not present at it, much to my disappointment, as I wished to
hear what passed, and see the manner and bearing of the
perpetrator of so strange and unaccountable an act. Up to the
present time there is no appearance of insanity in the youth's
behaviour, and he is said to have conducted himself during the
examination with acuteness, and cross-examined the witnesses (a
good many of whom were produced) with some talent. All this,
however, is not incompatible with a lurking insanity. His answers
to the questions put to him were mysterious, and calculated to
produce the impression that he was instigated or employed by a
society, with which the crime had originated, but I expect that
it will turn out that he had no accomplices, and is only a
crackbrained enthusiast, whose madness has taken the turn of
vanity and desire for notoriety. No other conjecture presents any
tolerable probability. However it may turn out--here is the
strange fact--that a half-crazy potboy was on the point of
influencing the destiny of the Empire, and of producing effects
the magnitude and importance of which no human mind can guess at.
It is remarkable how seldom attempts like these are successful,
and yet the life of any individual is at the mercy of any other,
provided this other is prepared to sacrifice his own life, which,
in the present instance, the culprit evidently was.
August 13th, 1840 {p.290}
[Page Head: REVIEW OF THE SESSION.]
Two months have elapsed since I have written anything in this
book, owing to an unaccountable repugnance, which daily grew
stronger, to take up my pen for that purpose. It is true that I
had nothing of great interest to note down, but I could
frequently have found something worth recollecting if I had not
been too idle, too occupied with other things, or paralysed by
the disgust I had taken to the task of journalising. It is now
too late to record things as I was told them, or events as they
occurred, and all is confusion in my recollections. If I were now
to begin to describe the transactions of the late two months, I
should be writing history, for which I am in no way qualified.
However, as I must make up my mind to begin again, and write
something, or give up the practice altogether, and as I don't
choose (just yet, at least) to do the latter, I will scribble
what occurs to me, and take a short survey of the Parliamentary
campaign that is just over. The danger, whether real or supposed,
which the Queen ran from the attempt of the half-witted coxcomb
who fired at her, elicited whatever there was of dormant loyalty
in her lieges, and made her extremely popular. Nothing could be
more enthusiastic than her reception at Ascot, where dense
multitudes testified their attachment to her person, and their
joy at her recent escape by more than usual demonstrations.
Partly, perhaps, from the universality of the interest evinced,
and partly from a judicious influence or more impartial
reflection, she began about this time to make her Court much less
exclusive, and all these circumstances produced a better state of
feeling between the Court and the Tories, and helped to soften
the acrimony of political warfare.
Throughout the Session the Ministerial majorities continued to be
small and uncertain; but it was all along evident that the
Government would not be turned out, that the leaders of the
Opposition did not wish to turn them out, and that the
differences which prevailed in the Tory party rendered it
anything but desirable a change should take place. Consequently,
for one reason or other, the Government were never pressed hard
upon any points on which defeat would have compelled them to
resign. The greatest, most hard-fought, and lengthened contest
was upon Stanley's Irish Registration Bill, which was admirably
devised as a party measure, very ably worked, and in support of
which the whole body of the Tories came down, night after night,
with a constancy, zeal, and unanimity, really remarkable. Their
repeated majorities elated them to such a pitch that they were
ready, one and all, to relinquish everything else, to come and
vote on these questions. It was evident, however, that all their
exertions would be foiled by the determination of their opponents
to interpose such delays and obstacles as must prove fatal to the
measure; and it was not the least judicious part of Stanley's
management when he came down to the House, and, after his long
series of victories, announced that he had abandoned his Bill for
this year. It was an extremely embarrassing question to
Government, and one upon which they could not appear in a
favourable point of view. On one hand they were compelled to aid
and abet their Irish allies in their opposition to this Bill, so
fatal as it would have been to their influence in all the
vexatious and unfair modes which they adopted; and on the other
hand it showed how little this self-called Reform Ministry cared
for any measure of Reform, or rather how heartily they were
opposed to any of which the tendency would be injurious to their
own political influence. There never was a simpler question of
Reform than this, a clearer case of wrong, or one which more
loudly demanded a remedy; but the wrong was one by which they
largely benefited, and the correction of it would have the effect
of augmenting the power of their opponents. Accordingly, by every
species of sophistry, by falsehoods of all kinds, by vehement
denunciations and endeavours to arouse the passions of the Irish
people, they moved Heaven and earth to thwart and defeat the
measure. There was, however, only one moment at which the
Government were in any jeopardy, for they very early resolved not
to let the majorities against them shake them out of their seats.
But when Stanley, complaining of the unfair means which had been
employed to prevent his bringing on his measure in its different
stages, announced that he would invade the days reserved for
Government business, Lord John Russell began darkly to hint at
the impossibility of the Government conducting the public
business if the House sanctioned such an encroachment, and much
irritation was exhibited for a short time. Both parties, however,
got calm, and a compromise was the result. The Government offered
Stanley certain days, which he immediately accepted,
acknowledging that nothing but an extreme provocation would
justify the course he had threatened to adopt, and so the storm
blew over; and this question was nearly the only one which
produced any violent debates and close divisions. Besides the
usual light skirmishing and the taunts, accusations, and
reproaches, here and there thrown out against the Government,
there were no serious attacks upon their policy and measures,
either domestic or foreign; and upon the whole, setting apart the
smallest of their dependable majority, they got through the
Session with remarkable success, and have closed it apparently
stronger, and with more of public confidence and approbation by
many degrees than they enjoyed at the opening. And I believe this
to be the truth, notwithstanding the fact that almost all the
elections occurring during the Session (in which there have been
contests) have been carried by the Tories.
August 18th, 1840 (continued at the Grove) {p.292}
This improved condition of the Ministry is attributable partly to
the success of their measures and the efficient manner in which
the most important offices have been filled, and partly to the
dissensions which prevailed among their adversaries, some
striking symptoms of which were exhibited to the public. At the
end of the Session, Sir Robert Inglis said to one of the
Government people: 'Well, you have managed to get through the
Session very successfully.' 'Yes,' said the other, 'thanks to
your dissensions among yourselves.' 'No,' said Sir Robert, 'it is
not that, but it is the conduct of your leader, his honesty,
courage, and ability, which has enabled you to do so.' Ley, the
Clerk of the House of Commons, and a man of great experience,
said he had never seen the business so well conducted as by John
Russell. Besides this, his reputation in his office is immense,
where all his subordinates admit that Colonial affairs never were
so well administered. But there can be no doubt that the ill-
humour, which on several occasions broke out, sometimes between
the leaders and sometimes among the masses of the party--'The
Tory Democracy,' as the 'Standard' calls them--was of essential
service to the Government. This first began at the end of last
year upon the Privilege question, which Peel took up vehemently,
and at once identified himself with John Russell in support of
the privileges of the House of Commons. The moment Parliament
opened, this matter came under discussion, and for some time
exclusively occupied the attention of the House of Commons. There
could be no doubt that if Peel had changed his mind and taken the
adverse side, he would have thrown the Government into great
difficulty and embarrassment, but instead of doing so he took the
Privilege side still more warmly than before, threw himself into
the van of the contest, and was the most strenuous and the ablest
advocate in the cause. Nothing could exceed the disappointment
and annoyance of the great body of the Tories at his conduct.
Many of them opposed him, and though Graham, Stanley, and others
of the principal men voted with him, they did so very
reluctantly, and maintained an invincible silence throughout all
the discussions. When at last it was settled that a Bill should
be introduced, and that Bill had passed the House of Commons,
considerable doubt existed whether it would pass the Lords, the
Duke of Wellington's opinion being decidedly at variance with
Peel's on the question. Nothing could have gratified his party
more than the rejection of this Bill by the Lords, but however
well inclined the Duke was to reject it, he knew that this would
be too desperate a game to play, and while it might lead to the
dissolution of the Government, it would entail that of the Tory
party also. Many conferences took place between Graham and
Arbuthnot and Lyndhurst, the result of which was, that the Duke
was persuaded to let the Bill pass, but this was not accomplished
without much murmuring against the obstinacy of Peel.
[Page Head: THE DUKE CONTROLS THE TORIES.]
Soon afterwards the China question was brought forward by Graham,
but whatever benefit they expected to derive from this attack on
the Government was entirely marred by the Duke's speech in the
House of Lords, in which he completely threw over Graham, as well
as all who supported him; and while this vexed and offended the
Tory leaders in the Commons, the 'Democracy' were as indignant
with the Duke as they had lately been with Peel. After this, a
sort of running fight went on (Stanley's battles presenting the
only important results) up to the period of the introduction of
the Canada Bill.[10] To this Peel offered no opposition whatever,
and it passed the House of Commons with his concurrence, and
consequently without difficulties or even divisions. But as soon
as it got into the Lords, the Duke broke out in fierce hostility
against it, denounced its provisions in the most unmeasured
terms, and for a considerable time nobody knew whether they would
throw it out or not. Peel (it appeared) had taken his line and
supported the Bill, without any previous concert with the Duke,
and the latter, as well as all the Tory Lords, were exceedingly
indignant at finding themselves so far committed by his conduct
that it became absolutely impossible for them to throw it out.
Why Peel did not communicate with the Duke, I cannot divine, or
why it was not made a great party measure, and a resolution taken
to act in concert. Lyndhurst spoke to me (one day that I met him)
with great bitterness against Peel. I asked him, 'What do you
mean to do?' 'Oh, God knows; pass the Bill, I suppose, there's
nothing else left for us to do.' Wharncliffe, while bewailing the
schism, and the bad effect of its manifestation, attributed
Peel's reserve to temper, and some remains of _pique_ at what had
previously passed about the Privilege and China questions. But
whatever was the cause, Peel was quite right not to oppose this
Bill, unless he was prepared with a better measure, and to take
office with the intention of acting upon a different principle,
and he distinctly said that he had nothing better to suggest. The
subsequent conduct of the Duke throughout the whole proceeding in
the House of Lords was curiously indicative of the actual state
of his mind, of his disposition, and his faculties. His
disposition is become excessively excitable and irritable, his
faculties sometimes apparently weakened, and at others giving
signs of all their accustomed vigour. He came down to the House
and attacked this Bill with an asperity quite inconsistent with
his abstaining from throwing it out. He loaded it with every sort
of abuse, but allowed it to pass almost without any alteration.
In thus doing to the measure all the moral damage he could, he
gave way to his passion, and acted a part which I am convinced he
would not have done in his better days, and which was quite at
variance with the patriotic spirit by which he is usually
animated. His violence not unnaturally encouraged his equally
ardent but less prudent followers, to a more practical attack,
and Hardwicke gave notice of his motion. The Duke, however, was
fully alive to all the consequences that would result from the
rejection of a Bill to which Peel had given an unqualified
support in the House of Commons, and he resolved to exert all his
great authority to restrain the zeal that his own speeches had so
highly inflamed. He accordingly summoned the Lords to Apsley
House, and made them a speech in which he stated all the reasons
for which it was desirable not to throw out the Bill; and
Aberdeen told Clarendon that in his life he had never heard a
more admirable statement. It required, however, all his great
influence to restrain them, and though they acquiesced (as they
always do at his bidding) with surprising docility, they did so
with the greatest reluctance.
[10] [This was a Bill for dealing with the Canada Clergy
Reserves.]
London, August 19th, 1840 {p.296}
In the conversation at which Aberdeen told Clarendon this, he
dilated upon the marvellous influence of the Duke, and the manner
in which he treated his followers, and the language they endured
from him. Clarendon asked him whether, when the Duke retired, he
had any hopes of being able to govern them as well; to which he
replied that he had not the slightest idea of it; on the
contrary, that it would be impossible, that nobody else could
govern them, and when his influence was withdrawn, they would
split into every variety of opinion according to their several
biases and dispositions. He said he did not think the Duke of
Wellington had ever rendered greater service in his whole life
than he had done this session in moderating violence and keeping
his own party together and in order, and that he could still do
the most essential service in the same way, and much more than by
active leading in Parliament.
[Page Head: ADVANTAGES OF A WEAK GOVERNMENT.]
Out of this state of things a practical consequence has ensued of
no slight importance, and one which has shown that if there are
evils and disadvantages incident to a weak Government, these are
not without some counterbalancing good. Both parties began to
feel the necessity of dealing with certain questions of pressing
importance in a spirit of compromise and mutual concession.
Neither were strong enough to go on insisting upon having
everything their own way, and each was conscious that the other
had a fair right to require some sacrifice, so far as it could be
made without compromising on either side any vital principle.
Accordingly several questions were amicably and quietly settled,
in all probability in a more just, expedient, and satisfactory
way than they would have been by either party uncontrolled and
unrestrained. The Irish Corporation Bill, which for years has
been a topic of bitter contention, has at last been carried with
very little difficulty and discussion. The alterations of the
Lords were quietly accepted by the Commons, and the ultras on
both sides were alone dissatisfied at the consummation. Then the
Education Question, which last year raised a regular storm, both
in Parliament and out, has been arranged between the Government
and the heads of the Church, and the system is permanently
established in such a manner as to allay all fears and
jealousies. In the same spirit, I expect that next year some mode
will be found of conciliating Stanley's Bill with the Government
Bill of Irish Registration, and that some measure not quite but
tolerably satisfactory to all parties will be devised, and the
evil complained of, to a certain degree, be checked. These are
advantages of no small moment, and it is very questionable
whether the work of government and legislation is not more wisely
and beneficially done by this concurrence of antagonistic
parties, and compromise and fusion of antagonistic opinions, than
it could be in any other way. All strong Governments become to a
certain degree careless and insolent in the confidence of their
strength, but their weakness renders them circumspect and
conscientious. Governments with great majorities at their back
can afford to do gross jobs, or take strong party measures; but
when their opponents are as strong as themselves, and their
majorities are never secure, they can venture upon nothing of the
kind. All oppositions must affect a prodigious show of political
virtue, and must be vigilant and economical, no matter how lax
may have been their political morality when in power. But no
politician, or party man, has any tenderness for an abuse the
profit of which is to accrue to his adversary, and in this way
good government may happen to be the result of a weak Ministry
and a strong Opposition.
August 24th, 1840 {p.297}
[Page Head: THE TREATY OF JULY.]
Passed the greatest part of last week at the Grove, where
Clarendon talked to me a great deal about the Eastern Question,
and Palmerston's policy in that quarter. Palmerston, it seems,
has had for many years as his fixed idea the project of humbling
the Pasha of Egypt.[11] In the Cabinet he has carried everything
his own way; all his colleagues either really concurring with
him, or being too ignorant and too indifferent to fight the
battle against his strong determination, except Lord Holland and
Clarendon, who did oppose with all their strength Palmerston's
recent treaty; but quite ineffectually. They had for their only
ally, Lord Granville at Paris, and nothing can exceed the
contempt with which the Palmerstonians treat this little knot of
dissentients, at least the two elder ones, who (they say) are
become quite imbecile, and they wonder Lord Granville does not
resign. Palmerston, in fact, appears to exercise an absolute
despotism at the Foreign Office, and deals with all our vast and
complicated questions of diplomacy according to his own views and
opinions, without the slightest control, and scarcely any
interference on the part of his colleagues. This apathy is mainly
attributable to that which appears in Parliament and in the
country upon all foreign questions. Nobody understands and nobody
cares for them, and when any rare and occasional notice is taken
of a particular point, or of some question on which a slight and
evanescent interest is manifested, Palmerston has little
difficulty in dealing with the matter, which he always meets with
a consummate impudence and, it must be allowed, a skill and
resolution, which invariably carry him through. Whether the
policy which he has adopted upon the Eastern Question be the
soundest and most judicious, events must determine; but I never
was more amazed than at reading his letters, so dashing, bold,
and confident in their tone. Considering the immensity of the
stake for which he is playing, that he _may_ be about to plunge
all Europe into a war, and that if war does ensue it will be
entirely his doing, it is utterly astonishing he should not be
more seriously affected than he appears to be with the gravity of
the circumstances, and should not look with more anxiety (if not
apprehension) to the possible results; but he talks in the most
off-hand way of the clamour that broke out at Paris, of his
entire conviction that the French Cabinet have no thoughts of
going to war, and that if they were to do so, their fleets would
be instantly swept from the sea, and their armies everywhere
defeated. That if they were to try and make it a war of opinion
and stir up the elements of revolution in other countries, a more
fatal retaliation could and would be effected in France, where
Carlist or Napoleonist interest, aided by foreign intervention,
would shake the throne of Louis Philippe, while taxation and
conscription would very soon disgust the French with a war in
which he did not anticipate the possibility of their gaining any
military successes. Everything may possibly turn out according to
his expectations. He is a man blessed with extraordinary good
fortune, and his motto seems to be that of Danton, 'De l'audace,
encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace.' But there is a
flippancy in his tone, an undoubting self-sufficiency, and a
levity in discussing interests of such tremendous magnitude,
which satisfies me that he is a very dangerous man to be
entrusted with the uncontrolled management of our foreign
relations. But our Cabinet is a complete republic, and Melbourne,
their ostensible head, has no overruling authority, and is too
indolent and too averse to energetic measures to think of having
any, or to desire it. Any man of resolution and obstinacy does
what he will with Melbourne. Nothing was ever so peremptory and
determined as John Russell about Poulett Thomson's peerage, which
the others did not at all like, but which he not only insisted
upon, but actually threatened to resign unless it was done by a
given day. It was with the greatest difficulty they could prevail
on him to defer its being gazetted till Parliament was up,
Duncannon and others dreading that it would excite the choler of
the Duke of Wellington, and very likely provoke him to fall foul
of some of their Bills.
[11] [The Treaty between England, Russia, Austria, and
Prussia for the settlement of the affairs of the East,
by compelling the Pasha of Egypt to relinquish Syria,
and to restrict his dominion in Egypt, was signed in
London on July 15, 1840. France having declined to
concur in this policy, the Treaty was signed without
her, and without her knowledge. This event was of the
gravest consequence, and brought Europe to the brink of
war.]
M. Dedel[12] told me the other day that he thought, without
reference to his policy, Palmerston had conducted himself with a
_légèreté_ quite unaccountable; that the Duke of Wellington, when
he was at Windsor, had talked over the state of affairs with
Melbourne, and said to him, 'I do not say that I disapprove of
your policy as far as regards Mehemet Ali; perhaps I do not think
that you go far enough; not only would I not leave him in
possession of a foot of ground in Syria, but I should have no
scruple in expelling him from Egypt too. But what is Mehemet Ali
or the Turk in comparison with the immeasurable importance of
preserving peace in Europe? this is the thing alone to be
regarded, and I give you notice that you must not expect our
support in Parliament of the policy which you have chosen to
adopt.'[13] In the meantime there is an increasing impression
here that no war will take place; public opinion is not yet much
excited, and is nothing like so excitable as it is in France upon
questions of foreign policy, where everybody thinks and talks on
the subject; but if it ever is effectually roused, it will be
much stronger and probably more consistent here than there. My
brother writes me word that the King is most anxious to preserve
peace, and is now feeling the pulse of the country, and doing his
utmost to ascertain what the state of public opinion is, for his
own guidance in the approaching crisis. Though now acting in
apparent unison with Thiers, he would have no scruple in
resisting the course of policy in which Thiers is embarked, if he
found he could count upon the support of the country in his own
pacific views; and it is the possibility of such a contest
occurring in France which renders the question so very delicate
and difficult, and makes the issue dependent on contingencies
which no sagacity can foresee or provide for. Out of this
complication Palmerston's wonderful luck may possibly extricate
him, though it must be owned that he is playing a very desperate
game.
[12] [Dutch Minister at the Court of St. James.]
[13] Clarendon, to whom I told this, said it was not true:
he had said nothing about their support, but had said,
'I approve of your policy, but you must have no war.'
September 5th, 1840 {p.300}
[Page Head: OPPOSITION TO LORD PALMERSTON.]
I have been more in the way of hearing about the Eastern Question
during the last week than at any previous time, though my
informants and associates have been all of the anti-Palmerston
interest--Holland House, and Clarendon, Dedel (who objects to the
form more than the _fond_), and Madame de Lieven, who is all with
Guizot, because he is devoted to her, and she feels the greatest
interest where she gets the most information. Clarendon showed me
the other day a long letter which he wrote to Palmerston in March
last, in which he discussed the whole question, stating the
objections to which he thought Palmerston's policy liable, and
suggesting what _he_ would have done instead. It was a well-
written and well-reasoned document enough.
Those who are opposed to Palmerston's policy, and even some who
do not object to the policy itself so much as to the manner in
which it has been worked out, feel confident that the means will
fall very short of accomplishing the end, and that peace will be
preserved by their very impotence at a great expense of the
diplomatic reputation of the parties concerned; and they are
confirmed in this notion by the failure of some of the
anticipations in which Palmerston so confidently indulged,
especially the conduct of the Pasha and the Syrian insurrection.
Clarendon says that, 'whatever his opinions may have been, now
that they are fairly embarked in Palmerston's course, he must as
earnestly desire its success as if he had been its original
advocate.' But both he and Lord Holland have been so vehemently
committed in opposition to it, that, without any imputation of
unpatriotic feelings, it is not in human nature they should not
find a sort of satisfaction in the frustration of those measures
which they so strenuously resisted, and this clearly appears in
all Lord Holland said to me, and in Lady Holland's tone about
Palmerston and his daring disposition.
September 6th, 1840 {p.301}
On arriving in town this morning, I found a note from M. Guizot,
begging I would call on him, as he wanted to have a few minutes'
conversation with me. Accordingly I went, and am just returned.
His object was to put me in possession of the actual state of
affairs, and to read me a letter he had just received from
Thiers, together with one (either to Thiers or to him) from their
Consul-General at Alexandria.
[Page Head: THE POLICY OF FRANCE.]
Thiers' letter expressed considerable alarm. After describing the
failure of Walewski and the other French agents, and enlarging
upon the efforts they had made, and were still making, to
restrain the Pasha, and prevent his making any offensive
movement, he said that this was the Pasha's ultimatum. He
offered, if France would join him and make common cause with him,
to place his fleets and armies at her disposal, and to be
governed in all things by her advice and wishes, a thing utterly
impossible for France to listen to. Upon the impossibility of
this alliance being represented to him, the prudence of keeping
quiet strenuously urged upon him, and the utmost endeavours made
to convince him that a defensive policy was the only wise and
safe course for him, he had engaged not to move forward, or take
any offensive course unless compelled to do so, by violence
offered to him; his army was concentrated at the foot of the
Taurus, and there (but in a menacing attitude) he would consent
to its remaining; but if any European troops were to advance
against him, or be transported to Syria, any attempt made to
foment another insurrection in Syria, or any attack made upon his
fleet, or any violence offered to his commerce, then he would
cross the Taurus, and, taking all consequences, commence
offensive operations. In that case, said Guizot, Constantinople
might be occupied by the Russians, and the British fleet enter
the Sea of Marmora; and if that happened, he could not answer for
the result in France, and he owned that he (and Thiers expressed
the same in his letter) was in the greatest alarm at all these
dangers and complications. He had seen Palmerston this morning,
and read Thiers' letter to him. I asked him if it had made any
impression on Palmerston. He said, 'Not the slightest;' that he
had said, 'Oh! Mehemet Ali cédera; il ne faut pas s'attendre
qu'il cède à la première sommation; mais donnez-lui quinze jours,
et il finira par céder.' Guizot said that the failure of so many
of his predictions and expectations had not in the slightest
degree diminished Palmerston's confidence, and that there was in
fact no use whatever in speaking to him on the subject. Guizot is
evidently in great alarm, and well he may be, for there can be no
doubt that his Government are in a position of the greatest
embarrassment, far from inclined to war, the King especially
abhorring the very thoughts of it, and at the same time so far
committed that if the four allies act with any vigour and drive
Mehemet Ali to desperation, France must either kindle the flames
of war, or, after all her loud and threatening tone, succumb in a
manner not only intolerably galling to the national pride, but
which really would be very discreditable in itself.
Guizot dwelt very much upon their long-continued and earnest
efforts to make the Pasha moderate and prudent, and on the offers
he had made to join the allies, and unite the authority of France
to that of all the others for the purpose of preventing the Pasha
from advancing a step further, provided they would leave him in
his present possessions. I certainly never saw a man more
seriously or sincerely alarmed, and I think (now that it is so
near) that the French Government would avoid war at almost any
cost; but the great evil of the present state of affairs is, that
the conduct of the question has escaped out of the hands of the
Ministers and statesmen by whom it has hitherto been handled, and
henceforward must depend upon the passions or caprice of the
Pasha, and the discretion of the numerous commanders in any of
the fleets now gathered in the Mediterranean, and even upon the
thousand accidents to which, with the most prudent and moderate
instructions from home, and the best intentions in executing
them, the course of events is exposed. As Guizot said, Europe is
at the mercy 'des incidents et des subalternes.' He promised to
keep me informed of everything that might occur of interest.
September 10th, 1840 {p.303}
The day after I saw Guizot I related to Clarendon all that had
passed, when he told me that Melbourne was now become seriously
alarmed, so much so that he had written to John Russell, 'he
could neither eat, nor drink, nor sleep,' so great was his
disturbance. Lord John was also extremely alarmed, and both he
and Melbourne had been considerably moved by a letter the former
had received from the Duke of Bedford, enclosing one from Lord
Spencer, in which he entered into the whole Eastern Question; and
said that it was his earnest desire to give his support to the
Government in all their measures, but that it would be contrary
to his judgement and his conscience to support them in their
policy on this question. This appears to have made a great
impression upon them, but not the least upon Palmerston, who is
quite impenetrable, and who always continues more or less to
influence his colleagues; for Lord John, after meeting Palmerston
at Windsor, came back easier in his mind, and, as he said, with a
conviction (not apparently founded on any solid reason), 'that
they should pull through.' Palmerston, so far from being at all
shaken by anything Guizot said to him, told him that the only
fault he had committed was not taking Lord Ponsonby's advice and
proceeding to action long ago. The second edition of the 'Times'
mentions a violent note delivered by Pontois to the Porte. I
thought this of such consequence that I sent the paper to Guizot,
and begged him, if he could, to afford the means of contradicting
it. He wrote me word he would, as soon as he had _des
renseignements plus précis_. In the meantime, I find Metternich
has protested against the tone of Pontois' communication, which
was verbal and not written. His own account of it to Thiers
exhibited strong, but not indecent language.
In the evening (day before yesterday), Guizot dined at Holland
House, and met Clarendon and Lord John Russell, with the latter
of whom he had a long talk, and he hoped that he had made an
impression on him. Yesterday morning I was enabled to read the
Cabinet minute, submitting to the Queen the expediency of making
the Treaty, to which was appended the dissent of Clarendon and
Holland, with their reasons assigned in a short but well-written
and well-reasoned paper. The Queen desired to keep it, and there
can be little doubt that in her heart she coincides with them,
for Leopold is frightened out of his senses, and is sure to have
made her in some degree partake of his alarm. She told Melbourne
that, of all things, what astonished her most was the coolness
and indifference of Palmerston. It is remarkable that Clarendon,
who expresses himself with energy, was never asked to Windsor
while Leopold was there, Palmerston being there the whole time;
and the day that Leopold departed, Clarendon was invited.
[Page Head: ADMIRAL NAPIER'S PROCLAMATION.]
Yesterday morning arrived a fresh budget of alarming news,
amongst the rest a proclamation of Admiral Napier, which people
are disposed to consider a forgery and an impossibility, but
which was believed at Paris and by Guizot here, and consequently
raised a storm there, and put the Ambassador in despair.
Clarendon went to him in the afternoon, when he broke out: 'Mon
cher Comte, I appeal to you, as representing the Government, to
tell me what I am to think of such a proceeding as this, and how
is it possible that I can continue to 'gérer les affaires de mon
gouvernement' here, if such provocations as this proclamation are
to occur.' Clarendon acknowledged that if this proclamation was
authentic, nothing was to be said in its defence, but urged that
no definite judgement should be formed till they had some
conclusive information; but he told me, that he should not be
surprised to find that it was authentic and in virtue of
instruction from Ponsonby, and he fully expected Palmerston would
highly approve of it. When it was suggested to Palmerston that it
might with every effort be impossible to prevent the Pasha from
crossing the Taurus, he said, 'So much the better if he did, that
he would not be able to retreat, his communication be cut off,
and his ruin the more certainly accomplished.'
September 12th, 1840 {p.305}
Yesterday at Windsor for a Council, when Prince Albert was
introduced. The Ministers who were there had a sort of Cabinet
afterwards, and a discussion about increasing the naval force,
which Lord Minto thought they could not venture to do without
calling Parliament together; but they agreed that this was to be
avoided, and would be on every account objectionable. They might
incur any expense for naval affairs on their own responsibility,
and Parliament would be sure to bear them out. After dinner, a
messenger came, and Melbourne went out to read the contents of
his box. I remarked that nobody occupied _his_ chair next the
Queen; it was left vacant, like Banquo's, till he came back, so
that it was established as exclusively _his_. I heard this
morning what this box contained: letters from Sir F. Lamb,[14] to
Palmerston, in which he told him that he wished him every success
in his present undertaking, would do everything that he could to
assist him, but acknowledged that he had not the least notion
what he could do, or how anything could be done by anybody;
intimating his conviction, in short, that their Convention was
not executable. As for Metternich, he is at his wit's end, and
occupied night and day in thinking how he can _se tirer
d'affaire._ He tells Lamb that as to contributing a guinea or a
soldier towards the operation, it is quite out of the question,
and begs him never to mention such a thing, and that if the
Treaty could quietly fall to the ground it would be a very good
thing. It is, however, entirely contemplated by the other Powers
that Russia shall occupy Constantinople, and march to the
assistance of the Sultan if necessary; but it is quite clear that
Metternich is resolved to prevent a war by any means, and that he
would not care for his share of humiliation or the object of the
Convention being baffled. All this, however, does not damp the
ardour or diminish the confidence of Palmerston, who says,
'Everything is going on as well as possible.'
[14] [Sir Frederic Lamb, afterwards Lord Beauvale, was at
this time ambassador at the Court of Austria.]
When I got to town I found a note from Guizot begging I would
call on him. I went, and he read me a letter from Thiers about
'the note' of M. de Pontois at Constantinople, in which he
explained that it was a verbal communication, and not a note, and
that it had been grossly exaggerated; and he read me Pontois'
despatch to Thiers. I then asked him if he knew anything of
Metternich and his disposition; and when he said, no, and asked
me very anxiously if I could tell him anything, I told him that I
thought it was so strongly turned towards peace, and he was so
anxious to relieve himself from the embarrassment in which he was
placed, that they might turn it to good account, if they were to
set about it.
September 13th, 1840 {p.307}
All last week at Doncaster; nothing new, but a considerable rise
in the funds, indicating a reviving confidence in peace. Have
seen nobody since I came back.
September 22nd, 1840 {p.307}
[Page Head: ALARM OF LORD MELBOURNE AND LORD JOHN.]
Came from Gorhambury yesterday. Got a letter from the Duke of
Bedford, in which he says, 'John has been here for the last week
and has spoken very freely and openly to me on the state of our
foreign relations. Matters are very serious, and may produce
events both at home and abroad which neither you nor I can
calculate upon. John is very uneasy and talks of going to town.
You are aware that he came up from Scotland unexpectedly. Between
ourselves, I think he is disposed to make a stand, and to act, if
occasion requires it, a great part--whether for good or evil, God
alone knows. Nobody, not even his colleagues, except Melbourne,
knows what is passing.' In a postscript he said that Lord John
had urged Melbourne to summon a Cabinet, and, accordingly, one is
summoned to meet next Monday. This is mysterious, but it can only
mean one thing. Lord John, already alarmed by Lord Spencer's
letter, and dreading the possibility of a war, is resolved to
oppose Palmerston's headlong policy, and, if it be necessary, to
risk a rupture in the Cabinet, and take upon himself the
administration of Foreign affairs. The Foreign Office was
originally that which he wished to have, and when Melbourne
returned to office, they proposed to Palmerston to take either
the Home or Colonial, but he would not hear of anything but the
Foreign department.
I talked over this letter with Clarendon last night (from whom I
have no secrets), and he, while fully agreeing in the propriety
of calling the Cabinet together, and making the future
transaction of foreign affairs a matter for the Government and
not for the Foreign Office only, and of course well disposed to
buckle on his armour on this question, acknowledged that
Palmerston would have very good reason to complain of any strong
opposition from that quarter, inasmuch as he had been all along
encouraged to proceed in his present line of policy by the
concurrence and support of John Russell, who was in fact just as
much responsible as Palmerston himself for the present state of
affairs.
The beginning of the business may be traced to a Cabinet held at
Windsor last autumn, when the general line of policy, since acted
upon by Palmerston, was settled. From that time, however, the
rest of the Ministers seem never to have interfered, or taken any
interest in the matter, and Palmerston conducted it all just as
he thought fit. This year Cabinet after Cabinet passed over, and
no mention was ever made of the affairs of the East, till one
day, at the end of a Cabinet, Palmerston, in the most easy
nonchalant way imaginable, said that he thought it right to
mention that he had been for a long time engaged in negotiation
upon the principles agreed upon at the Cabinet at Windsor, and
that he had drawn up a Treaty, with which it was fit the Cabinet
should be acquainted. At this sudden announcement his colleagues
looked very serious, but nobody said a word, except Lord Holland,
who said, 'that he could be no party to any measure which might
be likely to occasion a breach between this country and France.'
No discussion, however, took place at that time, and it was
agreed that the further consideration of the matter should be
postponed till the next Cabinet. The following day, Palmerston
wrote a letter to Melbourne, in which he said that he saw some
hesitation and some disapprobation in the Cabinet at the course
which he had recommended for adoption, and as he could only hope
to succeed by obtaining unanimous support, he thought it better
at once to place his office at Melbourne's disposal. Melbourne
wrote an answer begging he would not think of resigning, and
reminding him that the matter stood over for discussion, and then
sent the whole correspondence to Clarendon. Clarendon immediately
wrote word that he felt under so much obligation to Palmerston
that it was painful to him to oppose him; but as he could not
support him in his Eastern policy, it was much better that _he_
should resign, and begged Melbourne would accept _his_
resignation. Melbourne however said, 'For God's sake, let there
be no resignations at all,'[15] that his and Lord Holland's
retirement would have the effect of breaking up the Government;
and then it was suggested that they might guard themselves by a
minute of Cabinet (that which they subsequently drew up and gave
the Queen) from any participation in the measures they objected
to. After this, Palmerston continued to do just as he pleased,
his colleagues _consentientibus_ or at least _non
dissentientibus_, except Holland and Clarendon, with whom
nevertheless he seems (especially the latter) to have gone on
upon very good terms. Latterly, however, since the affair has got
so hot and critical, though their social relations have been
uninterrupted, and the Palmerstons have been constantly dining at
Holland House, Palmerston has never said one word to Lord Holland
on the subject, and he is unquestionably very sore at the
undisguised manner in which Lord Holland has signified his
dislike of Palmerston's foreign policy, and the great civilities
that Lord and Lady Holland have shown to Guizot for some time
past.
[15] I own I cannot see why. Their retirement would have
proved the unanimity of the rest, and would rather have
strengthened Palmerston than not.
The manner in which business is conducted and the independence of
the Foreign Office are curiously displayed by the following fact.
Last Wednesday a Protocol was signed (very proper in itself), in
which the four Powers disclaimed any intention of aggrandising
themselves in any way. The fact of this Protocol was told to
Clarendon by Dr. Bowring, who had heard it in the City, and to
Lord Holland by Dedel, neither of these Ministers having the
slightest notion of its existence. In the meantime, while the
apprehensions of Melbourne and John Russell, thus tardily
aroused, have urged them to the adoption of a measure which may
possibly break up the Government, or at all events bring about
some important changes of one sort or another, the French are
making vigorous preparations for war, and, having persuaded the
Pasha to send a new proposal to Constantinople, Thiers has
intimated that, if this be rejected, France will give him active
support, and then war will be inevitable. The crisis, therefore,
seems actually on the point of arriving, and while all the world
here fancies that war is impossible, it appears to be nearer than
ever it was.
Guizot committed a great _gaucherie_ the other day (the last time
he was at Windsor), which he never could have done if he had had
more experience of Courts, or been born and had lived in that
society. The first day, the Queen desired he would sit next to
her at dinner, which he did; the second day the Lord-in-waiting
(Headfort) came as usual with his list, and told Guizot he was to
take out the Queen of the Belgians, and sit somewhere else; when
he drew up and said, 'Milord, ma place est auprès de la Reine.'
Headfort, quite frightened, hastened back to report what had
happened; when the Queen as wisely altered, as the Ambassador had
foolishly objected to, the disposition of places, and desired him
to sit next herself, as he had done the day before.
September 23rd, 1840 {p.310}
[Page Head: DIFFERENCES IN THE CABINET.]
I called on Guizot yesterday morning, found him apprised of the
meeting of the Cabinet on Monday next, when I told him that I
could not help thinking he might materially contribute to the
adoption of some resolution conducive to peace, that I had no
doubt there would be very lively discussions at this Cabinet, and
it was of great importance he should, if he could, afford an
_appui_ to the peace party. He said he would willingly do
anything he could. I said, 'for example, could he say on the part
of his Government, that, in the event of the new terms proposed
by Mehemet Ali being accepted, France would guarantee their due
performance on the part of the Pasha, and that she would join in
coercive measures against him if he attempted to infringe them,
or commit any act of aggression against the Porte?' He said,
'that he was not _authorised_ to make such a declaration, but he
had no doubt he could engage so far, and that France would not
hesitate to pledge herself to join the other Allies and act
against Mehemet Ali in such a case as I had supposed.' I asked
him if he would write to his Government forthwith, as there was
still time to get an answer before the Cabinet met, and he
promised he would; but, he added, that with every desire to say
what might furnish an argument for those in the Cabinet who are
disposed to accept the proffered arrangement, he did not know how
to hold any communications--for with Palmerston he could not, and
Melbourne and John Russell were out of town. I told him, however,
that Lord John would be in town on Thursday, and he promised he
would call on him on Friday and talk to him; adding that he
thought the last time he saw him he was well disposed. I told him
that Lord John was not a man who said much, and that I could not
answer for his opinions, but that I was quite convinced
Palmerston would find some of his colleagues seriously alarmed,
and no longer disposed to submit quietly to whatever he might be
pleased to settle and to dictate. He asked me who were the
Ministers with the greatest influence, and whose opinions would
sway the Cabinet; and I told him Melbourne and John Russell,
without a doubt, and whatever they resolved upon, the rest would
agree to. But it is most extraordinary that while all reflecting
people are amazed at the Government being scattered all abroad at
such a momentous crisis, and instead of being collected together
for the purpose of considering in concert every measure that is
taken, as well as the whole course of policy, with any changes
and modifications that may be called for, the Ministers
themselves, such of them at least as are here, cannot discover
any occasion for any Cabinets or meetings, and seem to think it
quite natural and proper to leave the great question of peace or
war to be dealt with by Palmerston as a mere matter of official
routine. Lord Minto and Labouchere could not imagine why a
Cabinet was called, nor by whom, and Palmerston still less. The
day before the summons, he told Labouchere he might safely go
into the country, as there was no chance of a Cabinet; and now
Minto can only imagine that they are summoned to discuss the time
to be fixed for the prorogation or the meeting of Parliament.
September 26th, 1840 {p.310}
[Page Head: LORD JOHN CALLS A CABINET.]
On Wednesday I went to Woburn, and, as soon as I arrived, the
Duke carried me off to his room and told me everything that had
taken place, and the exact present posture of affairs. John
Russell has for some time past been impressed with the necessity
of bringing the Eastern Question to a settlement, to avert all
possibility of a war with France, and he has repeatedly urged
Melbourne in the strongest terms to do something to prevent the
danger into which the policy of the Treaty is hurrying us. None
of the Ministers, except Melbourne himself, and Palmerston, have
been apprised of these remonstrances, nor are any of them at this
moment aware of what has been and is passing. Palmerston has been
indignant at the opposition thus suddenly put forward by Lord
John, and complains (not, I think, without very good cause), that
after supporting and sanctioning his policy, and approving of the
Treaty, he abandons him midway, and refuses to give that policy a
fair trial. This he considers unjust and unreasonable, and it
must be owned he is entitled to complain. Lord John, however, as
far as I can learn, not very successfully justifies himself by
saying that it was one thing to defend _the treaty_, of which he
approved and does still, and another to approve _the measures_
which are apparently leading us into a war. Between the urgent
remonstrances of Lord John and the indignant complaints of
Palmerston, Melbourne has been at his wit's end. So melancholy a
picture of indecision, weakness, and pusillanimity as his conduct
has exhibited, I never heard of. The Queen is all this time in a
great state of nervousness and alarm, on account of Leopold;
terrified at Palmerston's audacity, amazed at his confidence, and
trembling lest her uncle should be exposed to all the dangers and
difficulties in which he would be placed by a war between his
niece and his father-in-law. All these sources of solicitude,
pressure from without, and doubt and hesitation within, have
raised that perplexity in Melbourne's mind which has robbed him
(as he told Lord John) of appetite and sleep. At length, after
going on in this way for some time, matters becoming so bad
between Palmerston and Lord John that Palmerston refused to have
any communication with him, Lord Spencer's letter, the continued
state of danger, and the prospect of some arrangement growing out
of the new propositions, made Lord John determine to take a
decided course, and he accordingly requested Melbourne to call a
Cabinet, which was done, and this important meeting is to take
place on Monday next. At this Cabinet, Lord John is prepared to
make a stand, and to propose that measures shall be taken for
bringing about a settlement on the basis of mutual concession,
and he is in fact disposed to accept the terms now offered by the
Pasha with the consent and by the advice of France. He
anticipates Palmerston's opposition to this, and his insisting
upon a continuance of our present course; but he is resolved in
such a case to bring matters to an issue, and if he is overruled
by a majority of the Cabinet, not only to resign, but to take a
decisive part in Parliament against Palmerston's policy, and to
do his utmost there, with the support which he expects to obtain,
to prevent a war. He is aware that his conduct might not only
break up the Whig Government and party, but that it may bring
about an entirely new arrangement and combination of parties, all
of which he is willing to encounter rather than the evils and
hazards of war. On the other hand, if Palmerston refuses to
accede to his terms, and if unsupported by the Cabinet he tenders
his resignation, Lord John is ready to urge its acceptance, and
himself to undertake the administration of our foreign affairs.
In short, he has made up his mind, and that so strongly, that I
do not think it possible he can fail either to carry his point or
to break up the Government, or at least bring about very material
changes in it.
Prepared as I was, by the Duke of Bedford's letter, for something
of this sort, I was not prepared for anything so strong and
decisive; and while I expressed my satisfaction at it, I did not
conceal my opinion that Lord John's course had not been at all
consistent, and that Palmerston, when the moment of discussion
came, would have a good case against his antagonist colleague.
While I was at Woburn, I had constant running talk about this
matter with the Duke, but not a word with Lord John, to whom I
never uttered, nor he to me.
Yesterday I returned to town, when I found that Lord John had
written both to Lord Holland and Clarendon, shortly, but saying
that he thought the new proposals made the matter stand very
differently. I dined at Holland House, where the Palmerstons
dined also. My own opinion from the first moment was, that
Palmerston never would agree to any arrangement, but I thought it
just possible, if he became impressed with the magnitude of the
danger, that he might anticipate Lord John, by himself suggesting
some attempt to profit by the disposition of the Pasha to make
concessions. But any such possibility was speedily dissipated, by
a conversation which I had with Lady Palmerston, who spoke with
the utmost bitterness and contempt of these proposals, as totally
out of the question, not worth a moment's attention, and such as
the other Powers would not listen to, even if we were disposed to
accept them; and that we were now bound to those Powers, and must
act in concert with them. She told me a great deal, which I knew
(from other sources) not to be true, about Metternich's
resolution not to make the slightest concession to France and the
Pasha; and her brother Frederic's strenuous advice and opinion to
that effect. She complained, and said that Frederic complained,
of the mischief which was done by Cabinets which only bred
difficulties, intrigues, and underhand proceedings, and plainly
intimated her opinion that all powers ought to be centred in, and
all action proceed from, the Foreign Office alone. I told her
that I could not see the proposals in the same light as she did,
that some mutual concessions in all affairs must be expected, and
that she was so accustomed to look at the matter only in a
diplomatic point of view that she was not sufficiently alive to
the storm of wrath and indignation which would burst upon the
Government, if war did ensue upon the rejection of such terms as
these, which, as far as I had been able to gather opinions,
appeared to moderate impartial men fair and reasonable in
themselves, and such as we might accept without dishonour. We had
a very long talk, which was principally of importance as showing
the state of her husband's mind, and I told Lord Holland
afterwards what I had said to her, at which he expressed great
satisfaction. I found afterwards that there has been a
correspondence between Palmerston and Holland, begun by the
former, and the object of it to vent his complaints at the
undisguised hostility of Holland House to the Treaty and its
policy. It ended by Holland's refusing to continue it, and
referring Palmerston to the Cabinet on Monday, when the whole
question would come under consideration.
[Page Head: COUNT WALEWSKI'S MISSION TO EGYPT.]
This morning I received a note from Guizot, begging I would call
on him as soon as I could. I went almost directly, when he
produced a letter from Thiers, in which he desired Guizot to go
immediately to Palmerston, and in the most formal and solemn
manner to deny, in his name and in the name of France, that the
mission of Walewski[16] had had any such object as that which had
been imputed to it; that he had not endeavoured to persuade the
Pasha not to accede to the terms imposed upon him, and that if he
was disposed to accept them, 'La France ne se montrerait pas plus
ambitieuse pour lui qu'il ne l'était pour lui-même,' and would
certainly not interfere to prevent the execution of the Treaty.
Moreover, he was to say that Walewski had not gone to
Constantinople as the agent of the Pasha, but only to convey to
M. de Pontois the intelligence of the communication which the
Pasha had made to the Sultan through Rifat Bey, Rifat Bey having
been despatched on the 6th with a very submissive letter from
Mehemet Ali to the Sultan, in which he asked him to grant certain
terms, the substance of which has been already made known. Guizot
then said that he had likewise received authority to declare that
if the Sultan accepted the terms proposed by Mehemet Ali, or even
some modification of them (such as France could approve of), with
the consent and concurrence of his Allies, and if he invited
France to be a party to the new arrangement, and to join in
guaranteeing a due execution of its provisions, France would
accept such invitation, and would join the other Allies in
compelling Mehemet Ali to a strict observance of the arrangement,
and would, if necessary, use measures of coercion and hostility
against him if he failed in a due performance, or infringed the
limits assigned to him. I told M. Guizot that nothing could be
more satisfactory than these communications, and he said that he
had already asked for an interview with Palmerston, in order to
impart the same to him. He then wanted to know if he might speak
to Lord John if he met him at Holland House or elsewhere; but I
advised him not, and told him that Palmerston was suspicious and
jealous, and would take umbrage at any of his colleagues holding
communications upon affairs which were his peculiar concern. He
acquiesced altogether, and it was agreed that I should call on
him to-morrow morning and hear what had passed between Palmerston
and him. I took the opportunity of telling him on that occasion
that the great evil, and that which rendered all negotiation and
arrangement so difficult, was the absence of all reciprocal
confidence, that we had none in his Minister (Thiers), and that
the national pride and vanity (of which we, like themselves, had
a share) were wounded by the ostentatious preparations for war,
and the menacing and blustering tone of the press. He
acknowledged these evils and their bad effects, and only shrugged
up his shoulders at what I said about Thiers, of whom he has no
good opinion himself, as is well known.
[16] [Count Walewski had been despatched to Alexandria with
a mission from M. Thiers, and one of the grievances of
Lord Palmerston against France was that this emissary
was supposed to have been sent either to encourage
Mehemet Ali in his resistance to the Allied Powers, or
to negotiate a separate arrangement between the Pasha
and the Sultan, under the auspices of France, so as to
cut the ground from under the other Powers. This M.
Thiers stoutly denied in his correspondence, and he
denied it to me with equal energy when I dined with him
at Auteuil on October 8.]
When I left him, I wrote a long letter to the Duke of Bedford,
detailing all that had passed, and as I cannot now doubt that
Lord John knows his brother communicates with me, and it was of
importance that he should be apprised immediately of what had
passed, I resolved to send him my letter to read, and desired him
to forward it to Woburn. He afterwards dined with me, and when he
came to dinner, he said he had read my letter, and that it was
very important.
September 27th, 1840 {p.317}
[Page Head: CONCILIATORY PROPOSALS.]
Went to Guizot, who began by telling me he had been with
Palmerston yesterday, who had acknowledged _très loyalement_ that
there was not and could not be any truth in the report (about
Walewski), said his manner to him (as it had always been) was
excellent. Guizot then complained of the facility with which he
gave ear to reports like these and to all that was said against
France; but he left him well enough satisfied with his reception.
He then asked in what state the question was, and I told him that
it was in such a state that I had no hesitation in saying war was
impossible, and that if the 'transaction' was such as we could in
honour accept, we should accept it; that the best thing to be
hoped was, that Palmerston would make up his mind to a
'_transaction_' in the Cabinet, and would himself take the
initiative; but that at all events there were others who were
resolved not to pursue any longer this course of policy, and that
if he was inexorable it must end in his resignation.
Before I went to Guizot I saw Clarendon, who had had a good deal
of talk with Lord John, who spoke to him just in the strain which
the Duke of Bedford had already described to me. Melbourne is to
be in town to-day, and what Lord John expected and hoped was,
that he would be able to persuade Palmerston to give way, and
himself propose to acquiesce in Mehemet Ali's proposals. In that
case, Lord John said, he should not say a word. If Palmerston
would not do so, then it would be for him to take his own course,
and he and Clarendon have both agreed to resign if they should be
overruled; and the latter said he thought he could answer for
Lord Holland doing the same. While returning home I was overtaken
by Palmerston, who was on his way to Lord John's house; and they
are now closeted together, so that at least they will have it all
out before the Cabinet to-morrow. Guizot gave me a copy of
Cochelet's despatch, with an account of what had passed between
Mehemet Ali, himself, Walewski, and the four Consuls-General,
which ended in the transmission of his new proposal to the Porte.
September 28th, 1840 {p.318}
Lord John and Palmerston had a long conversation, amicable enough
in tone, but unsatisfactory in result. However, Lord John did not
appear to be shaken in his determination, but rather inclined to
an opinion that Palmerston would himself be disposed to give way.
Any such expectation ought to have been dissipated by a letter
which Lord John received meanwhile from Palmerston, in which he
talked with his usual confidence and levity of 'the certainty of
success,' the 'hopeless condition of the Pasha,' and the facility
with which the Treaty would be carried into effect.[17]
[17] Everything turned out according to his anticipations.
[Page Head: LORD PALMERSTON'S RESOLUTION.]
In the morning, after I had been with Guizot (and after
Palmerston's interview with Lord John), he went to Palmerston and
communicated fully the offer of France, saying he would not enter
into the details of the question, but he could not help reminding
him of the failure of so many of his confident expectations.
Palmerston said that there would be no sort of difficulty in
enforcing the Treaty, and that then France might join if she
pleased. Guizot replied that this was out of the question, that
France was now ready to join in a transaction fair and honourable
to both parties, but she would not stand by, see the question
settled without her, and then come in to bolster up an arrangement
made by others, and with which she had no concern. In the evening
he went to Holland House, where he told Melbourne what he had
communicated to Palmerston; found him in a satisfactory
disposition, but Melbourne said that there was a danger greatly to
be feared, and that was, that our ambassador at Constantinople,
who was very violent against Mehemet Ali, and not afraid of war,
might and probably would urge the immediate rejection of the
Pacha's proposal and every sort of violent measure.[18] Guizot,
naturally enough, expressed (to me) his astonishment that the
Prime Minister should hold such language, and that, if he had an
ambassador who was likely to act in such a manner so much at
variance with his political views, he did not recall him or
supersede him by a special mission. This, however, was very
characteristic of Melbourne; and I told Clarendon, urging him to
insist that some positive understanding should be come to, upon
the conduct to be adopted by Ponsonby. There can be no doubt that
Palmerston and Ponsonby between them will do all they can to
embroil matters, and to make a _transaction_ impossible, and
Palmerston writes just what he pleases without any of his
colleagues having the least idea what he says. The result of the
whole then is, that the Cabinet meet at three to-day, and that
Lord John will have to stand forth in opposition to Palmerston's
policy, and to propose the adoption of measures leading to an
amicable arrangement. A few hours will show how the rest are
disposed to take it.
[18] As he did.
CHAPTER IX.
The Cabinet meets--The Government on the verge of Dissolution--
The Second Cabinet--Palmerston lowers his Tone in the Cabinet--
But continues to bully in the Press--Taking of Beyrout--
Deposition of Mehemet Ali--Lord John acquiesces--Total Defeat
of Peace Party--Lord John Russell's False Position--His Views--
Lord Granville's Dissatisfaction--Further Attempts at
Conciliation--Prevarication of Lord Ponsonby--Newspaper
Hostilities--Discussion of the French Note of the 8th October--
Guizot's Opinion of the Note of the 8th October--Louis
Philippe's Influence on the Crisis--Summary of Events--Death of
Lord Holland--Lord Clarendon's Regret for Lord Holland--M.
Guizot's Intentions as to France--Effects of the Queen's
Partiality for Melbourne--Resignation to Thiers--Bickerings in
the Ministry--Lord John Russell's Dissatisfaction with Lord
Palmerston--Lord John resigns--Lord John demands the Recall of
Lord Ponsonby--Lord Palmerston defends Lord Ponsonby--M.
Guizot's Policy--Conciliatory Propositions fail--Attitude of
Austria--Asperity of Lord Palmerston--Operations in Syria--
Success of Lord Palmerston and his Policy--Baron Mounier's
Mission to London--Birth of the Princess Royal--Results of the
Success of Lord Palmerston's Measures--The Tories divided in
Opinion as to the Treaty--Retrospect of the Year--Lord Holland.
September 29th, 1840: Wednesday {p.320}
[Page Head: A CABINET ON THE EASTERN QUESTION.]
The Cabinet met on Monday evening and sat till seven o'clock. The
account of the proceedings which has reached me is to the last
degree amusing, but at the same time _pitoyable_. It must have
been _à payer les places_ to see. They met, and as if all were
conscious of something unpleasant in prospect, and all shy, there
was for some time a dead silence. At length Melbourne, trying to
shuffle off the discussion, but aware that he must say something,
began: 'We must consider about the time to which Parliament
should be prorogued.' Upon this Lord John took it up and said, 'I
presume we must consider whether Parliament should be called
together or not, because, as matters are now going on, it seems
to me that we may at any moment find ourselves at war, and it is
high time to consider the very serious state of affairs. I should
like,' he added, turning to Melbourne, 'to know what is your
opinion upon the subject.' Nothing, however, could be got from
Melbourne, and there was another long pause, which was not broken
till somebody asked Palmerston, 'What are your last accounts?' On
this Palmerston pulled out of his pocket a whole parcel of
letters and reports from Ponsonby, Hodges, and others, and began
reading them through, in the middle of which operation someone
happened to look up, and perceived Melbourne fast asleep in his
armchair. At length Palmerston got through his papers, when there
was another pause; and at last Lord John, finding that Melbourne
would not take the lead or say a word, went at once into the
whole subject. He stated both sides of the case with great
precision, and in an admirable, though very artful speech, a
statement which, if elaborated into a Parliamentary speech and
completed as it would be in the House of Commons, was calculated
to produce the greatest effect. He delivered this, speaking for
about a quarter of an hour, and then threw himself back in his
chair, waiting for what anybody else would say. After some little
talk, Palmerston delivered his sentiments the other way, made a
violent philippic against France, talked of her weakness and want
of preparation, of the union of all the Powers of Europe against
her, said that Prussia had 200,000 men on the Rhine, and (as Lord
Holland said) exhibited all the violence of '93. Lord John was
then asked, since such were his opinions, what course he would
advise? He said he had formed his opinion as to what it would be
advisable to do, and he produced a slip of paper on which he had
written two or three things. The first was, that we should
immediately make a communication to the French Government,
expressing our thanks for the efforts France had made to induce
the Pasha to make concessions for the purpose of bringing about a
settlement; and next, to call together the Ministers of the other
Powers, and express to them our opinion that it would be
desirable to re-open negotiations for a settlement of the dispute
in consequence of the effects produced by the mediation of
France. There then ensued a good deal of talk (in which, however,
the Prime Minister took no part), Lord Minto espousing
Palmerston's side, and saying (which was true enough), that
though Lord Holland and Clarendon, who had all along opposed the
Treaty, might very consistently take this course, he did not see
how any of those could do so who had originally supported and
approved of it; to which Lord John quietly and briefly said, 'The
events at Alexandria have made all the difference.' This was in
fact no answer; and Minto was quite right, especially as Lord
John had taken his line before the events at Alexandria were
known. Of the Ministers present besides Minto, Macaulay seemed
rather disposed to go with Palmerston, and talked blusteringly
about France, as he probably thought a Secretary of War should.
Labouchere was first one way and then the other, and neither the
Chancellor nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer said one word. The
result was an agreement, that it would be disrespectful to Lord
Lansdowne, considering his position, to come to any resolution in
his absence; and as he could not arrive before this day, that the
discussion should be adjourned till Thursday (to-morrow) by which
time he and Morpeth would be here. They were all to dine with
Palmerston, and a queer dinner it must have been.
October 1st, 1840 {p.322}
[Page Head: LORD JOHN'S PACIFIC SENTIMENTS.]
No progress made, everything _in statu quo_. The dinner at
Palmerston's on Monday after the Cabinet, went off well enough.
In the evening Clarendon had a long conversation with Lady
Palmerston, who repeated to him everything she had said to me,
and seemed confident enough that Palmerston would carry his point
at last. He told her, however, that if he persisted, the
Government must be broken up, as at least half a dozen would
resign, and that she must be aware Government could not go on if
either Palmerston or John Russell resigned (putting in Palmerston
out of civility). He thought he had made some impression on her.
The next day they all dined at Holland House. There he had again
some talk with Palmerston himself, amicable enough, but leading
to nothing; to what Clarendon said about breaking up the
Government, Palmerston did not reply a word. Afterwards
Palmerston had a long talk with Lord Holland, but not
satisfactory. Morpeth has arrived, and naturally enough was
extremely embarrassed. He had supported Palmerston originally,
and was not aware of any impending change of policy, or any
change in anybody's opinion, and he felt that it was an
extraordinary whisk round. Melbourne, of course, hopped off to
Windsor the moment the Cabinet was over, and instead of remaining
here, trying to conciliate people and arrange matters, he left
everything to shift for itself. Having shown the Queen a letter
of John Russell's, which she was not intended to see, he sent to
Lord John a letter of hers, which probably she did not mean him
to see either. She said, among other things, that she thought it
was rather hard that Lord Palmerston and Lord John could not
settle these matters amicably, without introducing their own
personal objects, and raising such difficulties. She added one
thing in her letter which may lead to some important
consequences. She said that it was her wish that some attempt
should be made to open communications with the French Government.
If Palmerston chooses to give way, he may make her wishes the
pretext for doing so, and yield to them what he refuses to
everybody else.
I saw Guizot, who showed me a letter he had written to Thiers,
telling him as far as he knew how matters stood, of the
difficulties there were, and entreating him to moderate the
French press. He also showed me a note from John Russell, in
which, after thanking him for not speaking to him at Holland
House, as it was better he should only talk to Palmerston or
Melbourne, he added that he begged he would not consider that the
articles which had lately appeared in the 'Morning Chronicle' and
'Observer' were approved of by the Government, and repudiated any
connexion or concurrence with them. He had pronounced in the
Cabinet a violent philippic against the newspapers, which was
entirely directed at Palmerston, who, he knows very well, writes
constantly in them, and Guizot knows this also. Guizot,
therefore, if he had any doubt before of Lord John's sentiments,
can have none now. An article appeared in the 'Times' on Tuesday
strongly in favour of peace and harmony with France and the
acceptance of the Pasha's offers. Guizot, of course, was
delighted with it; but I found it had taken in other quarters,
for Dedel asked me if I had read it, and said it was the true
view of the question, and Ben Stanley said the same thing to me
at dinner, and that he had found at Manchester and elsewhere a
strong public opinion, of which he was sure Palmerston was not
aware, and would not believe in if told. Dedel showed me a letter
from Fagel, giving an account of a conversation he had with Louis
Philippe, in which the King disclaimed any ambitious design or
desire for war, but said he was determined to put France in a
respectable state of preparation; very firm language. Dedel had
been at Peel's, but got nothing out of him except that he did not
know whether he should have made such a treaty, but as it was
made we ought to abide by it. The Tories will turn this business
to good account, end as it may; they have _beau jeu_. But what
Neumann said to Dedel is anything but confirmatory of
Palmerston's stories of Austrian _stoutness_, for he told him it
would be a very fortunate thing if the Sultan would accept
Mehemet Ali's new proposals.[1]
[1] [M. Neumann was the Austrian Minister in London; M.
Fagel the Dutch Minister in Paris.]
[Page Head: PRINCE METTERNICH'S SUGGESTION.]
_Evening_.--The Cabinet went off far better than could have been
expected; indeed, as well as possible under all the
circumstances. Lord John had previously intimated to Melbourne
that he should expect him to take the lead upon this occasion,
and it seems pretty clear that Melbourne had contrived to effect
some arrangement with Palmerston. Accordingly Melbourne (very
nervous) began, said that the question was in the same state as
when they last met, pronounced a few commonplaces, such as that
the success or failure of the coercive means might by this time
have been proved, only they could not yet know the event, but
ended with referring to a paper delivered some time ago by
Metternich, in which he had made certain contingent suggestions,
of which the last and most important was, that in the event of
'inefficacité des moyens' becoming apparent some communication
should be made to France for the purpose of drawing her again
into the alliance (or something to that effect; I cannot
recollect the exact words, but it was a peg on which a
communication might be hung), and asking Palmerston if he had not
got this paper.[2] Palmerston pulled it, all cut and dry, out of
his pocket and read it. A good deal of talk then ensued, and some
doubts and suspicions were expressed about France, which drew out
Lord Holland, who said, 'For God's sake, if you are so full of
distrust of France, if you suspect all her acts and all her
words, put the worst construction on all she does, and are
resolved to be on bad terms with her, call Parliament together,
ask for men and money, and fight it out with her manfully. Do
this or meet her in a friendly and conciliatory spirit, and cast
aside all those suspicions which make such bad blood between the
two countries.' This appeal (of which I only give the spirit) was
very well received, and, after some more talk, Palmerston said
that though he was still convinced success would crown the
efforts now making in the East, and that it was unnecessary to
take any other step, yet, if it was the wish and opinion of the
Cabinet that some communication should be made to France, he was
ready to make it. This was, of course, very well taken, and was a
prodigious concession and change from his former tone. A great
deal more discussion then ensued, and the result was that
Palmerston is to see the Ministers of the Conference, either
separately or together, to-morrow, and to propose to them that he
should make a communication to France on the basis of
Metternich's suggestion. There can be no doubt of Neumann's
acquiescence, and the Prussian will go with the Austrian; the
only doubt is Brunnow. They all agreed that nothing could be done
but with the common consent of all, and as Russia has behaved
exceedingly well since the signature of the Treaty, it would be
wholly unjustifiable not to treat her with perfect good faith and
every sort of consideration. If Brunnow objects, and will not
consent to the communication being made, another Cabinet is to be
summoned to-morrow afternoon; if he acquiesces, Palmerston is to
speak to Guizot immediately. If Brunnow is not consenting,
Palmerston will equally speak to Guizot, but, instead of making a
proposition, will say that Brunnow will apply for instructions,
and that we have requested him to do so, to enable us, with the
consent of all the three parties to the treaty, to make the
communication to France. Such is the substance and result of this
important Cabinet, which I have very roughly and imperfectly put
down, and I am conscious that I have forgotten some of the
details which reached me; however, I have preserved the essential
parts. Lord John (to whom it is all due) said very little,
Lansdowne not much; Hobhouse was talkative, but nobody listened
to him; Melbourne, when it was over, swaggering like any Bobadil,
and talking about 'fellows being frightened at their own
shadows,' and a deal of bravery when he began to breathe freely
from the danger.
[2] Metternich's paper was a suggestion which he put into
the mouth of the French Minister, and which he gave
Leopold, who sent it here. He said, 'If I were the
French Minister, I would say so and so,' to the effect
that if the means of coercion did not prove
efficacious, the Allies had better consider the matter
afresh in conjunction with France, who would assist in
settling it.
October 2nd, 1840 {p.326}
Last night it was decided that Palmerston should call the
Conference together, and propose to them to make a conciliatory
advance to France. All Europe is looking with anxiety for the
result of the Cabinet held yesterday; and this morning the
'Morning Chronicle' puts forth an article having every appearance
of being written by Palmerston himself (as I have no doubt it
was), most violent, declamatory, and insulting to France.
October 4th, 1840 {p.326}
[Page Head: LORD PALMERSTON DEFEATS CONCILIATION.]
I was obliged to break off, and now resume the narrative. It was
resolved at the Cabinet that Palmerston should summon the
Ministers of the Conference and ask their consent to his making
_some communication_ to Guizot. The Austrian and the Prussian
said they would consent to whatever Brunnow agreed to. Brunnow
said he could say nothing till he had consulted his Court; and he
added that England could do what she pleased, but that he would
not conceal from Palmerston that the Emperor would be exceedingly
hurt if any step of the kind was taken without his knowledge or
consent.[4] On this the Cabinet again met on Friday afternoon to
hear the report; but it must have been clear enough what the
result of Palmerston's interview with the Ministers would be,
after the appearance of the article in the 'Chronicle.' I made
the Duke of Bedford go to Lord John and tell him this ought not
to be endured; and that if I were he I would not sit for one hour
in the Cabinet with a man who could agree to take a certain line
(with his colleagues) over night, and publish a furious attack
upon the same the next morning. Lord John said he had already
written to Melbourne about it, that Palmerston had positively
denied having anything to do with the 'Morning Chronicle,' and he
did not see what more he could do; but he owned that all his
confidence in him was gone.
[4] [It is obvious that when Lord Palmerston agreed to make
a conciliatory overture to France, in order to allay
the storm in the Cabinet, and prevent the threatened
dissolution of the Ministry, he was perfectly aware
that Brunnow and the Emperor of Russia would not concur
in the proposal, or would, at least, delay it so long
that it would be useless. Moreover, Lord Palmerston
confidently relied, and in this it turned out he was
right, on the success of his naval measures against the
Pasha, and of the Pasha's inability to resist them. It
was this prompt success--prompt beyond all conception
and belief--that averted the catastrophe of a
dissolution of the Ministry or a breach with France.]
I received a note in the morning from Guizot desiring to see me,
and I went. I told him that the article was abominable, but that
so far from its being a true exposition of the intentions of the
Cabinet, they had resolved upon the attempt at conciliation which
Palmerston had himself agreed to make. I begged him to make
allowance for the difficulties of the case, and be contented with
a small advance; and I told him that the Cabinet were unanimously
agreed upon the necessity of adhering to their engagements with
their Allies, and at the same time endeavouring to bring about a
_rapprochement_ to France. He promised to make the best of it
with his Government, and, making them comprehend that there was a
strong peace party in the Cabinet, work in conjunction with that
party here to keep matters quiet.
In the morning I went to Claremont for a Council, where the
principal Ministers met; and after the Council they held a
Cabinet in Melbourne's bed-room. It was not, however, till this
morning that I knew the subject of their discussion. On arriving
in town, indeed, I heard that Beyrout had been bombarded and
taken by the English fleet, and a body of Turkish troops been
landed; but this was not known at Claremont, and not believed in
London. Before I was dressed, however, this morning, Guizot
arrived at my house in a great state of excitement, said it was
useless our attempting to manage matters in the sense of peace
here while Ponsonby was driving them to extremities at
Constantinople, and causing the Treaty to be executed _à
l'outrance_. He then produced his whole budget of intelligence,
being the bombardment of Beyrout, the landing of 12,000 Turks,
and the deposition of Mehemet Ali and appointment of Izzar Pasha
to succeed him. He also showed me a letter from Thiers in which
he told him of all this, said he would not answer for what might
come of it, that he had had one meeting of the Cabinet and should
have another; but Guizot said he thought he would very likely end
by convoking the Chambers.
I went immediately to John Russell and told him what a state
Guizot was in, and showed him the papers. He said they were aware
yesterday of the Constantinople news; that on receiving the
propositions of the Pasha by Rifat Bey, the Conference,
considering them as a refusal, had immediately proposed to
Redschid Pasha to pronounce his deposition;[5] he agreed, and
proposed to name a successor; they objected to this, but
ultimately consented to the appointment of a provisional
successor in the person of the Seraskier commanding the Turkish
troops in Syria; that it was not intended really to deprive
Mehemet Ali of Egypt, and the sentence of deposition was only
fulminated as a means of intimidation, and to further the object
of the treaty; Palmerston wrote to Lord Granville, and desired
him to make an immediate communication to Thiers to this effect.
Lord John admitted that it was all very bad, but seemed to think
he could do nothing more, and that nothing was left but to wait
and to preach patience. I went from him to Guizot, and told him
what had passed; but he said, with truth, that this resolution to
drive matters to extremity, and to go even beyond the Treaty,
made it very difficult to do any good here, and that the public
would not be able to draw those fine diplomatic lines and
comprehend the difference between a provisional and an actual
successor to Mehemet Ali. He was going to Palmerston, and I told
him Palmerston would no doubt tell him what had been conveyed to
Lord Granville.
[5] [The Conference of the Ambassadors of the Four Powers
at Constantinople, in which Lord Ponsonby played the
most prominent part, and laboured to drive matters to
the last extremity.]
[Page Head: LORD HOLLAND'S VIEW OF THE CASE.]
I then went to Holland House, found Lord Holland alone, and he
entered fully, and without reserve, into the whole question. From
him I learned that Metternich has expressed his strong
disapprobation of the violent steps that have been taken, and
that he wrote as much to Stürmer. Holland seemed to think that
there had been a great difference of opinion among the Ministers
of the Conference at Constantinople, but that Ponsonby had
ultimately prevailed in persuading them to depose the Pasha; that
he had concealed the fact of the division of opinion which had
been revealed here by Lord Beauvale's letter from Vienna. Lord
Holland went over the whole case, and told me everything that had
occurred in great detail, the whole, or certainly the greatest
part, of which I was already apprised of. Just now I saw Dedel,
who told me again that Neumann had said to him, 'Plût à Dieu que
le Sultan acceptât les dernières propositions de Mehemet Ali, car
cela nous tirerait d'un grand embarras.' Neumann is a time-
serving dog, for he holds quite different language to the
Palmerstons, and to them complains of Holland House, and talks of
firmness, resolution, &c.
October 7th, 1840 {p.329}
Dined at Holland House on Sunday. Palmerstons, John Russell, and
Morpeth, all very merry, with sundry jokes about Beyrout, and
what not. At night Lady Holland was plaintive to Palmerston about
an article in the 'Examiner,' in which Fonblanque had said
something about Holland House taking a part against the foreign
policy, and they talked together amicably enough. Lady Palmerston
and I had another colloquy, much the same as before. I told her
what Neumann had said, but nothing would make her believe it.
They have a marvellous facility in believing anything they wish,
and disbelieving whatever they don't like. In fact, Lord John
evidently has completely knocked under; he is unprepared to do
anything more, and so ready now to go on that he had himself
proposed to Palmerston that Stopford should be ordered to attack
Acre. Of course, Palmerston desired no better; and it seems to
have been agreed that conditional orders shall be sent to him--
that is, he is to attack if he is strong enough, and the season
is not too far advanced.
[Page Head: LORD PALMERSTON TRIUMPHS.]
I dined again to-day at Holland House, and in the evening Guizot
came. He told me that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than
his interview with Palmerston; very civil to himself personally
as he always was, but 'de Ministre à Ministre' as bad as
possible. He had told him of the communication Lord Granville was
desired to make to Thiers, but had not said one syllable of the
disposition of the Cabinet to make an overture, nor held out the
slightest expectation of the possibility of any modification.
Guizot repeated how much he is alarmed, and talked of the
probability of war. It is now quite clear that Palmerston has
completely gained his point. The peace party in the Cabinet are
silenced, their efforts paralysed. In fact, Palmerston has
triumphed, and Lord John succumbed. The Cabinet are again
dispersed, Palmerston reigns without let or hindrance at the
Foreign Office. No attempt is made to conciliate France; the war
on the coast of Syria will go on with redoubled vigour; Ponsonby
will urge matters to the last extremities at Constantinople; and
there is no longer a possibility of saying or doing any one
thing, for the whole question of reconciliation has been suffered
to rest upon the result of a communication which Brunnow
undertook to make to his Court, to which no answer can be
received for several weeks, and none definite will probably ever
be received at all. Palmerston's policy, therefore, will receive
a complete trial, and its full and unimpeded development, and
even those of his colleagues who are most opposed to it, and who
are destitute of all confidence in him, are compelled to go along
with him his whole length, share all his responsibility, and
will, after all, very likely be obliged to combat in Parliament
the very same arguments that they have employed in the Cabinet,
and _vice versâ_.
Lord John has disappointed me; and when I contrast the vigour of
his original resolutions with the feebleness of his subsequent
efforts, the tameness with which he has submitted to be overruled
and thwarted, and to endure the treachery, and almost the insult
of Palmerston's newspaper tricks, I am bound to acknowledge that
he is not the man I took him for. The fact is, that his position
has been one of the greatest embarrassment--but of embarrassment
of his own making. He consented to the Treaty of July, without
due consideration of the consequences it was almost sure to
entail. When those consequences burst upon him in a very
dangerous and alarming shape, he seems suddenly to have awakened
from his dream of security, and to have bestirred himself to
avert the impending evils; but while the magnitude of the peril
pressed him on one side, on the other he was hampered by the
consciousness of his own inconsistency, and that he could not do
anything without giving Palmerston a good case against him. And
when at last he did resolve to take a decisive step, he never
calculated upon the means at his disposal to bring about the
change of policy which he advocated. He moved, accordingly, like
a man in chains. He distrusted Palmerston, and did not dare tell
him so; Melbourne would not help him; he dreaded a breach partly
official, partly domestic, with Palmerston, and only thought of
keeping the rickety machine of Government together as long as
possible, by any means he could, and was content to leave the
issues of peace or war to the chapter of accidents. The rest of
the Cabinet seem to have been pretty evenly balanced, feeling (as
was very natural) that they had no good case for opposing
Palmerston, conscious that Lord John's alarms were not without
foundation, and that his position gave him a right to take a
decisive lead in the Cabinet; still they were not inclined to act
cordially and decisively with him, and hence vacillation and
uncertainty in their councils. Palmerston alone was resolute;
entrenched in a strong position, with unity and determination of
purpose, quite unscrupulous, very artful, and in possession of
the Foreign Office, and therefore able to communicate in whatever
manner and with whomsoever he pleased, and to give exactly the
turn he chose to any negotiation or communication, without the
possibility of being controlled by any of his colleagues. From
the beginning, Lord John seems never to have seen his way
clearly, or to have been able to make up his mind how to act. My
own opinion is, that if there had been a will, there might have
been found a way, to do something; but Palmerston had no such
will. On the contrary, he was resolved to defeat the intentions
of his colleagues, and he has effectually done so.
October 8th, 1840 {p.332}
[Page Head: LORD JOHN'S LAST EFFORT.]
Lord John Russell called on me yesterday morning, more to talk
the matter over than for any particular purpose. He was, as
usual, very calm about it all. I told him all I thought, and
asked him why Guizot's offer had not been made use of; when he
said that it had been considered, but for three reasons, which he
gave me, it had been judged impossible to make it the foundation
of a communication, and that Metternich's paper had been taken
instead. Two of the reasons were, 1st. That the Viceroy's offers
would probably have been already rejected at Constantinople;
2ndly. That the insurrection in Syria would have been organised,
and it might entail consequences on the Syrians that it would be
unjust to expose them to; 3rdly. The necessity of the previous
concurrence of the Allies. They all seemed to me very bad
reasons.
I told him that Palmerston had gained his point, and that the
whole thing turned upon the success of the insurrection. He
admitted that it did, and stated the grounds there were for
hoping that it would succeed. He owned to me that his reason for
consenting to the Treaty was the refusal of France to join in
coercive measures; which I told him was in my opinion the strong
point of Palmerston's case. The fact is, the offer of France is
come too late; the machine has been set in motion, and now there
is no stopping it. But I shall ever think that if the advances of
France had been met in another way, much might have been done.
Lord John said the Queen had talked to him, and had expressed her
anxiety for some settlement, but at the same time was quite
determined to make no unworthy concession.
My brother writes me word that Lord Granville is so disgusted at
his position, and at being kept entirely in the dark as to the
real position of affairs, that he is seriously thinking of
resigning. Bulwer[6] has, however, done his utmost to prevent
him, and advised him to write instead and earnestly recommend
that, if they meditate any change, whatever they mean to do
should be done immediately.
[6] [Mr. Henry Bulwer (afterwards Lord Dalling) was at that
time First Secretary of the Embassy in Paris, and an
ardent supporter of Lord Palmerston's policy--much more
so than the Ambassador, Lord Granville.]
I went to Lord John this morning, and read to him my brother
Henry's letter. He is alarmed, and says that no doubt much might
have been done in the way of conciliation that has not been done;
admits that Palmerston (through whom everything must necessarily
pass) will do nothing; and that the fact is he does not believe
in war, and does not care if it happens. He showed me a paper he
wrote with the project of making certain tranquillising
communications to the French Government; one of which was, that
if the Allies resolved to attack Egypt, they would first give
notice to France and try and arrange matters with her. The
Emperor of Russia, it appears, is all for attacking Egypt; but no
intention exists of taking Egypt from the Pasha in any case. I
told him again that I thought an opportunity had been lost of
responding to the last offer of France in a conciliatory way, and
Lord John said he thought so too; he had written a paper on the
subject, showed it to Melbourne--who highly approved of it, left
it with him, never heard more about it, and nothing was done.
Palmerston's extinguisher was, of course, put upon it. Lord John
said he was tired of attempting to do anything; and he now
appears to have resolved to wait patiently, and meet his destiny
with the stoical resignation of a Turk.
October 9th, 1840 {p.332}
Everything looking black these last two days, funds falling, and
general alarm. Lord Granville has written to Palmerston both
publicly and privately; in the former enforcing the necessity of
some speedy arrangement, if any there is to be; in the latter
remonstrating upon his own situation _vis-à-vis_ of the
Government. Lord John has again screwed his courage up to summon
the Cabinet, with the determination of making another attempt at
accommodation with France. He proposed this to Melbourne, who
said 'it was too late.' This is what he always does: entreats
people to _wait_ when they first want to move, and then when they
have waited, and will wait no longer, he says, 'it is too late.'
Lord John's design is to have a despatch written to Granville,
with which he is to go to Thiers, inviting a frank explanation
_de part et d'autre_, asking what France desires and expects,
saying what England intends and does not intend, entering into
the position in which all parties are placed, and expressing a
readiness to conciliate France in any way that we honourably and
consistently can, communicating to our Allies exactly what we
say.
[Page Head: NOTE FROM THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT.]
But what he would principally desire, and I perceive will not be
able to effect, is the supersession in some shape of Lord
Ponsonby, against whom grave charges do certainly lie. The other
day (the day before the Council at Claremont), Palmerston
produced at the Cabinet Ponsonby's despatch announcing the
deposition of Mehemet Ali, which he read aloud. Melbourne asked
if there was not something said indicative of some differences of
opinion among the Ambassadors (probably something grave struck
him), to which Palmerston responded that there was nothing. The
next day Beauvale's despatch arrived with the report of the
Austrian Internuncio to Metternich, who said that Ponsonby had
assembled the Ministers at his house on Rifat Bey's arrival, and
proposed the immediate _déchéance_ of the Pasha, to which he had
made no objection, but that his Russian colleague had objected.
His objections were, however, overruled by Ponsonby, who had
taken upon himself to say that he would make England responsible
for the whole and sole execution of the sentence of deposition.
Nothing of this was hinted in Ponsonby's own despatch, and the
false account therefore which it conveyed of what had passed
raised a general and strong feeling of indignation.
In the afternoon I saw Guizot, whom I found very reasonable, full
of regret for the violence at Paris, and admitting that it was
not only mad but ridiculous; said he had urged as forcibly as he
could that they should do nothing for several days, and pay no
attention to any events that might occur on the Syrian coast;
that he had written to the Duc de Broglie and entreated him to
exert all his influence to keep matters quiet; and then he said
that he still did not despair of peace if we would only do
_something_ to pacify and conciliate France; that _some_
concession in return for hers she must have, and without which
her Government had not the power to maintain peace; that his
conviction was, that if we would give Mehemet Ali Candia, or a
little more of Syria--two out of the four Pashaliks--that this
would be accepted, and that surely the alliance and concurrence
of France were worth as much as this. I went from him to John
Russell, and told him what he had said.
October 10th, 1840 {p.335}
[Page Head: RECEPTION OF THE FRENCH NOTE.]
The Cabinet met this afternoon. Lord John Russell was to have
taken the lead and developed his conciliatory notions, but a new
turn was given to affairs by a note which Guizot placed in
Palmerston's hands just before the Cabinet, which he only
received from Paris this morning.[7] He called on Palmerston and
gave it him; but without any observations. Palmerston brought it
to the Cabinet, where it was read, and, to the extreme surprise
of everybody, it was to the last degree moderate, and evincing a
disposition to be very easily satisfied. This note is ill
written, ill put together, and very tame. What a difficult task a
French Minister must have, to defend at once such a note and such
an expense as had been incurred! Probably Guizot did not much
admire the production. The consequence was that the discussion
turned on this document, and Palmerston immediately showed a
disposition to haggle and bargain, and make it a pretext for
extorting from France the best terms she could be got to yield,
and all this in the spirit of a pedlar rather than of a
statesman. This was, however, overruled. A better and more
liberal disposition pervaded the majority, and it was settled
that Palmerston should see Guizot and speak to him in a
conciliatory tone, and that a note, in a corresponding spirit,
should be drawn up and sent to the French Government. This note
is, however, to be first submitted for the approbation, and, if
necessary, alteration of the Cabinet, so that care will be taken
to make it what it ought to be. It would now appear that the
French Government would be well enough satisfied if the original
terms offered to Mehemet Ali were still held out to him, and if
it is made clear that he will in no case be molested in the
hereditary possession of Egypt; but Palmerston began talking of
leaving him Egypt _for his life_, which was, however, instantly
put down by the majority. A more decided disposition appeared in
the majority of the Cabinet to adopt the conciliatory policy;
whereas they exhibited at the previous meetings rather a doubtful
manner, without, however, on any occasion saying much either way.
Palmerston displayed the same overweening confidence, and the
same desire to conceal whatever militated against his opinion.
Besides talking of the success they had already obtained (which
after all amounts to very little), he said he had seen somebody,
who had seen somebody else, who knew that Louis Philippe was
absolutely determined against war under any circumstances. It
turned out that there was a despatch from Sir Charles Smith
(between whom and Napier there is some jealousy or
misunderstanding), in which he says that the position they occupy
is of no use whatever, but is purely defensive, and if Ibrahim
does not attack the Turks, and expose himself to a defeat, they
can do nothing against him. This, however, Palmerston held cheap,
because it did not square with his wishes. On the whole the
result was satisfactory; and if anybody but Palmerston was at the
Foreign Office, everything must be settled at once; but he is so
little to be trusted that there is always danger while he is
there.
[7] [This was the celebrated Note of which Thiers gave me a
printed copy when I dined with him on the 8th October
at Auteuil. I came back to Paris, sat up all night with
a friend to translate it, and despatched it to England
next morning. My translation appeared in the 'Times' on
the same day the Note was given to Lord Palmerston--
which was another grievance. It was a very lengthy
document, recapitulating the whole conduct of France in
this affair, but ending in a very tame conclusion.
Unfortunately Lord Palmerston did not display the same
moderation, and his Notes continued to be as
acrimonious as ever.--H.R.]
I went almost immediately to Guizot, and told him that the
reception of his note had given a new turn to the discussion, but
that it had given the greatest satisfaction, and they were
certainly not prepared for such a moderate communication. He
laughed, shrugged his shoulders, and said, 'He should think they
were not,' any more than he was, that nothing could equal his
surprise at receiving it, that it was very ill written, ill
arranged, and he owned to me, in confidence, that he thought it
went even farther than it ought; farther than he (much as he
desired peace) could ever have consented to go. He did not
disguise from me, and almost said in terms, that he thought it
very discreditable, and strikingly inconsistent with their
previous language and ostentatious preparations. I said that I
could not comprehend how such a note could emanate from the same
quarter as all the denunciations and threats we had lately heard,
and that though Thiers had, as everybody knew, a great deal of
_savoir faire_, he would have some difficulty in defending both
the note and the preparations. He seemed by no means sorry at the
idea of Thiers having got into a scrape and dilemma, but not at
all satisfied at the figure which France is made to act in the
affair, and not much liking to play any part in the transaction.
It is for this reason that he gave Palmerston the note without
any remarks on its contents. When I asked him how it was all to
be accounted for, he told me that the truth was, it was owing to
the dissensions in the French Cabinet, and the determination of
the King; and that it was the only mode by which an entire
rupture in the Cabinet could be avoided. He said, however, that
he would have preferred the rupture rather than a violent
difference of opinion ending in such a measure. (At least as I
understood him, but I am not quite clear as to his meaning on
this point.) I told him that Palmerston would see him, and would
(or ought at least to) speak to him in a very conciliatory tone;
but that if he did not do so, if he was wanting in any proper
expression of the sense of our Government of the conduct of that
of France, and if he evinced any disposition to haggle and drive
a bargain, he was not to believe that he expressed the sentiments
of the Cabinet, but merely gave utterance to his own. We agreed
that at all events the road to peace was still open, and could
hardly be missed. He said, it depended on us, and only entreated
that the communication we made to the French Government might be
full, cordial, and satisfactory, giving them all the assurances
they could require, setting their minds at rest as to Egypt, and
generally in a tone as conciliatory and moderate as theirs to us.
He earnestly deprecated the idea of any bargaining, and said that
if Palmerston hinted at such a thing with him he must make his
proposals directly to Paris, for he would listen to none such
here. On the whole, he is well satisfied at the prospect of the
preservation of peace, but very much dissatisfied, and even
disgusted, at the manner in which this consummation is likely to
be brought about; conscious and ashamed of the false position in
which the Government of France is placed, probably by their own
conduct from the beginning, but certainly by their violent and
declamatory language, so full of invective and menace, their
expensive and ostentatious preparations, and now their tame (and
if it were possible they could be afraid), pusillanimous
conclusion. He did not say a great deal, but what he did say was
with energy and strong feeling, and these I am certain are his
sentiments.
[Page Head: POLICY OF LOUIS PHILIPPE.]
The real truth I take to be that the King is the cause of the
whole thing. With that wonderful sagacity which renders him the
ablest man in France, and enables him sooner or later to carry
all his points, and that tact and discernment with which he knows
when to yield and when to stand, he allowed Thiers to have his
fall swing; and to commit himself with the nation, the King
himself all the time consenting to put the country in a
formidable attitude, but making no secret of his desire for
peace; and then at the decisive moment, when he found there was a
division in the Cabinet, throwing all his influence into the
pacific scale, and eventually reducing Thiers to the alternative
of making a very moderate overture or breaking up the Government.
The King in all probability knew that in the latter event Thiers
would no longer be so formidable, and that there would be the
same division in the party as in the Cabinet, and that he should
be able to turn the scale in the Chamber in favour of peace. It
is probable that His Majesty looks beyond the present crisis, and
sees in the transaction the means of emancipating himself from
the domination of Thiers, and either getting rid of him, or, what
would probably be more convenient and safe, reducing him to a
dependence on himself.
Livermere, October 17th, 1840 {p.339}
All this week at Newmarket, where I received regular information
of all that went on. Before I left town I saw Lord Holland and
Lord John Russell. The latter expressed himself better satisfied
than he had yet been, but was still doubtful how far Palmerston
could be trusted. Palmerston made no communication to Guizot, and
seemed resolved to interpose every delay, though everybody kept
on urging that something should be done without loss of time. But
he assured Melbourne that in a few days we should hear of the
total evacuation of Syria, and that then we should be in a better
condition to treat. His colleagues, however, began to get alarmed
at these delays, and none more than Melbourne, who would not say
or do anything to accelerate Palmerston's movements, though he
acknowledged to others that, so far from partaking of his
confidence in the success of the operations in Syria, he expected
no good news from that quarter. Palmerston went to Windsor, and
there the Queen herself began to urge him more strongly than she
had ever done, for she hears constantly from Leopold, who is mad
with fright, and who imparts all his fears to her. All this did
at last produce something, for there was a Cabinet the day before
yesterday, at which a despatch to Ponsonby was read, in which he
was desired to move the Sultan to reinstate the Pasha in the
hereditary government of Egypt, and this had been shown to
Guizot, who had expressed himself satisfied with it. This, it may
be hoped, will be sufficient, for the Note _requires_ no more
than this, and it may be taken as an earnest of our desire to
meet the wishes of France. If it only produces a pacific
paragraph in the King's speech the crisis will be over.
I do not quite understand how we can consistently send such an
instruction to our Ambassador _separately_. The Sultan pronounced
the deposition of Mehemet Ali by the advice of the Four Powers
(that is, by that of the four Ambassadors), and I know not how we
are entitled to do this act rather than any other without the
concurrence of the rest. It was admitted that we could make no
overture to France, no pacific communication even, without the
consent of all. The Pasha has been solemnly deposed, all the
Powers advised this measure, and now we are alone and separately
recommending that he should be again restored to the government
of Egypt. Russia may not coincide in this recommendation; his
deposition from Egypt is now a part of the Treaty. Whatever was
the secret intention of the parties, we are now bound,[8] if the
Porte insists on it, to exert all our power to expel the Pasha
from Egypt as well as from Syria. Such are the inconsistencies
into which the precipitate violence of Ponsonby has plunged us.
[8] It is held (though this seems a nice point) that we are
_not_ bound.
Downham, October 23rd, 1840 {p.340}
[Page Head: DEATH OF LORD HOLLAND.]
From Livermere to Riddlesworth last Monday, and home to-day. This
morning I learnt (by reading it in the 'Globe') the sudden death
of Lord Holland, after a few hours' illness, whom I left not a
fortnight ago in his usual health, and likely to live many
years.[9] There did not, probably, exist an individual whose loss
will be more sincerely lamented and severely felt than his. Never
was popularity so great and so general, and his death will
produce a social revolution, utterly extinguishing not only the
most brilliant, but the only great house of reception and
constant society in England. His marvellous social qualities,
imperturbable temper, unflagging vivacity and spirit, his
inexhaustible fund of anecdote, extensive information, sprightly
wit, with universal toleration and urbanity, inspired all who
approached him with the keenest taste for his company, and those
who lived with him in intimacy with the warmest regard for his
person. This event may be said with perfect truth to 'eclipse the
gaiety of nations,' for besides being an irreparable loss to the
world at large, it turns adrift, as it were, the innumerable
_habitués_ who, according to their different degrees of intimacy,
or the accidents of their social habits, made Holland House their
regular and constant resort. It is impossible to overrate the
privation, the blank, which it will make to the old friends and
associates, political and personal, to whom Holland House has
always been open like a home, and there cannot be a sadder sight
than to see the curtain suddenly fall upon a scene so brilliant
and apparently prosperous, and the light which for nearly half a
century has adorned and cheered the world, thus suddenly and for
ever extinguished. Although I did not rank among the old and
intimate friends of Holland House, I came among the first of the
second class of those who were always welcome, passed much of my
time there, and have been continually treated with the greatest
cordiality and kindness, and I partake largely and sincerely of
the regret that must be so deep and universal.
[9] Lord Holland said, just before he died, to the page,
'Edgar, these Syrian affairs will be too much for me.
Mehemet Ali will kill me.'
Downham, October 24th, 1840 {p.341}
I have a letter from Clarendon this morning from Windsor,
overwhelmed with the news of Lord Holland's death (which he had
just received)
'when his mind was as vigorous and his perceptions as
clear as ever, and when his advice, and the weight of his
experience, were more necessary to his country than at
any period of his life. To myself I feel that the loss is
irreparable. He was the only one in the Cabinet with whom
I had any real sympathy, and upon the great question now
in dispute I feel almost powerless, for, with the anility
of Melbourne, the vacillation of John, and the
indifference of all the rest, Palmerston is now more
completely master of the ground than ever.'
He goes on to say:
'Guizot came down here last night; he goes to Paris on
Sunday, to be present at the opening of the Chambers, and
to defend himself. More, however, than that is in his
mind, I am sure, and his feelings towards Thiers are
anything but friendly. Thiers, it seems, means to put up
Odillon Barrot (Guizot's favourite aversion) for the
presidency of the Chamber, and, it is said, to resign if
he is beaten. This, Guizot told me, was an inconceivable
_faiblesse_, or an unpardonable _légèreté_; but that
whichever it was, he should oppose it, and had written to
tell the Duke de Broglie so, in order that he might not
be accused of taking the Government by surprise. He said
to me, "_Donnez-moi quelque chose à dire_, let it be ever
so small, provided it is satisfactory. I will impose it
on Thiers, or break up his administration; but unless I
can have something of the kind, and, above all, something
wherewith to _resserrer les liens entre les deux pays_,
which is my great ambition, I shall neither be able to
_calmer les esprits_ nor to take on myself the
government."'
He then goes on to say that Guizot tells him--and his own letters
confirm it--that the late _attentat_ on the King had made a much
stronger impression, and excited more alarm, than any former one,
and he had proposed to Melbourne to send a special ambassador to
congratulate the King on his escape, who should also be
instructed to _peace-make_; and suggested that the Duke of
Bedford, Lord Spencer, or himself, should go. Melbourne admitted
it would be a very good thing to establish some direct
communication with the King and Thiers, as well as the truth of
all the reasons by which he supported this proposal; but the
following day he came down with a whole host of petty objections,
'which seemed to prevail in his perplexed and unserviceable
mind.' The Duke of Bedford writes to me that he expects this
state of things will lead to a fresh combination of parties, and
the breaking-up of this Government.
This is what, in my opinion, it ought to lead to; for, having now
been behind the scenes for some time, I have satisfied myself of
the danger of the interests of such a country as this being
committed to such men as our Ministers. How astonished the world
would be!--even the bitterest and most contemptuous of their
political opponents--if they could be apprised of all that has
passed under my observation during the last two months.
Newmarket, October 27th, 1840 {p.343}
At Downham laid up with the gout, and now here. Heard of Thiers'
resignation on Sunday, and nothing since; but Lady Palmerston
writes me word Guizot went to take leave of them in high spirits,
and that there was no doubt he would accept the Foreign Office.
Thiers had promised not to oppose the new Government.[10]
[10] [I breakfasted with M. Guizot at Hertford House on the
24th October, having arrived in London on the 21st from
Paris, where I had spent the preceding fortnight, and
had learned from Thiers, and other friends there, the
French side of these curious transactions. A courier
arrived in London on the morning of the 24th, bringing
a letter from the King to M. Guizot, which he showed
me. It was written in his own bold hand, and contained
the words, 'Je compte sur vous, mon cher Ministre, pour
m'aider dans ma lutte tenace contre l'anarchie!'
Whilst I was in Paris, where the greatest irritation
and alarm prevailed, my old friend and master, Count
Rossi, retained his composure, and said to me, tapping
a sheet of paper as he spoke, 'When it comes to the
Draft of the Speech from the Throne to be delivered to
the Chambers, this will break up. The King will not
consent to adopt Thiers' warlike language.' This is
exactly what occurred some ten days later. Rossi had a
deeper insight into political causes and events than
any other man whom I have known.--H.R.]
[Page Head: M. GUIZOT SUCCEEDS M. THIERS.]
Guizot left London pretty well determined to take the Government;
and after some little discussion everything was settled, and the
new Cabinet proclaimed. The Press instantly fell upon him with
the greatest bitterness, and the first impression was that he had
no chance of standing, but the last accounts held out a better
prospect. I have had no communication with him but a short note
he wrote me on his departure, expressing his regret not to have
seen me, and begging I would communicate with Bourqueney, and let
him call upon and converse with me. I wrote to him yesterday a
long letter, in which I told him how matters stood here, and
expressed my desire to know what we could do that would be of use
to him. In the meantime there has been a fresh course of
wrangling, and a fresh set of remonstrances on the part of the
peace advocates here, and lively altercations, both by letter and
_vivâ voce_, between Lord John and Melbourne, and Lord John and
Palmerston. Clarendon, in a visit of six days at Windsor, worked
away at the impenetrable Viscount, and Lord Lansdowne battered
him with a stringent letter, pressing for the adoption of some
immediate measure of a pacific tendency; and in a conversation
which Clarendon had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he
found him well inclined to the same policy, so that there is an
important section of the Cabinet disposed to take an active part
in this direction. But Palmerston at the same time wrote to
Melbourne in a tone of the greatest contempt for all that was
saying and doing in France, and, of course, elated by the recent
successes in Syria, which, with his usual luck, have happened at
this critical moment, and certainly do appear to be decisive.[11]
[11] [Lord Palmerston's object in all these critical
discussions with his colleagues had simply been to gain
time for the operations in Syria against the Pasha to
take effect, for he had never ceased to maintain that
they would be completely successful, and in this,
whether by superior information, by clearer judgment,
or by extreme good fortune, he proved to be in the
right, which ensured his ultimate triumph. But if there
had been the slightest failure, or check, or delay in
any part of the operations, it must have proved fatal
to the Government.]
[Page Head: LORD JOHN THREATENS TO RESIGN.]
But just before the news came of the surrender of the Emir
Beschir, Lord John had taken up the question in a much more
serious and decisive tone than he ever did before; and in
correspondence with Melbourne, and _vivâ voce_ with Palmerston,
had announced his determination to quit the Government
altogether. The occasion for this vigorous outbreak was the
arrival of a box of Foreign Office papers, in which, besides some
long rigmaroles of Metternich's, there was a proposal
(transmitted by Beauvale) for a congress for the settlement of
all disputes, together with the draft of a short answer which
Palmerston had written and sent, declining the offer. This Lord
John considered to pass all endurance, no matter whether the
congress was advisable or not; but that such an important
suggestion should be received and rejected without any
communication of it to the other members of the Government,
especially to him who was their leader in the House of Commons,
was so outrageous that he was resolved not to pass it over, and
he accordingly wrote his opinion upon it to Melbourne in the
strongest terms, recommending him to transfer the lead of the
House of Commons to Palmerston, and to dispose of his office as
he pleased, as he would no longer go on; and he said that though
there must be a Cabinet in a few days to settle about Parliament,
he should not attend any more of them. To this Melbourne wrote a
curious answer, because it was indicative of no approbation of,
or confidence in, his brother-in-law and colleague. He said he
thought Lord John had taken this up too strongly (he thinks
everything is too strong), but that he had sent his letter to
Palmerston, who would, no doubt, see him or write to him on the
subject. He then went on to say that he presumed Lord John had
well considered his determination, which would be, _ipso facto_,
the dissolution of the Government, as he would not consent to
carry it on with Palmerston as leader of the House of Commons;
that the retirement of Lord John, and the substitution of
Palmerston in such a post, would be such an announcement to all
Europe of the intentions of the British Government to persevere
in the extreme line of his policy, that he could not for a moment
contemplate such a thing. Therefore, if Lord John persisted, the
Government was at an end. Shortly after, Palmerston called on
Lord John. He admitted that he had done wrong--that he ought to
have consulted him, and have made him privy to his answer, but
that he had attached so little importance to the proposal, and
had considered it so totally out of the question, that he had
replied offhand.
[Page Head: LORD PALMERSTON DEFENDS LORD PONSONBY.]
They then went into the question itself, when Palmerston took
that advantageous ground which he has always held and asked him
how he reconciled his present opinions with his strenuous support
of the Treaty itself, and complained again of his acting as he
had done, while success was attending the coalition. They seem to
have parted much as they met, with mutual dissatisfaction, but
without any quarrel. Lord John, however, resolved upon action,
and ultimately determined to propose the recall of Ponsonby as
the _sine quâ non_ of his continuance in office. The violence of
these disputes, and the peril in which the existence of the
Government seemed to be placed, brought Melbourne up to town, and
Lord John came to meet him, and imparted to him his intentions.
Just in the nick of time, however, arrived the news of the Emir's
flight, which seemed to be almost conclusive of the Syrian
question. On this, Palmerston took courage, and, no longer
insisting upon supporting Ponsonby _à tort et à travers_,
entreated that a damp might not be cast upon the enterprise just
as the final success was at hand; and employed the argument _ad
misericordiam_ with regard to Ponsonby by saying, that he would
be entitled to a pension if he was left there till December, and
it would be hard to recall him before that term was accomplished.
Lord John (never sufficiently firm of purpose) at last agreed to
wait for the receipt of the official accounts of recent events in
Syria which was expected in a few days, and to defer his demand
for Ponsonby's recall till then, and Palmerston seems to have
satisfied him that he is not at all desirous of quarrelling with
France. Indeed, Palmerston himself threw out, that it might be
expedient to find a provision for the family of the Pasha, and
render the grant of some appointments to his sons instrumental to
the settlement of the question. There was a strange article, too,
in the 'Morning Chronicle' the other day, which talked of the
probability of Ibrahim's being driven out of Northern Syria, and
his entrenching himself within the Pashalik of Acre, which would
then prevent the accomplishment of the Treaty of July. All this
looks as if Palmerston was beginning to think he was driving
matters too far, and that it was necessary to lower his tone and
modify his policy, unless he was prepared to retire from office.
At all events, Lord John was pacified for the moment by this
indication of more moderate intentions, and began to hope better
things for the future. To-morrow the Cabinet is to meet again.
While all these wranglings are going on here, and nothing is
done, but a great deal contemplated, Bourqueney presses for
_something_ on our part and keeps repeating that every minute is
precious. On the other hand, the Emperor of Russia is highly
satisfied with the state of things as it is, and he intimated to
Bloomfield that he should be extremely indisposed to consent to
any scheme for a fresh arrangement in which France should
participate, while our vague notion is, that the coalition should
fall to the ground as soon as its object is attained, and that we
should bring in France as a party to some final settlement of the
East, and dotation of the sons of Mehemet Ali. In the meantime
the Chambers met yesterday, and all depends upon their
proceedings.
November 7th, 1840 {p.347}
Lord Palmerston has written a long and able letter, setting forth
all the reasons why no special mission should be sent to
Constantinople, and why Ponsonby should not be recalled; a
skilful defence of Ponsonby showing how right he had been about
Syria; what unprecedented influence he had obtained, having got
both the Turkish fleet and army placed under the command of
Englishmen, and how he had infused such spirit into the Turkish
councils that they had made exertions of which nobody thought
they were capable, and manifested a vigour it was not imagined
they possessed. This letter must have been a very good one, for
it entirely brought over Lord John to his opinion, and even
convinced Clarendon himself; and the former had already written
to Palmerston to say that he gave up his demand for Ponsonby's
recall. There is, however, still too much reason to believe, that
Palmerston is bent upon quarrelling with France,[12] and that he
is now fighting to gain time in hopes of some commotion in Egypt
itself, which might lead to the complete ruin of the Pasha.
[12] [This was the real charge against Lord Palmerston and
his policy, and it is impossible to doubt that he was
actuated in the whole of this affair, not so much by a
desire to support the Sultan and to ruin the Pasha of
Egypt, as by the passionate wish to humble France, and
to revenge himself on King Louis Philippe and his
Ministers for their previous conduct in the affairs of
Spain. At this very moment, far from wishing to
strengthen M. Guizot in his efforts to maintain peace,
Lord Palmerston addressed to him a most offensive
despatch, and published it, with a view to weaken and
injure the French Ministry.--H.R.]
[Page Head: M. GUIZOT'S LETTER.]
This evening Bourqueney called on me, and brought me a letter
which he had received the day before from Guizot, which I shall
copy here.
M. Guizot's Letter to Baron Bourqueney.
Mon Cher Baron,--Le discours de la Couronne est
définitivement arrêté. Je crois que vous le trouverez
conforme à la vérité des choses et aux convenances de la
situation. Vous recevrez une circulaire que j'adresse à
tous mes agents. J'y ai essayé de marquer avec précision
l'attitude que le Cabinet veut prendre et qu'il gardera.
Mais ce ne sont là que des paroles: il faut des
résultats. On les attend du Cabinet. Il s'est formé pour
maintenir la paix, et pour trouver aux embarras de la
question d'Orient quelque issue; pour vivre il faut qu'il
satisfasse aux causes qui l'ont fait naître. La
difficulté est extrême. L'exaltation du pays n'a pas
diminué, la formation du Cabinet donne aux amis de la
paix plus de confiance, mais elle redouble l'ardeur des
hommes qui poussent, ou qui se laissent pousser, à la
guerre; les malveillants et les rivaux exploiteront,
fomenteront les préjugés nationaux, les passions
nationales. La lutte sera très-vive et le péril toujours
imminent. Je dirai la vérité. Je m'applique à éclaircir
les esprits et à contenir les passions: je ne puis que
cela. Ce n'est pas assez; pour que le succès vienne à la
raison, il faut qu'on m'aide. Deux sentiments sont ici en
présence, le désir de la paix et l'honneur national. Je
l'ai souvent dit à Londres, je le répète de Paris. Le
sentiment de la France--je dis de la France, et non pas
des brouillons et des factions--est qu'elle a été traitée
légèrement, qu'on a sacrifié légèrement, sans motif
suffisant, pour un intérêt secondaire son alliance, son
amitié, son concours. Là est le grand mal qu'a fait la
Convention du 15 Juillet, là est le grand obstacle à la
politique et à la paix. Pour guérir ce mal, pour lever
cet obstacle, il faut prouver à la France qu'elle se
trompe, il faut lui prouver qu'on attache à son alliance,
à son amitié, à son concours, beaucoup de prix, assez de
prix pour lui faire quelque sacrifice. Ce n'est pas
l'etendue, c'est le fait même du sacrifice qui importe,
qu'indépendamment de la Convention du 15 Juillet quelque
chose soit donné, évidemment donné, au désir de rentrer
en bonne intelligence avec la France, et de la voir
rentier dans l'affaire, la paix pourra être maintenue et
l'harmonie générale rétablie en Europe. Si on vous dit
cela se peut, je suis prêt à faire les démarches
nécessaires pour atteindre à ce but, et à en accepter la
responsabilité, mais je ne veux pas me mettre en
mouvement sans savoir si le but est possible à atteindre.
Si on vous dit que cela ne se peut pas, qu'on entend s'en
tenir rigoureusement aux premières stipulations du
traité, et ne rien accorder, ne rien faire qui soit pour
la France une preuve qu'on désire se rapprocher d'elle,
pour le Cabinet une force dans la lutte qu'il a à
soutenir, la situation restera violente et précaire, le
Cabinet se tiendra immobile, dans l'isolement et
l'attente. Je ne réponds pas de l'avenir. Dites cela à
Lord Palmerston, c'est de lui que l'issue dépend. Il vous
parlera de l'état de la Syrie, de l'insurrection du
Liban, des progrès que font les Alliés. Répondez
simplement que c'est là pour la France une raison de se
montrer plus facile à satisfaire, mais que ce n'est pas
pour l'Angleterre une raison de ne rien faire en
considération de la France. Je n'ai encore rien dit, rien
écrit nulle part. J'attends ce qu'on vous dira à
Londres....
Nothing can be better, more serious, or better calculated to
produce an effect, if anything can, upon our impenetrable
Cabinet. Bourqueney showed it in the first instance to Melbourne,
who told him to show it to Palmerston; but he said he had
scruples in doing that lest Palmerston should make him an answer
calculated to exclude all hope of accommodation; but Melbourne
hinted that he would take care of this, and accordingly he took
it to Palmerston this morning. He read it, said it was very
moderate, and praised the tone and language. But when Bourqueney
began to ask what he had to say to the _fond_, he only talked of
the practical difficulties, and ended without saying anything the
least promising or satisfactory, though nothing decidedly the
reverse. Bourqueney had previously been with Billow, who is just
come back, and who desires no better on the part of his
Government than to join in any conciliatory measure we may adopt;
and Esterhazy, who is expected every hour, will, he doubts not,
be equally well disposed. But although such is the disposition
both of Austria and Prussia, though the Queen is earnestly
desirous of seeing tranquillity and security restored, and almost
all, if not quite all, the Cabinet, are in favour of an
accommodation with France, and France herself is prepared to
accept the slightest advance offered in a conciliatory spirit,
the personal determination of Palmerston will probably
predominate over all these opinions and inclinations. He will put
down or adjourn every proposal that is made, and if any should be
adopted in spite of him, he will take care to mar it in the
execution, to remove no difficulties, and create them where they
don't already exist. The most extraordinary part of the whole
affair is, that a set of men should consent to go on with another
in whom they have not only no confidence, but whom they believe
to be politically dishonest and treacherous, and that they should
keep gravely discussing the adoption of measures with a full
conviction that he will not fairly carry them out. It is like
Jonathan Wild and his companions playing together in Newgate. I
understand the last decision of the Cabinet is that Guizot is to
be invited to say what would suit his case. There would be a
difficulty in specifying what concessions we should make, either
for Mehemet Ali or his sons, because events are proceeding
rapidly in Syria, and we _might be_ offering what we have already
restored to the Sultan, and what the Porte has assisted to
recover for itself. It is settled that all this shall be fairly
stated to Guizot, with an assurance that we are desirous of
assisting him, together with our willingness to concert with him
the means. This may do, if honestly and truly carried out.
Friday, November 13th, 1840 {p.349}
[Page Head: TERMS OF CONCILIATION.]
The day before yesterday Bourqueney called on me, and brought me
a letter from Guizot in reply to the one I had written him. He
then proceeded to tell me all that had occurred since I had
before seen him, and to this effect: On Saturday the Cabinet had
resolved upon an invitation to Guizot to announce his wishes and
ideas, and proposed a frank explanation _de part et d'autre_ on
the whole question. On Sunday, Palmerston communicated this to
Bourqueney, and very faithfully. On Sunday or Monday arrived a
despatch from Metternich, first of all confirming Neumann as sole
Minister to the Conference, and secondly announcing that any
concession in Syria was _now_ quite out of the question. This he
told Bourqueney, and conveyed to Palmerston, to whom it was a
great accession of force, and by this the disposition of Austria,
and with it that of Bülow, became entirely changed, and very
unfavourable to any transaction. On Monday morning Bourqueney
received a letter from Guizot saying that he had had a conference
with Lord Granville, to whom he had suggested various
alternatives for a settlement on the basis of a concession, which
Granville was by the same post to transmit to Palmerston, and he
at the same time told Bourqueney what they were: Egypt
hereditary, St. Jean d'Acre for life, and either Tripoli or
Candia for one of his sons; or the hereditary Pashalik of Acre
instead. On Monday night Bourqueney met Palmerston at dinner at
the Mansion House, when he said to him, 'You have heard from Lord
Granville, and he has transmitted to you M. Guizot's proposals
(or suggestions).' 'No,' said Palmerston, 'I have heard from Lord
Granville, but he sent me nothing specific on the part of Guizot.
But come to Lady Palmerston's to-night from hence, and we will
talk it over.' He went there, and Palmerston read to him a long
despatch from Granville, but which, to his surprise, did not
contain any of the specific propositions which Guizot had
notified to him, and, conceiving that Granville must have certain
good reasons for this reticence, he resolved to say nothing of
them either, and confined himself to mere general inquiries as to
what could be done, to which he obtained no satisfactory reply,
not a hope being held out of any concession. In this condition of
affairs he came to me to tell me what passed and consult me as to
the future. I told him that though there was the same desire for
a reconciliation with France, and the same anxiety to assist M.
Guizot on the part of my friends, when they came to consider what
was possible and would be safe and justifiable, they were unable
to find any expedient to meet the immense practical difficulties
of the case; that events had proceeded with such celerity, and
placed the question in so different a position, that concessions
formerly contemplated as reasonable and possible were now out of
the question. They all felt that they could offer nothing in
Syria; that it was possible the Sultan might be actually in
possession of any town or territory at the moment they were
offering it, and that now justice to the people, honour and
fidelity to our allies, especially to the Sultan himself, forbade
us to make any concession whatever in that quarter. Bourqueney
did not deny the force of this, but he said Guizot was sanguine
as to the acceptance of some such terms as he had suggested, and
it was of the last importance he should be undeceived, and made
acquainted with the real truth, and know what he had to rely on.
He said he would write, but he entreated me to write to him too,
and to tell him the substance of what I had imparted to him.
Accordingly I did write to Guizot at great length, setting forth
in terms as strong as I could, and without any disguise, the
difficulties of the case, and the utter unreasonableness of the
French public in requiring, as a salve to their vanity, terms
which we could neither in good policy or good faith concede. We
both agreed that under existing circumstances it was not
desirable that Guizot should make any proposal to our Government,
and so we both of us told him. Such was the result of a
conversation which when reported to Guizot will be a bitter
disappointment to him; but I concur with the rest, that we could
not now make any of the concessions he was disposed to ask.
Bourqueney suggested that if the chances of war should be
hereafter favourable to the Pasha, if the Allies should make no
impression upon Acre or the south-west part of Syria, then
possibly some transaction on such a basis might be possible.
This, however, it was useless to discuss. Yesterday I saw Dedel,
who has lately been at Walmer, and he told me the Duke of
Wellington's opinion exactly coincided with ours, coincided both
as to the impossibility of our making any concession in Syria,
and to its perfect inutility if we did. We might degrade
ourselves, weaken our own cause, but we should neither strengthen
Guizot nor satisfy the cravings of French vanity and insolence,
still less silence that revolutionary spirit which, not strong
enough in itself, seeks to become formidable by stimulating the
passions and allying itself with all the vanity, pride, and
restlessness, besides desire for plunder, which are largely
scattered throughout the country.
It is curious that Austria, hitherto so timid, should all of a
sudden become so bold, for besides this notification to Neumann,
Metternich has said that, though we have instructed Ponsonby to
move the Sultan to restore Mehemet Ali to Egypt, he has not given
the same instructions to Stürmer, and that he wants to see the
progress of events and the conduct of the Pasha before he does
so.
[Page Head: LORD PALMERSTON'S IRRITATING LANGUAGE.]
Events have so befriended Palmerston that he is now in the right,
and has got his colleagues with him; but where he is and always
has been wrong is in his neglect of forms; the more _fortiter_ he
is _in re_, the more _suaviter_ he ought to be _in modo_. But
while defending his policy or attacking that of France, he has
never said what he might have done to conciliate, to soften, and
to destroy those impressions of intended affronts and secret
designs which have produced such violent effects on the French
public. On the contrary, he has constantly, in his State papers,
and still more in his newspapers, said what is calculated to
irritate and provoke them to the greatest degree; but Dedel says
this has always been his fault, in all times and in all his
diplomatic dealings, and this is the reason he is so detested by
all the Corps Diplomatique, and has made such enemies all over
Europe. Guizot will now be cast on his own resources, and must
try whether the language of truth and reason will be listened to
in France; whether he can, by plain statements of facts, and
reasonable deductions therefrom, dissipate those senseless
prejudices and extravagant delusions which have excited such a
tempest in the public mind. It is clear enough to me that if he
cannot, if vanity and resentment are too strong for sober reason
and sound policy, no concessions we could make would save him
from downfall, or save Europe from the consequences of this moral
deluge.
November 15th, 1840 {p.353}
Two days ago, Lord John Russell called on me. We had some talk,
but nothing very conclusive. He said the operations in Syria
could not go on much longer, and we are threatened with the
greatest of all evils, the hanging over of the question for
another year. This he thought the worst thing of all. It is
curious that he told me Stopford wrote word he must send his
ships into port, and all the authorities, military and naval, say
nothing can be done after the 20th. Palmerston keeps telling
Bourqueney they can go on all the winter, and that the operations
will not be suspended at all. I asked Lord John, if the campaign
did close, leaving the Pasha in possession of all the south-west
of Syria from Damascus to the Desert, and Acre unattacked,
whether on such a status an agreement could not be concluded,
terminating the contest by the concession of the original terms
of the treaty. He said Melbourne would like that very well, but
that there would be difficulties, and France would not come into
the treaty on those terms. I told him I was pretty sure France
would, though I did not tell him what had passed between
Bourqueney and me. However, I sent for Bourqueney, and told him
to propose nothing new, but to wait till the campaign was over,
and in the meantime to prepare the way for some specific
proposition which France might make in a spirit of amicable
intervention to put an end to the contest.
December 4th, 1840 {p.354}
[Page Head: DEBATE IN THE FRENCH CHAMBER.]
In the course of the last three weeks, and since I last wrote, a
mighty change has taken place; we have had the capture of St.
Jean d'Acre and the debate in the French Chambers.[13] Palmerston
is triumphant; everything has turned out well for him. He is
justified by the success of his operations and by the revelations
in the speeches of Thiers and Rémusat. So, at least, the world
will consider it, which does not examine deeply and compare
curiously in order to form its judgements; and it must be
acknowledged that he has a fair right to plume himself on his
success. His colleagues have nothing more to say; and as Guizot
makes a sort of common cause with him in the Chamber, and Thiers
makes out a case for himself by declaring objects and designs
which justify Palmerston's policy and acts, and as the Pasha is
now reduced to the necessity of submission, the contest is at an
end. Guizot continued up to the eve of the discussion to press us
to do or say something to assist him; but when he found we could
or would do nothing, he took the only line that was left him, and
the best after all, and threw himself on the sense and reason of
the country. He told the truth, and justified himself by
vindicating us. He has done very well, and shown himself a good
debater; but the discussion has been disgracefully personal, and
with all the talent displayed they have not an idea how a
deliberating assembly ought to conduct its debates, and the
disclosures and revelations of official secrecy and confidence
have been monstrous. Thiers has all along been playing a false,
shuffling, tricky part, and at last he got so entangled in the
meshes of his own policy, and so confused by the consequences of
his double dealing, that he evidently did not know what to do;
and the King had no difficulty in getting him out of a Government
that he could no longer conduct. He says now that he meant to
make war by and by; but though these menaces and the reasons he
gives afford Palmerston his best justification, and are appealed
to triumphantly by him and his friends, my own conviction is that
Thiers would gladly have closed the account by a transaction, and
that _at last_ he would have come into the Treaty--if Palmerston
would have let him in--upon terms much worse for the Pasha than
those to which he would not have consented before July. Nothing
that has occurred shakes my conviction that Palmerston was very
wrong not to endeavour to bring France into the Treaty and to
offer the _status quo_, though it is very possible France would
have refused it. If the French Government were on the one hand
resolved to agree to nothing, and under no circumstances to join
in coercing the Pasha, Palmerston on the other was as obstinately
determined to settle the business his own way, and not to make
any proposal to France which she would or could accept. They both
stood aloof, and both were immensely to blame. Palmerston has
taken his success without any appearance of triumph or a desire
to boast over those who doubted or opposed him; whatever may be
said or thought of his policy, it is impossible not to do justice
to the vigour of his execution. Mr. Pitt (Chatham) could not have
manifested more decision and resource. He would not hear of
delays and difficulties, sent out peremptory orders to attack
Acre, and he provided in his instructions with great care and
foresight for every contingency. There can be no doubt that it
was the capture of Acre which decided the campaign; and the
success is much more attributable to Palmerston than to our naval
and military commanders, and probably solely to him.
[13] [The bombardment and capture of St. Jean d'Acre by the
allied fleet took place on the 3rd November, whilst
these diplomatic troubles were going on in London and
Paris. The French Chambers opened on the 6th November.]
Yesterday I saw the Baron Mounier, who is come over here, on a
sort of mission, to talk about possible arrangements, from
Guizot. He still pertinaciously urges our doing or saying
something demonstrative of a disposition to be reconciled with
France, and that, in the ultimate settlement of the Eastern
Question, we wish to show her some deference. He wants (Syria
being gone) that we should make out that it is from consideration
for France that Egypt is left to the Pasha. I told him the only
difficulty appeared to be that, as we had already announced we
had no intention to strip him of Egypt, and had signified long
ago that we had advised the Sultan to restore him to that
Government, I did not see how we could now make any such
declaration available, and that it would go for nothing. But he
said he thought by a not difficult employment of diplomatic
phraseology much might be done; and he suggested that there must
be some definite settlement of the whole question, including
stipulations and guarantees for the Syrian population (of the
mountains, I presume), and to this France might be invited to
accede. In short, nothing will satisfy her but having a finger in
the pie upon any terms. What Guizot now wants is to renew the
English alliance. So he said when he went away; but it may well
be doubted whether the French are not too sulky with us and too
deeply mortified not to make this an unpopular attempt just now.
Mounier is the son of Mounier the Constitutionalist, entirely in
Guizot's confidence, a talkative man not seemingly brilliant, but
he is well versed in affairs, an active member of the Chamber of
Peers, and considered indispensable there as a _rédacteur_ and
transactor of Parliamentary business.
December 13th, 1840 {p.357}
For the last week at Norman Court, during which little or nothing
has happened; but I heard one or two things before I left town.
Guizot had made a direct application to Palmerston for his
permission to attribute the leaving of Egypt to Mehemet Ali, to
the influence of France, and to a desire to gratify her. This
Palmerston (through Lord Granville) refused; but Guizot had not
waited for the answer, and in his speech he said so, and it was
not without its use. But while everything was on the point of
being settled, Metternich (who is always in hot or cold fits of
courage or cowardice) sends over a proposal that Egypt shall only
be granted to Mehemet Ali for his own and his son's lives, and
not hereditary. For what possible reason this absurd proposition
was made, unless to create embarrassment and rekindle
animosities, nobody can conceive; though probably the real
solution is that Metternich is in his dotage, has no policy in
his brain, and acts from foolish impulses. I have heard no more
of it; and though Palmerston would not be at all averse to the
proposal as a matter of inclination, I do not suspect him of the
folly of listening to it, and, if he did, his colleagues would
not.
December 29th, 1840 {p.357}
[Page Head: LORD MELBOURNE IN HIGH SPIRITS.]
Went on Thursday last to the Grange, and returned yesterday. Just
before I went, the Duke of Bedford called on me; he was just come
from Woburn, where he had had a great party--Melbourne, like a
boy escaped from school, in roaring spirits. They anticipate an
easy session, and all Melbourne's alarm and despondency are
quickly succeeded by joy at having got out of a scrape, and
confidence that all difficulties are surmounted and all
opposition will be silenced. But it now comes out that of all who
were opposed to Palmerston's policy, not one--not even Lord
Holland--was _in his heart_ so averse to, and so afraid of it, as
Melbourne himself; and, nevertheless, he would say nothing and do
nothing to impede or alter it. Palmerston is now doing his best
to flatter Lord John out of any remains of sourness or soreness
that their recent disputes may have left in his mind; and
(passing over all that subsequently occurred) he writes to him to
invite him to Broadlands, and says that while their recent
successes have far exceeded the most sanguine expectations, he
never shall forget how much of them is owing to the powerful
support which he (Lord John) gave to him (Palmerston) in the
_Treaty_. There is, it must be owned, astuteness in this; for
Lord John's original support of the Treaty, and Palmerston's
success in the operations, bind them indissolubly together, and
it is very wise to put this prominently forward and cancel the
recollection of all the rest.
[Page Head: TORY OPINION OF LORD PALMERSTON'S POLICY.]
But while public opinion appears to be universally pronounced in
Palmerston's favour, and the concurrent applause of all the Tory
papers indicates the satisfaction of that party, some
circumstances lead me to believe that their approbation of the
Treaty of July, and of all Palmerston's proceedings under it, is
by no means so certain as the Government believe. At the Grange I
found Lord Ashburton loud in his condemnation of the whole thing,
talking exactly as we have all been talking and writing for many
weeks past; and what surprised me much more was, that, in a
conversation which I had with Granville Somerset yesterday, he
expressed precisely the same opinions; and when I expressed my
surprise at his language, and said that I had fancied all the
Tories were enraptured with Palmerston, he replied that he had no
reason to believe any such thing; that he had not met (among the
many with whom he had conversed) with any such general and
unqualified approbation; and he believed both the Duke and Peel
had carefully abstained from pronouncing any opinion whatever on
the subject, leaving themselves entire liberty to deal with the
whole question as they might think fit. The notion is, that the
Tories are charmed with a transaction which separates us from
France, but Lord Ashburton and Granville Somerset--a bigoted
Tory, if ever there was one--inveighed against the Treaty
precisely because it had produced that consequence. It is the
approbation expressed by Aberdeen, both before and since our
successes, which has led to the general belief that the Tories
are with the Government on this matter, for Aberdeen is regarded
as their mouthpiece upon all questions of foreign policy. I had
another conversation with Mounier just before he went. He had
been to Strathfieldsaye, and was delighted with his reception by
the Duke, and with the tone and tenor of his talk, anxious for a
reconciliation with France, and entering into the whole history
of our mutual relations from the Restoration to the present day,
as he said, with the greatest clearness, precision, and solidity.
He admitted that Guizot's was a very difficult situation, and the
restoration of amicable feelings between the two countries very
difficult also, but a thing earnestly to be desired.
December 31st, 1840 {p.359}
The end of the year is a point from which, as from a sort of
eminence, one looks back over the past, happy if the prospect is
not gloomy, and if the retrospect carries with it no feelings of
regret and self-reproach. The past year has been full (as what
year is not?) of events, of which that which has made the deepest
impression on society is the death of Lord Holland. I doubt, from
all I see, whether anybody (except his own family, including
Allen) had really a very warm affection for Lord Holland, and the
reason probably is that he had none for anybody. He was a man
with an inexhaustible good humour, and an ever-flowing nature,
but not of strong feelings; and there are men whose society is
always enjoyed but who never inspire deep and strong attachment.
I remember to have heard good observers say that Lady Holland had
more feeling than Lord Holland--would regret with livelier grief
the loss of a friend than this equable philosopher was capable of
feeling. The truth is social qualities--merely social and
intellectual--are not those which inspire affection. A man may be
steeped in faults and vices, nay, in odious qualities, and yet be
the object of passionate attachment, if he is only what the
Italians term '_simpatico_.'
CHAPTER X.
Successes in India, China, and Syria--The Hereditary Pashalik of
Egypt--Lord Palmerston's Hostility to France--Lord Palmerston
and the Tories--His extraordinary Position--A Communication
from M. Guizot--Death of the Duchess of Cannizzaro--Her
History--Dinner with Lady Holland--Macaulay's Conversation--
Opening of the Session--A Sheriffs' Dinner--Hullah's Music
Lecture--Tory Successes--Duke of Wellington ill--Irish
Registration Bill--Opposed by the Conservatives--Conservative
Government of Ireland--Petulance of Lord Palmerston--Double
Dealing of Lord Palmerston--Ill Temper of the French--M.
Dedel's account of the State of Affairs--M. Dedel's account
corrected--Termination of the Disputes with France--Bad News
from China--Hostility of the United States--The Sultan's Hatti-
sherif--The Hatti-sherif disapproved by some Ministers--Peel's
Liberality--The Hatti-sherif disavowed--The Bishop of Exeter
left in the lurch--Poor Law Amendment Bill--Lord Granville's
Illness--Death of Mrs. Algernon Greville--Loss of 'The
President'--Government defeated--China Troubles--Danger of the
Government.
January 7th, 1841 {p.360}
Yesterday arrived (through the French telegraph) the news of the
death of the King of Lahore, the surrender of Dost Mahomed, and
the settlement of the Chinese quarrel, all coming just in time to
swell out the catalogue of successes to be announced in the
Queen's Speech. In France the aspect of affairs is improving, the
King has given answers on New Year's Day which he would not have
ventured to make a short time ago, and His Majesty assures Lord
Granville that the war fever is rapidly diminishing. The French
hardly trouble themselves now (except in an occasional undergrowl
in some Liberal paper) about Syria, and the Government
considering Mehemet Ali's destiny decided, only desire to be re-
admitted into the great European Council, for the purpose of
participating in the measures to be adopted for determining the
condition of the Christian population of Syria, and for securing
Constantinople from any exclusive protection or influence.
[Page Head: LORD PONSONBY'S VIOLENCE.]
At this moment, however, everything is unsettled with regard to
Egypt, and Lord Ponsonby has been acting in his usual furious
style with such effect that it is not at all certain the question
will be settled without a good deal of trouble. Upon the receipt,
at Constantinople, of Napier's unauthorised Convention with the
Pasha, Ponsonby instantly assembled the ambassadors, moved that
it should be rejected and disavowed, and signified the same to
the Ministers of the Porte, who, of course, desired no better
than to acquiesce. At Ponsonby's instigation, Redschid Pasha
wrote to say that the Sultan utterly disavowed this Convention;
that he might be disposed, out of deference to his allies, and at
their request, to grant some temporary favour and indulgence to
the family of the Pasha, but as to the hereditary possession of
Egypt, _he had never heard of_, or contemplated, any such thing,
nor would ever listen to it; and he reminded the Allied Powers
that such a grant would be in direct contravention of the
principle of the Treaty itself, which had for its object the
maintenance of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. It remains to
be seen what will be done at Constantinople when the intelligence
of Stopford's Convention (so to call it) arrives there, which, in
fact, differs in no respect from that of Napier; but it is very
extraordinary that Ponsonby should write word that the Sultan had
never _heard_ any question of the hereditary grant of Egypt,
when, in the middle of October, a despatch was written to him
(which was at the same time communicated to the French
Government) ordering him to propose to the Sultan this
restitution. Unless, therefore, this despatch was not sent, or he
took upon himself to disobey his instruction, it must be false
that the Turkish Government never heard of such a question. Lord
John Russell, who went to Broadlands the other day, wrote to
Melbourne that he found Bülow, Neumann, and Esterhazy there, and
there seemed to be a great deal of discussion going on between
them all, and much doubt as to the question of _hérédité_, but
that he was of opinion that this question admitted of no doubt,
and that we were bound to insist upon it after the assurances we
had given to France. Of Palmerston's opinions he did not say a
word. However, whether Palmerston wishes to push matters to
further extremities against the Viceroy or not, he will hardly
attempt it, for, easy as he has hitherto found it, with the
opportune aid of events, to baffle all opposition in the Cabinet,
he would certainly meet with a resistance to any such design that
he would not be able to overcome. His successes have not made him
more moderate and conciliatory towards France, and I have no
doubt that if he had the drawing up of the Queen's Speech, he
would take an insulting and triumphant tone in it, which would
fan the expiring flame of passion and hostility, and widen the
breach between the two countries.
[Page Head: LORD PALMERSTON AND THE TORIES.]
The other day Lord Clarendon wrote to him, sending a sort of
message from the French Court (through Madame de Montjoie)
expressive of a hope that a conciliatory disposition would
prevail; to which he responded in a strain of insolent invective
against France and her designs, saying that her object was to
extort concessions from us which we should never make, and that
now we were strong in our alliance with the other Powers we might
defy her to injure us. This letter Clarendon showed to Melbourne,
who had asked him if he knew what Palmerston's feelings were (he
himself knowing nothing), and he was, of course, struck with the
bitterness and asperity of his tone. Melbourne told Clarendon
that Palmerston was still very sore at the articles which had
appeared in the 'Times,' and at the communications that had taken
place between parties here and their French correspondents, and
he particularly mentioned Reeve's with Tocqueville--Lord
Lansdowne having probably shown Palmerston the letter which
Tocqueville wrote to Reeve[1] just before the great debate in the
Chamber. Clarendon said he could not imagine what Palmerston had
to complain of in the 'Times,' as, though there had been some
articles attacking him, the far greater number had been in his
favour. Melbourne said there had been a great deal the other way,
and that Palmerston and his Tory friends with whom he had
communicated had been constantly surprised to find that there was
an influence stronger than their own in that quarter.
[1] [This was a very remarkable letter M. de Tocqueville
wrote to me in November, showing the danger of driving
France to extremities, which might involve the
overthrow of the Government in that country.
Tocqueville was always penetrated with the conviction
that the throne of Louis Philippe rested on no solid
foundation; and undoubtedly the Treaty of July 1840 was
a severe blow to its stability, and led to further
disputes, and more fatal consequences. The letter in
question was shown by me to Lord Lansdowne, and I was
told it was read to the Cabinet. At any rate, it was
read by Lord Melbourne, who attached great importance
to it.--H.R.]
January 9th, 1841 {p.363}
The other day at Windsor, when Clarendon was sitting talking with
Melbourne, the latter in his lounging way, as if thinking aloud,
said, 'In all my experience, I never remember such a state of
things as the present; I never remember, in the course of my
political life, anything at all like it; it can't last--it's
impossible this Government can go on; Palmerston in communication
with the Tories--Palmerston and Ashley--' and then he stopped.
Clarendon said, 'What! you think Palmerston and the Tories will
come together?' To which Melbourne nodded assent. 'And which,'
Clarendon persevered, 'will come to the other: will Palmerston go
to Ashley, or will Ashley come to Palmerston?' To which Melbourne
chuckled and grunted, laughed and rubbed his hands, and only
said, 'Oh, I don't know.' These are the sentiments of the Prime
Minister about his own Government--a strange state of things:
while Palmerston is in confidential communication with the
Tories, or some of them, for the purpose of obtaining their
support to his policy, half of his own colleagues, though
committed, being adverse to it, and regarded by him as his worst
adversaries. He and John Russell, the two Secretaries of State--
the latter leader of the House of Commons--pass some days
together in the house of the former, without exchanging one word
upon the subject of foreign policy, and Lord John is reduced to
the necessity of gathering in conversation from Neumann and
Esterhazy what Palmerston's views and opinions are. These two
diplomats expressed the greatest indignation at Ponsonby's
proceedings, and Palmerston himself has renewed to Bourqueney the
assurances of his resolution to adhere to the engagements he had
already made to France with regard to Egypt. Melbourne, however,
acknowledged that he was entirely in the dark as to Palmerston's
real views and opinions, as he believed was every one of his
colleagues. He has no intimacy, no interchange of thought and
complete openness with anybody, and all they know is (and that
only as soon as he thinks fit to impart it) his notions with
regard to each particular question as its exigencies become
pressing. His position, however, is now a very remarkable one.
Belonging to a Government almost every member of which dislikes
or distrusts him, he has acquired, by recent events, a great
reputation, and is looked upon generally as a bold, able, and
successful statesman. In the event of a dislocation of parties,
he is free to adopt any course, and to join with any party.[2]
Almost all the domestic questions which have hitherto excited
interest have been settled, compromised, or thrown aside, and a
sudden interest has been awakened, and attention generally drawn
to our foreign policy and international relations. All that has
recently occurred--our treaties and our warlike operations--are
not looked upon as the work of the Government, but as that of
Palmerston alone--Palmerston, in some degree, as
contradistinguished from the Government. All this confers upon
him a vast importance, and enables him, neither unreasonably nor
improbably, to aspire to head and direct any Government that may
hereafter be formed by a dissolution and fresh combination of
parties.
[2] [I believe at this time, Lord Palmerston, irritated by
the opposition and distrust of his own colleagues, and
encouraged by the applause of the Tories, who were
delighted at the rupture of the alliance with France,
and eager to bully that country, did contemplate a
junction with the Tory party. But to this there was an
insurmountable obstacle, the deep distrust and dislike
of Sir Robert Peel, who thought Palmerston a dangerous
and mischievous Foreign Minister, and the hostility of
Lord Aberdeen. In fact, when these statesmen came into
office a few months later, they applied themselves
mainly to obliterate the traces of Palmerston's
quarrels. Nothing would have induced Sir Robert Peel to
take Palmerston into his Cabinet. It was otherwise,
some years later, when Lord Stanley had succeeded to
the leadership of the Conservative Party, and at that
time the negotiations between him and Lord Palmerston
were renewed, though without any result.--H.R.]
January 13th, 1841 {p.365}
Notwithstanding the comparative tranquillity which now prevails
in France, the madness of that people having taken another turn,
and venting itself upon a reckless expenditure, and the
extravagant project of fortifying Paris, Guizot is evidently
aware of, and alarmed at, certain intrigues now at work, for the
purpose of his ejection. Of these Molé is the object or the
agent, or both. Guizot sent over the other day to Reeve a paper,
cleverly done, in which Molé's position was discussed, and the
morality as well as possibility of his coming into office with
the aid of a coalition.
[Page Head: THE DUCHESS OF CANNIZZARO.]
The other day died the Duchess of Cannizzaro, a woman of rather
amusing notoriety, whom the world laughed with and laughed at,
while she was alive, and will regret a little because she
contributed in some degree to their entertainment. She was a Miss
Johnstone, and got from her brother a large fortune; she was very
short and fat, with rather a handsome face, totally uneducated,
but full of humour, vivacity, and natural drollery, at the same
time passionate and capricious. Her all-absorbing interest and
taste was music, to which all her faculties and time were
devoted. She was eternally surrounded with musical artists, was
their great patroness, and at her house the world was regaled
with the best music that art could supply. Soon after her
brother's death, she married the Count St. Antonio (who was
afterwards made Duke of Cannizzaro), a good-looking, intelligent,
but penniless Sicilian of high birth, who was pretty successful
in all ways in society here. He became disgusted with her,
however, and went off to Italy, on a separate allowance which she
made him. After a few years he returned to England, and they
lived together again; he not only became more disgusted than
before, but he had in the meantime formed a _liaison_ at Milan
with a very distinguished woman there, once a magnificent beauty,
but now as old and as large as his own wife, and to her he was
very anxious to return. This was Madame Visconti (mother of the
notorious Princess Belgioso), who, though no longer young, had
fine remains of good looks, and was eminently pleasing and
attractive. Accordingly, St. Antonio took occasion to elope (by
himself) from some party of pleasure at which he was present with
his spouse, and when she found that he had gone off without
notice or warning, she first fell into violent fits of grief,
which were rather ludicrous than affecting, and then set off in
pursuit of her faithless lord. She got to Dover, where the sight
of the rolling billows terrified her so much, that, after three
days of doubt whether she should cross the water or not, she
resolved to return, and weep away her vexation in London. Not
long afterwards, however, she plucked up courage, and taking
advantage of a smooth sea she ventured over the Straits, and set
off for Milan, if not to recover her fugitive better half, at all
events to terrify her rival and disturb their joys. The advent of
the Cannizzaro woman was to the Visconti like the irruption of
the Huns of old. She fled to a villa near Milan, which she
proceeded to garrison and fortify, but finding that the other was
not provided with any implements for a siege, and did not stir
from Milan, she ventured to return to the city, and for some time
these ancient heroines drove about the town glaring defiance and
hate at each other, which was the whole amount of the hostilities
that took place between them. Finding her husband was
irrecoverable, she at length got tired of the hopeless pursuit,
and resolved to return home, and console herself with her music
and whatever other gratifications she could command. Not long
after, she fell in love with a fiddler at a second-rate theatre
in Milan, and carried him off to England, which he found, if not
the most agreeable, the most profitable business he could engage
in. The affair was singular and curious, as showing what society
may be induced to put up with. There was not the slightest
attempt to conceal this connexion; on the contrary it was most
ostentatiously exhibited to the world, but the world agreed to
treat it as a joke, and do nothing but laugh at it. The only
difference 'the Duchesse' ever found was, that her Sunday parties
were less well attended; but this was because the world (which
often grows religious, but never grows moral) had begun to take
it into its head that it would keep holy the Sabbath _night_. The
worst part of the story was, that this profligate blackguard
bullied and plundered her without mercy or shame, and she had
managed very nearly to ruin herself before her death. What she
had left, she bequeathed to her husband, notwithstanding his
infidelities and his absence.
January 21st, 1841 {p.367}
[Page Head: MACAULAY'S CONVERSATION.]
[Page Head: MACAULAY'S MEMORY.]
I dined with Lady Holland yesterday. Everything there is exactly
the same as it used to be, excepting only the person of Lord
Holland, who seems to be pretty well forgotten.[3] The same talk
went merrily round, the laugh rang loudly and frequently, and,
but for the black and the mob-cap of the lady, one might have
fancied he had never lived or had died half a century ago. Such
are, however, affections and friendships, and such is the world.
Macaulay dined there, and I never was more struck than upon this
occasion by the inexhaustible variety and extent of his
information. He is not so _agreeable_ as such powers and
resources ought to make any man, because the vessel out of which
it is all poured forth is so ungraceful and uncouth; his voice
unmusical and monotonous, his face not merely inexpressive but
positively heavy and dull, no fire in his eye, no intelligence
playing round his mouth, nothing which bespeaks the genius and
learning stored within and which burst out with such
extraordinary force. It is impossible to mention any book in any
language with which he is not familiar; to touch upon any
subject, whether relating to persons or things, on which he does
not know everything that is to be known. And if he could tread
less heavily on the ground, if he could touch the subjects he
handles with a lighter hand, if he knew when to stop as well as
he knows what to say, his talk would be as attractive as it is
wonderful. What Henry Taylor said of him is epigrammatic and
true, 'that his memory has swamped his mind;' and though I do not
think, as some people say, that his own opinions are completely
suppressed by the load of his learning so that you know nothing
of his mind, it appears to me true that there is less of
originality in him, less exhibition of his own character, than
there probably would be if he was less abundantly stored with the
riches of the minds of others. We had yesterday a party well
composed for talk, for there were listeners of intelligence and a
good specimen of the sort of society of this house--Macaulay,
Melbourne, Morpeth, Duncannon, Baron Rolfe, Allen and Lady
Holland, and John Russell came in the evening. I wish that a
shorthand writer could have been there to take down all the
conversation, or that I could have carried it away in my head;
because it was curious in itself, and curiously illustrative of
the characters of the performers. Before dinner some mention was
made of the portraits of the Speakers in the Speaker's House, and
I asked how far they went back. Macaulay said he was not sure,
but certainly as far as Sir Thomas More. 'Sir Thomas More,' said
Lady Holland, 'I did not know he had been Speaker.' 'Oh, yes,'
said Macaulay, 'don't you remember when Cardinal Wolsey came down
to the House of Commons and More was in the chair?' and then he
told the whole of that well-known transaction, and all More had
said. At dinner, amongst a variety of persons and subjects,
principally ecclesiastical, which were discussed--for Melbourne
loves all sorts of theological talk--we got upon India and Indian
men of eminence, proceeding from Gleig's 'Life of Warren
Hastings,' which Macaulay said was the worst book that ever was
written; and then the name of Sir Thomas Munro came uppermost.
Lady Holland did not know why Sir Thomas Munro was so
distinguished; when Macaulay explained all that he had ever said,
done, written, or thought, and vindicated his claim to the title
of a great man, till Lady Holland got bored with Sir Thomas, told
Macaulay she had had enough of him, and would have no more. This
would have dashed and silenced an ordinary talker, but to
Macaulay it was no more than replacing a book on its shelf, and
he was as ready as ever to open on any other topic. It would be
impossible to follow and describe the various mazes of
conversation, all of which he threaded with an ease that was
always astonishing and instructive, and generally interesting and
amusing. When we went upstairs we got upon the Fathers of the
Church. Allen asked Macaulay if he had read much of the Fathers.
He said, not a great deal. He had read Chrysostom when he was in
India; that is, he had turned over the leaves and for a few
months had read him for two or three hours every morning before
breakfast; and he had read some of Athanasius. 'I remember a
sermon,' he said, 'of Chrysostom's in praise of the Bishop of
Antioch;' and then he proceeded to give us the substance of this
sermon till Lady Holland got tired of the Fathers, again put her
extinguisher on Chrysostom as she had done on Munro, and with a
sort of derision, and as if to have the pleasure of puzzling
Macaulay, she turned to him and said, 'Pray, Macaulay, what was
the origin of a _doll_? when were dolls first mentioned in
history?' Macaulay was, however, just as much up to the dolls as
he was to the Fathers, and instantly replied that the Roman
children had their dolls, which they offered up to Venus when
they grew older; and quoted Persius for
'Veneri donatae a virgine puppae,'
and I have not the least doubt, if he had been allowed to
proceed, he would have told us who was the Chenevix of ancient
Rome, and the name of the first baby that ever handled a doll.
[3] [He had been dead three months.]
The conversation then ran upon Milman's 'History of
Christianity,' which Melbourne praised, the religious opinions of
Locke, of Milman himself, the opinion of the world thereupon, and
so on to Strauss's book and his mythical system, and what he
meant by mythical. Macaulay began illustrating and explaining the
meaning of a _myth_ by examples from remote antiquity, when I
observed that in order to explain the meaning of 'mythical' it
was not necessary to go so far back; that, for instance, we might
take the case of Wm. Huntington, S.S.: that the account of his
life was historical, but the story of his praying to God for a
new pair of leather breeches and finding them under a hedge was
mythical. Now, I had just a general superficial recollection of
this story in Huntington's 'Life,' but my farthing rushlight was
instantly extinguished by the blaze of Macaulay's all-grasping
and all-retaining memory, for he at once came in with the whole
minute account of this transaction: how Huntington had prayed,
what he had found, and where, and all he had said to the tailor
by whom this miraculous nether garment was made.
January 30th, 1841 {p.370}
[Page Head: M. GUIZOT'S ESTIMATE OF LORD HOLLAND.]
Parliament opened on Tuesday last with a very meagre speech, on
which no amendment could be hung. The Duke spoke extremely well
in the House of Lords, and Peel the same in the House of Commons.
Both approved (the Duke without any qualification, Peel more
guardedly) of the foreign policy of the Government, and both said
everything that was conciliatory, nattering, and cordial to
France. John Russell and Palmerston both spoke in the same tone,
the latter especially, and his speech was totally free from
anything like triumph or exultation; in short, nothing could be
more favourable for Government than what passed, and nothing more
creditable to the country. It was temperate and dignified, and
exhibited a strong contrast to the fury and bluster of the French
debates and the Press, and consequently displayed the superiority
in every respect of our national character over theirs. At
present everything promises a very easy session, and the
Conservatives are confessedly reduced to look to the chapter of
accidents for some event which may help them to turn out the
Government and get hold of their places.[4] Lord John said
something about Lord Holland in the House of Commons, but
Melbourne could not be prevailed upon to say anything in the
House of Lords. Lady Holland was satisfied with Lord John's
speech, but though it was a prettily turned compliment, it was of
no great service in relieving him from the charges which have
been levelled at him in some of the newspapers.[5]
[4] [It is curious that a session which was destined to
witness the important proposals of the Whigs in the
direction of free trade, and to end so disastrously for
the Liberal party, and so well for the Conservatives,
should have begun thus tamely.]
[5] [Lord Holland had been attacked for the part he took in
opposition to the Treaty of July in the preceding year,
and for his earnest endeavours to avert a rupture with
France. The best answer to these aspersions on the
conduct of a most excellent man and true patriot occurs
in a letter from M. Guizot to Lady Holland of January
3, 1841, which has recently been published. I
transcribe the following sentences:--
'J'ai ressenti un vrai, un vif chagrin quand j'ai vu
le nom qui vous est cher compromis d'une façon si
inconvenante dans nos débats. J'aurais voulu raconter
moi-même, à tout le monde, sa bienveillance si sincère
pour la France, son désir si persévérant de maintenir
entre nos deux pays une amitié qu'il regardait comme
excellente pour tous les deux, et en même temps sa
constante préoccupation pour son propre pays, son
dévouement si tendre pour la Reine, son attachement si
fidèle pour ses collègues. Je n'ai rencontré personne
qui sût concilier à ce point tous les devoirs, tous les
sentiments, toutes les ideés. Dans la confiance de nos
entretiens j'ai bien souvent regretté que tout le monde
ne fût pas là pour l'entendre, tout le monde, Anglais,
Français, ceux dont il ne partageait pas les opinions
comme ceux qui étaient de son avis. Il aurait exercé
sur tout le monde une influence bien salutaire, et les
absurdes propos qui out été tenus, depuis qu'il n'est
plus là, auraient été complètement impossibles.']
February 1st, 1841 {p.371}
The Sheriffs' dinner at the Lord President's on Saturday.[6] It
must be owned they decide very conscientiously. One man asked for
exemption because he had, by keeping away Conservative votes,
decided an election in favour of a Whig candidate, and, though
otherwise disposed to let him off, they made him Sheriff directly
on reading this excuse. I sat next to Palmerston. It was amusing
to see how everything is blown over, and how success and the
necessity of making common cause has reconciled all jarring
sentiments; and it was amusing to hear Melbourne in one house and
John Russell in the other vigorously defending and praising
Palmerston's policy. It must be owned that Palmerston has
conducted himself well under the circumstances, without any air
of triumph or boasting either over his colleagues or his
opponents or the French. He has deserved his success by the
moderation with which he has taken it. I saw Bourqueney last
night, delighted with all that was said in Parliament,
especially, of course, by the Duke and Peel, but well satisfied
with John Russell and Palmerston, and he owned the tone of the
latter was unexceptionable.
[6] [The list of Sheriffs for the ensuing year is settled
at an annual dinner attended by the Cabinet Ministers,
when the three names designated by the judges for each
county are passed in review, excuses considered, and
one of the number chosen to be submitted to the Queen.]
February 4th, 1841 {p.372}
Went the night before last to Exeter Hall, to hear Mr. Hullah[7]
give a lecture on the teaching of vocal music in the Poor Law
schools (and elsewhere). Very interesting, well done, and the
illustration of his plan by the boys of Dr. Kay's school and
other (adult) pupils of Hullah's was excellent. The plan has been
tried with great success in France, Germany, and Switzerland, and
the Education Committee are disposed to assist in giving it a
trial here. These plans, which are founded in benevolence and a
sincere desire for the diffusion of good among the people, merit
every encouragement, and will in the end get it, for there is, in
the midst of much indifference and prejudice, a growing
disposition to ameliorate the condition of the masses, both
morally and physically.
[7] [I had myself put Mr. Hullah in relation with the
Government, and with Mr. Eden, who tried his system of
musical instruction (based on Wilhem's plan) at the
schools at Battersea. Indeed, I persuaded Hullah to go
to France to study Wilhem's system, which was in
operation there. Lord Lansdowne saw that musical
education was a neutral ground on which all parties
(those most divided) might agree; and he took up this
idea with success. Sydney Smith went to this lecture,
to Hullah's great delight, and it was very successful.
Mr. Hullah, after a long and useful career, died in
1884.--H.R.]
[Page Head: IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.]
Yesterday all the Tories were in high glee at their success at
the Canterbury and Walsall elections, the former not having been
expected by either party, and nevertheless they had a majority of
165 votes. It is certainly curious, for the Government have a
right to be popular, or, at least, to expect that no tide of
unpopularity should rise against them; and after all their
successes, and the declared inability of their opponents to find
fault with them, it is strange that they should lose ground to
the extent that they have. The Government see all the danger of
their position, and how very probable it is that they may be
reduced to the necessity of resignation or dissolution, and,
though they have no hopes of bettering themselves by the latter,
they have made up their minds to try the experiment, in order
that they may give the Queen no reason to accuse them of
unnecessarily deserting her, and not exhausting every expedient
to retain their places before they give them up. They are,
however, very much divided upon the question of what to dissolve
upon, some being for so doing on Stanley's Irish Registration
Bill, if then defeated, while others (more judiciously, _meâ
sententiâ_) are against going to the country on any Irish
question.[8]
[8] [The Irish system for the registration of voters
differed materially from that of England. In Ireland,
every person claiming to vote for the first time was
obliged to prove his title; in England, all claims were
admitted that were not objected to, and other abuses
had crept in. Attempts had been made by the Government
to remedy this evil, but in vain; and in 1840 Lord
Stanley, then in Opposition, took it in hand, and
brought in an Irish Registration Bill, which was
opposed by O'Connell and by Lord Morpeth, then Irish
Secretary, but on two successive divisions Ministers
were beaten. This Bill was, however, withdrawn. In 1841
Lord Stanley and Lord Morpeth both brought in Irish
Registration Bills; the former was meant to clear the
Register of fictitious voters, the latter was a Reform
Bill in disguise, for it extended the franchise to
leaseholders rated at £5 a year. The contest between
these two rival Bills occupied the early parts of the
session. The second reading of Lord Morpeth's Bill was
carried by 299 to 294, but eventually the qualification
clause was struck out of the Bill in Committee by a
division of 300 to 294 on April 29. (See Walpole's
_History of England_, vol. iii. p. 520.)]
February 9th, 1841 {p.373}
The Duke of Wellington had an attack the other night in the House
of Lords, and was taken home speechless, but not senseless. It
was severe, but short, and after the stomach was relieved, he
rapidly recovered, and in a day or two _pronounced_ himself as
well as ever. Of course the alarm was very great. He is very
eager about politics, and the Tory language is that of exceeding
gloom about the general aspect of affairs, while their own
affairs, as far as elections are concerned, flourish. In
Monmouthshire the Whig has resigned without a contest; the Tories
affect to consider Morpeth's Registration Bill as a revolution,
while the Whigs pretend that Stanley's will make every county in
Ireland a close Orange borough. Perhaps the debates may strike
out something approaching to the truth. Great disquietude at the
French armaments, considerable uneasiness at the dispute with
America, and much disgust at our having been apparently
bamboozled by the Chinese, form the principal topics of political
grievance and complaint.
February 12th, 1841 {p.373}
The other day I met Lord Howick, and had a talk with him about
the Irish questions now pending. The Government are much pleased
with his support of Morpeth's Bill. As he stands, as it were,
midway between the two Bills, I asked him to explain to me the
merits of the question, which he did, as it seemed to me, fairly
enough. He approves of the machinery of Stanley's registration,
and of Morpeth's definition of the franchise, not binding himself
to _amount_, but not objecting to that proposed. He showed me a
letter he wrote to Stanley, in a very amicable strain, setting
forth the danger which he thought would attend any settlement of
the question which did not embrace a definition of the franchise,
and entreating him to reconsider the question, for the purpose of
coming to some arrangement. The answer was not encouraging, for
it consisted of a note from Lady Stanley to Lady Howick, in which
she said that Stanley had got the gout in his hand, and could not
write, but desired her to say that he entirely disagreed with
Howick. Howick talked sensibly enough about it, and asked me if I
could not do anything to bring about a compromise, his notion
being that there should be a committee above stairs to take
evidence as to the effect of the £5 franchise, and that only the
principle of definition should be admitted. I told him I had no
means whatever, had no access to any of the leaders, that the
only men to whom I could talk were Graham or Fitzgerald, and that
if I fell in with either, I would see if any possibility
presented itself.
February 14th, 1841 {p.374}
[Page Head: SIR JAMES GRAHAM ON IRISH AFFAIRS.]
The day before yesterday I met Graham by accident at Boodle's, so
I took the opportunity of talking to him about these Bills, and I
soon found that there is no possibility of any compromise. He
expressed the greatest alarm and disgust at Morpeth's measure;
said that he had never seen Stanley so determined, and that he
and Peel both entirely agreed with him; that he could not
understand how John Russell, or indeed any member of Lord Grey's
Government, could consent to such a violation of the principle of
the Reform Bill, and to the formation of a new franchise, which,
if granted, must entail similar concessions in England and
Scotland; that the intention of the framers of the Reform Bill
was that, in the counties, property and not numbers should have
influence, and the effect of this Bill would be to transfer
influence from property to numbers. He spoke much of the
unpopularity of the Government, which he attributed to the Irish
connexion, and thought that this Bill would do them great harm in
England. When I urged the importance of settling affairs in
Ireland, and not leaving such a question as this to unite all the
country against them, if they came in again, and to revive the
great power of O'Connell, which had for some time been waning,
and I pointed out the great danger that might arise from Ireland
in the present unsettled state of Europe, he said, rather than
consent to such a measure as this, he was prepared to encounter
every difficulty and danger; he would never consent to transfer
power from the landed interest to the multitude; and as long as
the priests interfered in Irish elections, it could not be
expected that landlords would not counteract that influence by
diminishing as much as they could the numbers of those who were
made to act under it; that the old saying that Cromwell had
confiscated too much, or exterminated too little, was the truth;
he saw no way of pacifying that country, and as to concessions
they must have a limit, every concession had been made that could
be reasonably desired, and he would do no more. If they came into
power, he would be prepared to govern equitably, without fear or
favour, encouraging, without reference to political or religious
opinions, all those who supported the British connexion, and with
a determination to uphold without flinching the national
institutions. I asked him if he thought no transaction could be
effected with the Irish priests, so as to reconcile them to
Government; but he said that none was, he thought, now feasible.
He had been for the measure, but now England would not grant an
establishment to the Catholic clergy, and if she would, they
would not accept it, for they never would abandon the advantages
they enjoyed under the present system of voluntary contributions,
which was in most cases more profitable than any provision which
could possibly be held out to them.
The result of all this presents very serious matter for
reflexion, for this Irish question will probably draw a broad
line of separation between parties, afford respective rallying-
points, and secure a formidable and united opposition if the
Tories come in; and one cannot regard without the greatest
apprehension the prospect of a systematic determined hostility on
the part of the Irish masses towards this country with the
certainty almost that the ground on which the battle will be
fought will be that of maintaining the Irish Church. This is in
point of fact the interest which the Tory or English party
regard. Ireland is denied her share in representation, hers is
made an exceptional case, because she is under Catholic
influence, and because that Catholic influence will, they
suspect, if ever it is strong enough, exert its strength in
overturning the English Church. I do not think anybody of sense
and information believes that the Irish Catholic clergy or laity
have any disinclination to British connexion, except so far as
they are in their own eyes degraded or injured by it. There
exists, and there ever will exist, that one deep feeling,
constantly kept burning in the minds of the laity by the undying
zeal of the clergy, that Catholic Ireland is insulted and
impoverished by the vast Protestant ecclesiastical establishment,
that in the most important, the most heart-stirring of all
interests, an interest at once temporal and spiritual, they are
stripped of those equal and essential rights which are possessed
by England and Scotland. I have never doubted that sooner or
later this contest would arise, and that the end of it will be,
however long in coming, the downfall of the Church of England in
Ireland, as fall it ought.[9]
[9] [This prediction was fulfilled in 1868. But the measure
was not followed by that cessation of discord which Mr.
Greville hopefully anticipated from it.]
February 27th, 1841 {p.376}
The debate lasted four nights on Morpeth's Bill, and Ministers
got a majority of five, both sides bringing down the sick and the
dying without remorse. A close division and parties nicely
balanced, extinguish all feelings of humanity. The best speeches
were Charles Buller's, Sheil's, Follett's, Peel's, and John
Russell's. It is supposed this will bolster them up for the
Session, but something still depends on Stanley's Bill.
[Page Head: SETTLEMENT OF THE EASTERN QUESTION.]
Foreign affairs have assumed a better aspect. A negotiation is
going on _here_ for the purpose of inviting France to join the
alliance, and take part in the final settlement of the Eastern
Question, which she desires no better than to accept, and then to
disarm; indeed, she has already begun to do so. The delay is
occasioned by some difficulty as to the forms to be adopted. The
French want some phrases, which don't seem unreasonable in
themselves, but about which the Russian makes a difficulty. There
is to be a Note, and in this Note Bourqueney wishes it to be
expressly stated that the integrity of the Ottoman Empire is now
secured, but Brunnow makes this strange objection, that they
should thereby be admitting the _de jure_ occupation of Algiers
by the French. This seems such a frivolous objection that it is
difficult to conceive it can be the real one. The wonder is that
Palmerston, who carries everything with so high a hand, does not
overrule it _auctoritate suâ_. He has been showing off his
flippancy lately not only to France, but to Austria, writing
despatches to Lord Granville, which are in such a tone that he
complains bitterly of being instructed to read them to Guizot;
and, with regard to Austria, this occurred: Metternich wrote some
letter complaining of delay in settling the question of Mehemet
Ali's hereditary possession of Egypt, which, it seems, nettled
Palmerston, and he wrote a remarkably clever but very insolent
answer, in which he reviewed the vacillations and inconsistencies
of the Austrian Cabinet in a very offensive style. This despatch
was read by the Cabinet; and I fancy generally disapproved, very
much so by Melbourne, who however did not interfere, and let it
go. But Frederick Lamb, who has all the confidence and courage
which Melbourne wants, very quietly put it in his drawer, and
wrote word to Palmerston that circumstances were changed and he
should not give it to Metternich. Melbourne was very much pleased
at this, and said it was very judicious; but he forgot that it
was his business to stop it in the first instance, and that,
thinking it imprudent, as Prime Minister he ought to have put his
veto on it. But he is only Prime Minister in name, and has no
authority. He is all in all at Buckingham Palace, but very little
in Downing Street.
March 2nd, 1841, Tuesday {p.378}
[Page Head: THE PROTOCOL DELAYED.]
On Sunday I met Bourqueney at dinner. He was very gloomy, talked
of the debate in the Chamber and the declarations in favour of
keeping up the _isolement_ as '_très-grave_,' and then complained
bitterly, but obscurely, of the difficulties he encountered here,
and how hard it was, after the unanimous expressions in both
Houses of Parliament, that such obstacles should be cast in the
way of a settlement, hinting at Palmerston as the cause, but
without being explicit; indeed, it was in the carriage going to
Lady Holland's, and there was not time for more. To-day, however,
I have heard more; and it seems that Palmerston has been at his
tricks again, though I don't yet know precisely what he has done.
My brother keeps writing me word that his tone in his
communications to the French Government, through Lord Granville,
is very offensive; but here he appeared to be really anxious to
conciliate. It is, however, quite impossible to make out what he
is at. He has contributed more than anybody to give this
Government a _federal_ character; for in the Foreign Office he
has resolved to be, and he is, wholly independent of his
colleagues. He tells them as much or as little of his proceedings
as it suits his purpose or his fancy to do; and they are now so
well aware of this, and have so little confidence in him, that
when he does tell the Cabinet anything they feel no security that
they are acquainted with the truth or, at least, the whole truth.
In the pending matter, Esterhazy and Bülow have been vehemently
urging the completion of an arrangement, but the Cabinet settled
that no overture should be made to France without previously
ascertaining that she would accept it when made. All very proper!
It was settled that the other Powers should beg Palmerston to
invite France in all their names to join in a Convention for
securing the free navigation of the Bosphorus; and this
Convention was arranged at a Conference some day last week, and
at the same time a Protocol--which was to _precede_ it--stating
that, the objects of the July alliance being completed, the
alliance was at an end. All this was agreed to, and on Saturday
at the Cabinet the Convention was read and approved of; but
objections were made to the Protocol on the ground that questions
might still arise requiring the intervention of the alliance,
that no certain intelligence had yet arrived either of the
evacuation of Syria by Ibrahim or the publication of the firman
by the Sultan, and, therefore, it would be imprudent to break up
the alliance just at this moment, and this operation might as
well be deferred for a brief space. Such was the general
sentiment. Melbourne said, 'Are you sure France will take the
Convention?' to which Palmerston replied, he had no doubt she
would, as it had been put into his hands by Esterhazy, who had
probably already communicated it to Bourqueney. But he did not
tell the Cabinet that he had agreed at the Conference to the
Protocol likewise, and had left his foreign colleagues under the
impression that it would be agreed to by the Cabinet.
On Sunday night Bülow and Bourqueney met Normanby at Lady
Holland's, when they both spoke to him in the strongest terms,
more especially Bülow; who said it was very painful to him to
complain to Normanby of the conduct of Palmerston, and he would
not repeat what had passed at the Conference, but he must tell
him if Palmerston continued to conduct himself as he did, the
most fatal consequences would ensue, and the affairs of Europe
would become more embroiled and be in a more perilous state than
they had ever been yet. He frightened Normanby so much that the
next morning he went off to Melbourne, told him what had passed,
and entreated him to interfere. Melbourne promised he would, but
of course he will not; and Palmerston will probably not care a
straw what he says, or be in the slightest degree biassed by any
opinion he may express. As far as I can guess, Bourqueney's
excessive discontent arises from this: He very naturally wants
this Protocol, and Bülow and Esterhazy, no doubt, told him that
Palmerston had consented to it and would propose it to him;
whereas, in their conference on Sunday, Palmerston probably
offered him the Convention but did not say a word about the
Protocol, and this both he and Bülow consider a great breach of
faith. Notwithstanding the good reason which there really is for
not formally dissolving the alliance till all the arrangements
concerning Egypt and Syria are completed, it is easy to
understand that in the present temper of France it would be
impossible for Guizot to enter into any relations with the other
Powers till their separate and exclusive alliance is at an end.
It is no wonder, therefore, that Bourqueney looks upon the
Protocol as an essential condition of his acceptance of the
Convention; and if he has been first given to understand that the
Protocol was admitted, and then told by Palmerston that it could
not be, he might naturally be indignant. One never knows what
else Palmerston may have said nor what tone he may have taken.
[Page Head: A MISREPORTED SPEECH.]
While these difficulties are obstructing a pacific arrangement
here, they are rendered much more serious by the discussions in
the French Chamber on the Secret Service money, when the insolent
and extravagant speeches in favour of keeping up the _isolement_
and the state of armed observation were hailed with vociferous
applause; and this frantic violence is the Parliamentary response
to the calm and dignified expression of peace and goodwill to
France which marked our first Parliamentary night, and in which
the leaders of all parties joined with equal cordiality. If this
goes on, and if Guizot is not strong enough to give effect to his
pacific disposition and to venture upon a reconciliation, all
amicable feelings towards France will be swallowed up in a
general sentiment of indignation at her insolence; and instead of
wasting any more time in fruitless endeavours to bring her back
into the councils of Europe, we shall begin to think of the means
of securing ourselves against any possible effects of her ill-
will and obstinate resentment. Those who have most strongly
advocated the French alliance will be soon ready to cement that
of the four great Powers, to curb the extravagant pretensions and
mischievous designs of France, if the latter does not come to her
senses and descend from her high horse very soon.
March 4th, 1841 {p.381}
Yesterday morning Dedel, who was pretty accurately acquainted
with all that has lately passed, called on me. His account
confirmed my notions. The other Ministers of the Conference had
told Bourqueney what he was to expect at his conference with
Palmerston. When, therefore, the latter tendered him the draft of
the Convention, he said, 'This is very well, but have you nothing
else to give me?' 'No,' said Palmerston; 'what do you mean? I
know of nothing else.' 'Have you not also a Protocol, announcing
the _clôture_ to propose to me?' 'Oh no; that is impossible.
There has been a question of such a Protocol, but great
difficulties have arisen. Chekib says he cannot agree to such a
Protocol without previous application to his Court and receiving
a specific authority.' On this, Bourqueney very indignantly said,
'he must know it was quite useless to offer him the one without
the other, as the formal termination of the alliance of July was
an indispensable preliminary of any convention to which France
could be a party.' A warm conversation followed, in the course of
which (as Dedel says), Bourqueney saying, 'Nous ne sommes pas
pressés,' Palmerston replied in his most insolent tone, 'Et nous
ne sommes pas pressés non plus; si vous ne craignez pas les
bâtiments anglais, vous sentez bien que nous ne craignons pas les
bâtiments français....'[10]
[10] [This was untrue, as appears by the next entry.]
March 5th, 1841 {p.381}
[Page Head: PROTOCOL AND CONVENTION SIGNED.]
At the Cabinet dinner the day before yesterday, Palmerston
announced that 'everything was going on well, everybody
satisfied,' and as this rose-coloured aspect of affairs was so
inconsistent with the gloom and discontent of Bourqueney and
Bülow, and the account given me by Dedel, I resolved to call on
Bourqueney, and find out from him in what position the affair
stood. I did so, and the result proved with what caution one
ought to listen to the reports of persons the best informed, and
who relate what they have heard with the most veracious
intentions. Instead of correcting or expunging what I have said
above, I shall put down the substance of what Bourqueney said to
me, which agrees with much of Dedel's account, but differs in
some very important particulars. I told him that I had (as he
would be sure) no desire to _fourrer_ myself into his affairs,
but that I thought a little conversation between us might be
useful in promoting the object we had in common--that of
restoring amicable relations between the two countries; and
having seen how annoyed he was on Sunday last, and knowing what
had passed, I wished to know if he was not _now_ better satisfied
than he was _then_; and that as I, and those with whom I
communicated, only knew what passed between him and Palmerston,
or at the conferences, from Palmerston's own reports, when he
told his colleagues just what he pleased and no more, and as I
had heard from other quarters an account of his interview on
Sunday with Palmerston, I wished to know what had really passed.
He had, he said, been extremely annoyed and disappointed, after
being told that he was to have the Protocol (by Bülow and
Esterhazy, of course), when Palmerston told him this was out of
the question, as Chekib refused to sign it without orders. He
then gave me the conversation between himself and Palmerston,
which does not appear to have been acrimonious, and instead of
Palmerston's having made that insolent speech which was put in
his mouth when Bourqueney said, 'Mais nous ne sommes pas
pressés,' he only said, 'Ni nous non plus, c'est l'Autriche et la
Prusse qui sont pressées;' so that all the offensive part was a
fabricated addition, and I have no doubt of this by Bourqueney's
way of speaking of it. He said, moreover, 'Il faut rendre justice
à Lord Palmerston, son ton a été excellent, et jamais il n'a
prononcé le mot de désarmement;' that if he had, or had attempted
to impose any condition, he should at once have rejected all
overtures; but nothing of the kind had been attempted, and he
admitted that every respect had been shown to France, and a
sincere desire evinced to renew relations with her. He said,
'Enfin vous êtes triomphants, et nous sommes humiliés,' and you
can well afford to treat us 'avec des égards;' but he seemed to
think that in point of fact the Conference was already
practically dissolved, for both Bülow and Esterhazy had declared
(in their anxiety for the _clôture_, as an indispensable
preliminary to the Convention, for which their eagerness is
intense), that, happen what might, they would take no farther
part in Eastern affairs. On the whole, the prospect is good, and
it is but just to Palmerston to say that he does not seem to have
acted unfairly or insolently, or to be obnoxious to any reproach
in his relations with Bourqueney.
March 12th, 1841 {p.383}
The Protocols were duly signed and the Convention sent to Paris.
They were well received by Guizot, who returned them for some
verbal alterations which have been agreed to, and if no new
difficulties arise in the East to prevent a settlement, our
relations with France will be restored. But within these few days
a whole budget of bad news has poured in--from China, where the
admiral has resigned on the plea of ill-health, having done
nothing but lose half the troops he took out, and leaving affairs
in a very uncertain and unsatisfactory state. I had a letter from
Emily Eden[11] yesterday, in great disgust at the waste of time,
money, and life, and the failure hitherto of all the objects we
had in view. The Chinese have bamboozled and baffled us, that is
the plain truth.
[11] [Miss Emily Eden had accompanied her brother, Lord
Auckland, to India, where he was Governor-General. This
impression of the state of our relations with China
appears to have been erroneous. On February 1st,
Captain Elliot annexed the island of Hong Kong, which
has been permanently united to the British Empire, and
on April 18th Her Majesty's forces occupied Canton.]
Then the violence and bad spirit displayed in America have
produced no small consternation here, though everybody goes on
saying that a war between the two countries, and for so little
cause, is impossible.[12] It does seem impossible, and the
manifest interest of both nations is opposed to it; but when a
country is so mob-governed as America, and the Executive is so
destitute of power, there must be great danger. However, the
general conviction is, that the present exhibition of violence is
attributable to the malignity of the outgoing party, which is
desirous of embarrassing their successors, and casting on them
the perils of a war or the odium of a reconciliation with this
country, and strong hopes are entertained that the new Government
will be too wise to fall into the snare that is laid for them,
and strong enough to check and master the bad spirit which is
rife in the Northern States. The real difficulty arises from the
conviction here, that in the case of M'Leod we are in the right,
and the equally strong conviction there, that we are not, and the
actual doubt on which side the truth lies. Senior, whom I met the
other day, expressed great uncertainty, and he proposes, and has
written to Government on the subject, that the question of
International Law shall be submitted to the decision of a German
University--that of Berlin, he thinks, would be the best. This
idea he submitted to Stevenson, who approved of it, but the great
difficulty would be to agree upon a statement of facts. Yesterday
Lord Lyndhurst was at the Council Office, talking over the matter
with Sir Herbert Jenner and Justice Littledale, and he said it
was very questionable if the Americans had not right on their
side; and that he thought, in a similar case here, we should be
obliged to try the man, and if convicted, nothing but a pardon
could save him. These opinions casting such serious doubts on the
question of right, are at least enough to restrain indignation
and beget caution.
[12] [This refers to the case of one M'Leod, who had been
engaged as a member of the Colonial forces in repelling
the attack made upon Canada from United States
territory, and who had consequently acted as an agent
of the British Government. But M'Leod was arrested at
New York in 1841 upon a charge of the murder of one
Durfee, who was killed during the capture of the
'Caroline.' The American authorities refused to give
him up on the demand of the British Minister, who
alleged that M'Leod's deed was a legitimate act, done
in obedience to his superior officers. He was tried,
and fortunately acquitted; but Mr. Webster, the
American Secretary of State, subsequently admitted that
individuals concerned in a public transaction under the
orders of their Government could not be held
responsible to the ordinary tribunals of law for their
participation in it. See Halleck's _International Law_,
vol. i., p. 430; and Hale's _International Law_,
p. 261.]
Besides China and America, two days ago appeared the Sultan's
firman restoring the Pasha, but on terms which he was certain not
to accept. This document, which arrives just as we are renewing
our relations with France, and which carries on the face of it
the strongest marks of Lord Ponsonby's interference and
influence, is well calculated to obstruct the arrangement, and so
it appeared to Clarendon, to Lord Lansdowne, to Melbourne, and to
John Russell. Clarendon immediately appealed to Lord John, who,
however, took it very quietly, and was averse to saying or doing
anything; and when he spoke to Melbourne, the latter said
Palmerston had shown him Ponsonby's private letter, in which he
said that he had nothing to do with it, that it was all
Stürmer's[13] doing, and that for some time past he had not been
able to make Redschid Pasha mind a word he said. On the other
hand, Lord John also spoke to Palmerston, when Palmerston said
not a word of Ponsonby's letter, but told him it was the best
possible arrangement; that Mehemet Ali had not understood it at
first, but that he would in the end be quite satisfied with it,
and that it was the only way of preventing confusion. Of course
Melbourne and Lord John were quite content, and fully partake of
Palmerston's entire satisfaction. Yesterday morning, however, I
found that Francis Egerton was full of indignation at this fresh
outrage, as he considered it, of Ponsonby's, and had taken a
resolution to bring the matter forward in the House of Commons,
but previously to speak to the Duke and Peel. Nothing was done
last night, and this morning he came and told me that they both
agreed with him, but that the Duke urged the necessity of extreme
caution, and of previously ascertaining the sentiments of the
other Allies, as we must not do or say anything which might
disturb our harmony with them. This caution, and not any
indisposition to take the matter up, was the reason no notice was
taken in the House of Commons last night, and they are now
waiting for further information to determine what course to take.
[13] [M. Stürmer was the Austrian Internuncio at
Constantinople.]
March 14th, 1841
[Page Head: BAD EFFECT OF THE HATTI-SHERIF.]
On Friday, Francis Egerton put questions to Palmerston, and Peel
took a part. He told me that he was much surprised at the way in
which Palmerston received as well as answered them, as they had
intended nothing hostile and thought it was doing him a service,
and affording him an opportunity of explaining away the bad
effect of the Hatti-sherif, but that he took it very ill, and
answered with evident embarrassment. From his manner, and the way
in which Labouchere cheered when Palmerston said that their
intention had been to give a _bonâ fide hérédité_ to Mehemet Ali,
he inferred there was some disagreement in the Cabinet.
Yesterday Reeve went off to Paris, having had a conference with
Lord Lansdowne, who not only expressed his dissatisfaction with
the firman, but authorised him to say so to M. Guizot, and to
assure him that this was the sentiment of the Government, and
that it was quite inconsistent with any instructions to Ponsonby
_which he had ever seen or heard of_.
The Tories were extremely dissatisfied with Palmerston's answers
the other night, but they have an extraordinary reluctance to
provoke any discussion on foreign affairs, though he is so
vulnerable on all points. It is, however, highly probable that
the matter will not be suffered to rest here. In such a manner
does one bold, unscrupulous, and able man predominate over his
colleagues, one of whom is John Russell, not less bold at times,
and as able as himself; but of a quiet disposition, shrinking
from contest, controversy, and above all, I take it, from the
labyrinth of underhand dealing which he must thread and
disentangle, if he insists upon a regular settlement of accounts
with Palmerston. There is no other way of accounting for his
acquiescence in the latter's proceedings. As for the rest,
Melbourne is too indolent, Lansdowne too timid, and the others
too indifferent to interfere. Clarendon has the will and the
courage, but he can do nothing alone, and he cannot rouse anybody
else to take part with him. If Lord Holland were still alive,
something might now be done.
[Page Head: FRESH OBSTACLES.]
The other night Peel, who has been a good deal nettled by the
attacks on him in a series of letters, signed 'Catholicus,' in
the 'Times,' made a very striking speech upon the education and
recreation of the people, which was enthusiastically cheered by
the Whigs, but received in silence by the Tories. He made a sort
of reply in this speech to the charges of irreligion insinuated
in these letters, and took the opportunity of expressing those
liberal sentiments which mark his own identification with the
progress of society, and which render him, from their liberality
and wisdom, the object of such suspicion, fear, and dislike with
the Tory democracy who reluctantly own him for their leader.
March 16th, 1841 {p.387}
On Friday last, after the House of Lords was over, the
Ministerial Lords gathered on the bench and had a sort of
Cabinet, a practice in which Melbourne takes pleasure. Clarendon
held forth about the state of the Eastern Question, and said all
he thought without reserve. He worked up Lansdowne to a
considerable amount of zeal and resolution to bestir himself. The
next day Lansdowne called on Melbourne, and he owned to Clarendon
that he was shocked and surprised to find that Melbourne had
never had any communication with Palmerston on the subject, and,
in point of fact, knew very little about what was going on. The
next day there was a Cabinet, when both Lansdowne and Clarendon
expressed their opinion with vivacity, complaining of the
proceeding at Constantinople, and urging the necessity of some
decisive step being taken here to correct its effects. Palmerston
knocked under; that is, he made no defence and no resistance, and
ostensibly acquiesced in the opinions expressed, and promised to
act in conformity with them. Though no reliance can be placed on
him, and none is placed, it would appear as if he was become
aware of the necessity of making his actions correspond with his
professions and with the opinions which have been so strongly
expressed in all quarters; for I met Bourqueney last night, who
told me that he really did think they were at last making
progress towards a satisfactory conclusion, that he had received
his instructions (which I already knew were to say the French
Government would hear of nothing till this Hatti-sherif was
disavowed) and had instantly got the Conference convened, and
that a formal notification had been made by the Four Powers to
the Turkish Ministers of their disapprobation of the firman, and
this seems to have been done in a way he considers satisfactory.
March 19th, 1841 {p.388}
The Bishop of Exeter got a heavy fall in the House of Lords the
other night on the St. Sulpice question.[14] He brought it
forward in an elaborate speech the week before, with his usual
ability and cunning; and he took the Duke of Wellington in; for,
after hearing the Bishop protest, and apparently make out, that
'a great blow had been struck at the Reformation,' he got up,
and, in total ignorance of the subject, committed his potential
voice and opinion to an agreement with the Bishop's dictum. The
truth, however, was that there was no case at all; the Government
had not only done what they were justified in doing, but they had
acted in precise conformity with the conduct held by all their
Tory predecessors, colonial secretaries, and with that of the
Duke of Wellington himself, who had forgotten all that had
occurred and the part he had previously taken. The consequence
was that the Tories resolved to throw the Bishop over, and so
they did, greatly to his rage and disgust and to the satisfaction
of all the bigots; not even a solitary Bishop or high Tory had a
word to say in his favour. He was detected in the course of the
debate of having sent a report to the 'Times' of his former
speech containing a very essential paragraph which he had omitted
in the speech itself. He tried to back out of it, and brought the
'Times' reporter as his witness; but he stood convicted in
general opinion.
[14] [This related to the Catholic foundation of St. Sulpice
in Canada.]
Reeve is gone to Paris. He saw Guizot on his arrival, who
announced to him what he meant to do. He waits till the Four
Powers have settled the Eastern Question, in which he will not
meddle in the slightest degree; and when it is settled, he will
be ready to join in the Convention. Bourqueney has signed the
document _de bene esse_; this is his wisest and most dignified
course.
March 30th, 1841 {p.388}
Nothing new for the last fortnight, the Eastern Question
apparently progressing to a settlement through some not very
important obstacles, and, what is of much greater consequence, a
fair prospect of an amicable arrangement with America. The new
President's inaugural speech, pedantic and ridiculous as it was,
had the merit of being temperate; and Webster had already written
to Evelyn Denison, desiring him not to judge of the real
sentiments of America by the trash spoken and the violence
exhibited in Congress, or by the mob of New York. John Bull, too,
who had begun to put himself into a superfine passion, and to
bluster a good deal in the French vein, is getting more tranquil,
and begins to see the propriety of going to work moderately and
without insisting on having everything his own way.
[Page Head: DEBATE ON THE POOR LAW.]
In Parliament there has been nothing of interest but the Poor Law
Bill, debated with great heat, and the several clauses carried by
majorities very little indicative of the real opinion of the
majority of the House. But the truth is that the Tories are
(generally) behaving very ill on this question, and their
shabbiness is the more striking because the Government have
behaved so well. The Tories are just as anxious for the passing
of the Bill as their opponents, or more so, nevertheless they
stay away or abuse and oppose the clauses, in order to curry
favour with their own constituencies and to cast odium on their
opponents, by which they may profit in the event of a general
election. There is probably not a man of them who would not be
annoyed and disappointed to the greatest degree if the Bill
should be impaired in its leading principles and material
provisions. The Government might, if they had chosen it, have
proposed the law as an experimental measure for a short period,
so as to cast upon their opponents the ultimate responsibility of
the measure, but they dealt with it liberally and wisely, and
without reference to temporary interests or party purposes,
which, so far from eliciting a corresponding spirit from their
opponents, only afforded them the opportunity (of which, without
shame or decency, they are availing themselves) to convert it
into a source of unpopularity against the Government who bring it
forward.
April 5th, 1841 {p.390}
While the American question looks well, the affairs of the East
are all unsettled again. The Pasha has, with all humility,
declined the conditions of the Sultan's Hatti-sherif, and the
whole thing remains still to be adjusted. Nobody, however, cares
or thinks much about it at all, for the Eastern business is
become as tedious as a twice-told tale. No more danger to the
peace of Europe is apprehended from it; nobody cares a straw for
Sultan or Pasha, and still less for the repose of the countries
they misgovern or the happiness of the people they oppress.
Sir Robert Peel has dined at the Palace for the first time since
the Bedchamber quarrel, and this is deemed important. All
domestic interest is absorbed in the blow which has fallen upon
Lord Granville at Paris, in the shape of a paralytic stroke,
which, from the character of the man, his social position, and
the important and unhappy consequences of this affliction to a
numerous class of people, excites a very deep and general
interest.
May 2nd, 1841 {p.390}
The approach of the Newmarket meetings usually absorbs my
thoughts, oppresses me with its complicated interests, and
destroys all my journalising energies. After a month's interval,
I take up my pen to note down the events that have occurred in
it. I went to Newmarket on Saturday before the Craven Meeting,
and on Sunday morning received a letter informing me of the
sudden death of my sister-in-law (Mrs. Algernon Greville), which
obliged me to return to town. This grievous affliction, so heavy
and irreparable to those whom it immediately concerns, matters
but little to the mass of society, who for the most part good-
naturedly sympathised with the sufferers; but the object, so
precious to the narrow circle of her own family, was too
unimportant to the world at large to be entitled to anything more
than a passing expression of regret. I went down to the funeral,
and was unutterably disgusted with the ceremony, with the
bustling business of the undertaker, mixing so irreverently with
the profound grief of the brothers and other relations who
attended, the decking us out in the paraphernalia of woe, and
thus dragging us in mourning coaches through crowds of curious
people, by a circuitous route, that as much of us as possible
might be exhibited to vulgar curiosity. These are things
monstrous in themselves, but to which all-reconciling custom
makes us submit.
[Page Head: LOSS OF THE 'PRESIDENT.']
This is not the only misfortune which has fallen upon individual
heads; but of all occurrences that which has excited the greatest
interest has been the loss, as it must now be concluded, of the
'President' steamer, with, among others, the Duke of Richmond's
young son on board. Day after day people have watched and
enquired with the most intense interest for the arrival or for
news of this vessel, and are only now slowly and reluctantly
abandoning all hope, while the wretched parents have been for
weeks past agitated with all the alternations of hope and
despair, and suffering a protracted torture worse than any
certainty. So much for private woes.
In the world of politics we have had an interval of repose till
after the recess, when Government sustained two defeats on the
Irish Registration Bill,[15] and Walter came in for Nottingham on
an Anti-Poor-Law cry, and by the union of Chartists and Tories to
defeat the Whig candidate. After the first division, Clarendon
wrote to me as follows: 'The defeat last night was a signal one.
We have had a Cabinet about it, and I went there fully expecting
that resignation would be the order of the day--_the word never
crossed the lips of anyone!_ Various expedients were suggested,
but, except by me, the thought of going out was not entertained.
The result is, that another trial of strength is to be had, and
if we are beaten the Bill is to be withdrawn for the year. How
Stanley's is afterwards to be opposed remains to be seen, but for
that we trust to luck and O'Connell's ingenuity in devising
delays--not very creditable or satisfactory, but as John has to
defend his course, he is the best judge of what he should do. He
quite scouted to me afterwards the idea of resigning, though he
admitted the Tory chances had advanced prodigiously, and that
Peel's language was quite that of determination, and of a man
ready to take the government.' Nobody has a guess what will
happen--whether Government will try and go on, dissolve or
resign; and a thousand speculations, and, of course, lies, are
afloat.
[15] [Lord Morpeth's Irish Registration Bill was withdrawn,
two amendments having been carried by the Opposition by
291 to 270 votes. Mr. Walter was elected at Nottingham
by a majority of 296 over the Government candidate.]
The affairs of the East are still unsettled, but there seems a
chance of their being patched up, though not in a way very
creditable or consistent. Metternich is now threatening the
Porte, that unless she consents to what the Conference shall
suggest he will quit the concern. Palmerston, meanwhile, talks of
again licking Mehemet Ali, while Ponsonby is as furious as ever
at Constantinople, and would blow up the coals again if he knew
how. The manner in which things are mystified, and facts
perverted from the truth, is curiously exemplified in the matter
of the recent Hatti-sherif. It was affirmed, when the severity of
its terms was objected to and Ponsonby blamed, that Ponsonby had
had no hand in it whatever. This was true, but how? He insisted
upon a _much more severe_ clause being inserted, on the Pasha's
being made a mere stipendiary of the Porte, and his revenue being
levied by Turkish officers; and because the Turkish Minister
would not go this length, Ponsonby flew into a rage, and refused
to sanction the Hatti-sherif with his approval unless this clause
was added, so that he had nothing to do with it, only because it
was not so stringent and violent as he wished to make it.
May 3rd, 1841 {p.392}
[Page Head: DEFEAT OF THE MINISTRY.]
Great agitation yesterday at the clubs, and excessive interest
and curiosity about coming events, on which hang the existence of
the Government. The Tories are talking of a vote of want of
confidence, and wish to follow up their successes by this
decisive blow. There is the greatest difference of opinion among
the Whigs as to the necessity of resigning, and, above all, as to
a dissolution. The event of the day was the resignation of
Gordon, Secretary of the Treasury, who could not stand the Corn
alteration that is threatened. Nobody thinks Ministers will carry
their Budget, and that will probably be their _coup de
grâce_.[16]
[16] [It turned out to be so. On April 30th the Chancellor
of the Exchequer introduced his Budget. He proposed to
meet the deficiency in the revenue of £2,421,000 by an
increase of the duty on Colonial timber and a reduction
of the duty on Baltic timber, and by a reduction of
duty on foreign sugar. The debate lasted eight nights,
and on May 18th Ministers were defeated on the sugar
question by a majority of 36. On May 7th Lord John
Russell had given notice of a resolution to reduce the
duties on corn to a fixed sum. On May 24th Sir Robert
Peel gave notice of a vote of want of confidence in the
Government, on which the House divided on June 4th,
Ministers being beaten by a majority of _one_.]
APPENDIX.
The Royal Precedency Question.
[As Mr. Greville's pamphlet on the Precedency Question is
now rarely to be met with, it may be convenient to
reprint it in this place. It is a tract of considerable
originality and research, and it was carefully revised
and approved by Lord Wensleydale and some of the most
eminent lawyers of the time when it was written. This
essay has therefore a substantial legal and historical
value. Moreover, its application is not exclusively
retrospective or confined to the peculiar case of the
precedency of the late Prince Consort at the time of his
marriage, which gave rise to warm debates, for it deals
with the precedency of the members of the Royal Family,
not being sons or daughters of a sovereign, or standing
in close propinquity to the throne. In the course of
years these personages have become numerous, and for the
first time in our history (at least, since the reign of
James I.), between twenty and thirty grandchildren and
great-grandchildren of the reigning sovereign are in
existence, whose claims to precedency will have to be
considered. By the 31st Henry VIII., which assigns places
in Parliament and Council to the sons, brothers, uncles,
and nephews of the king, after these degrees are past,
peers or others of the blood royal are entitled to no
place or precedence, except what belongs to them by their
personal rank or dignity. The mere fact of their descent,
in a more remote degree, from the sovereign, gives them
in law no precedency at all, although it may be conceded
to them by custom, and the respect willingly paid to
members of the Royal Family. Nor are they entitled to
bear the title of 'Royal Highness' unless it be conferred
upon them by the Crown. Thus, if I am not mistaken, the
late Duke of Gloucester, who was a nephew of George III.,
was not a 'Royal Highness' until he married the Princess
Mary, the king's daughter, when that distinction was
conferred upon him. In two or three generations from the
present time it is not improbable that the descendants of
Queen Victoria and Prince Albert will exceed a hundred
persons, and, although they will doubtless all look back
with pride to their illustrious ancestry, they will have
no rank or precedency, in the strict sense of the term,
except such as may be conferred upon them personally by
the Crown. For these reasons, it appears to me that Mr.
Greville's remarks on the subject may have some future
interest.--H.R.]
In the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4th February, when Prince
Albert's Naturalisation Bill was under discussion, Lord Brougham
said:--
'That these questions of precedence were of a very difficult and
doubtful nature. It was therefore a great convenience to submit
them to the House, because it enabled Parliament to make that
quite certain, which, if dealt with under the common law of the
country, might be open to objection.'
The interest which has been excited by this question, and the
doubts which prevail, even among the learned in the law, as to
the actual extent of the Royal prerogative in the matter of
granting precedence, are sufficient to provoke an enquiry into
the opinions of writers upon constitutional law, an examination
of the ancient practice, and of some of the cases which seem to
bear immediately upon the point, in order, if possible, to arrive
at something like a reasonable conclusion as to the power
actually possessed by the crown, and the manner in which, and
extent to which, it might be just and expedient to exercise it
upon the present occasion.
The first question which presents itself is, What have been the
ancient prerogatives of the Crown in granting dignities or pre-
eminencies of any description; and, secondly, In what respect, if
at all, these prerogatives have been limited or restrained by any
Parliamentary enactment. By the laws of England, the Sovereign is
considered the fountain of honour and of privilege, and the
constitution has entrusted to him the sole power of conferring
dignities and honours, in confidence that he will bestow them on
none but such as deserve them.[1]
[1] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 271.
The King may create new titles, and has the prerogative of
conferring privileges upon private persons,[2] _such as granting
place or precedence to any of his subjects_. He may make an
_Arch_-duke, who would not, however, take place of any duke his
ancient.[3]
[2] Ibid. i. 272, 4th Inst. 361.
[3] 4th Inst 363.
The King could create a peer, and give him precedence over all
other peers of the same rank,[4] a prerogative which was not
unfrequently exercised in ancient times. Henry VI. created Henry
Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and Praecomes totius Angliae, and
afterwards Duke of Warwick, with a right to sit in Parliament
after the Duke of Norfolk, but _before_ the Duke of Buckingham;
the same King created Edmund of Hadham Earl of Richmond, and gave
him precedence over all other earls, and Jasper of Hatfield Earl
of Pembroke with precedence next to the said Earl of Richmond.[5]
There appears to have been no limit to the authority of the Crown
in granting honours, titles, dignities, and offices, excepting
only that it could not grant new offices with fees annexed,
because that would be a tax upon the subject, which can only be
imposed by Act of Parliament. Assuming, then, that such was the
extent of the prerogative previously to the 31st of Henry VIII.,
the next question is, Whether it was restrained by that statute;
and if it was, within what limits it was thenceforward confined?
The preamble asserts the prerogative of the Crown in the
strongest terms; probably for the express purpose of guarding
against any inference that it was thereby abridged or restrained.
It is difficult to believe that, in passing the Act entitled 'for
placing the Lords,' Henry VIII. felt any doubt as to the
possession, or scruple as to the exercise, of the prerogative of
his progenitors, and still less that he had the remotest idea of
divesting himself of an iota of his own. The despotic temper of
the King, the subservient character of his Parliaments, and his
habitual employment of them as the most obsequious instrument of
his will, make it probable that he adopted this, merely as the
easiest and most convenient mode of settling a difficult and
complex question, but without the slightest misgiving as to his
own power, or any notion of restraining himself from granting any
privilege or precedence it might at any subsequent period be his
pleasure to bestow. The circumstances under which the provisions
of this Act were carried into operation were remarkable, and give
it much more the appearance of a decree of the King, or a
resolution of the Lords, than of an Act of the Three Estates. The
assent of the Commons seems to have been assumed as a matter of
course, and as soon as it had passed the Lords (which it did very
hastily), it was immediately put in force, 'Concerning the
passing it, it is observable, that on Monday, 1st May, the Lord
Chancellor quandam introduxit billam concernentem assignationem
locorum, &c., which was that day read twice; the next day it had
a third reading, and on Friday a fourth; on the morrow, the Lord
Cromwell is placed before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the
others are placed according to the Act, being before placed
without regard to their offices, but it was not returned from the
House of Commons with their assent till the Monday following.'[6]
[4] Ibid.
[5] 4th Inst 361.
[6] Selden, Titles of Honour, p. 117.
The preamble of the Act is in the following terms:--
'For in as much as in all great councils, or congregations of
men, having sundry degrees and offices in the commonwealth, it is
very requisite and convenient that an order should be had and
taken for the sitting of such persons, that they knowing their
places may use the same without displeasure, or let of the
council, therefore the King's Most Royal Majesty, _tho' it
appertaineth unto his prerogative Royal, to give such honour,
reputation, and placing to his counsellors, and other his
subjects as shall be seeming to his most excellent wisdom_, is,
nevertheless, pleased and contented for an order to be had and
taken in this his Most High Court of Parliament, that it shall be
enacted by the authority of the same, in manner and form as
hereafter followeth:--'
Then come nine sections settling the places in which the Royal
Family, great officers of state, and others, are to sit in the
Parliament Chamber, and the tenth section enacts that, 'as well
in all Parliaments as in the Star Chamber, _and in all other
assemblies and conferences of council_, the Chancellor, Lord
President, Privy Seal (that is the Chancellor, President, and
Privy Seal, above all dukes, not being the king's sons, &c., and
the Great Chamberlain, Marshal, Lord Steward, Chamberlain, and
Chief Secretary, being a Baron above all others of the same
degree), shall sit and be placed in such order and fashion as is
above rehearsed, and not in other place by authority of this
present Act.'
There exists what may be deemed very fair evidence to show that
in those days the Royal prerogative _as to precedence_ was never
supposed to be abridged by this Act, but on the contrary that it
still continued to flourish in undiminished force. Only two
months afterwards Henry was divorced from Anne of Cleves, when,
as is well known, he bribed her into compliance with his wishes
by a liberal grant of money and of honours. By his letters patent
he declared her his adopted sister, and gave her _precedence_
before all the ladies in England, next his queen and daughters,
and therefore before his nieces[7] and their children, who were
directly in the succession to the crown.[8] On the 3rd November,
1547, Edward VI. granted to his uncle, the Duke of Somerset,
immediately after his victory in Scotland, letters patent of
precedence, in the following terms:--
[7] The Duchess of Suffolk, and the Countess of Cumberland,
daughter of Charles Brandon and Mary, Queen Dowager of
France.
[8] Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 565.
'As our most dear uncle Edward, Duke of Somerset, by the advice
of the Lords, we have named ... to be governor of our person and
protector of our realm ... during our minority, hath no such
place appropriated and appointed to him in our High Court of
Parliament, as is convenient and necessary, as well as in
proximity of blood unto us, being our uncle ... as well as for
the better maintaining and conducting of our affairs. We have,
therefore, as well by the consent of our said uncle, as by the
advice of other the Lords and the rest of the Privy Council,
willed, ordained, and appointed, that our said uncle shall sit
alone, and be placed at all times ... in our said Court of
Parliament, upon the bench or stole standing next our seat royal,
in our Parliament Chamber.... And further, that he do enjoy all
such other privileges, pre-eminences, &c. &c. _The statute
concerning the placing of the Lords in the Parliament Chamber and
other assemblies of council, made in the thirty-first year of our
most dear father, of famous memory, King Henry VIII.;
notwithstanding_.'[9]
[9] Rymer 15.--Collins' Peerage.
This instrument must, under the circumstances, be taken as the
act of Somerset himself; and it is inconceivable that he should
have had the audacity to attempt in his own behalf, that for
which the plenitude of Henry VIII.'s power had been deemed
insufficient, or to have perpetrated in the name of a minor king,
a direct and useless violation of a recent statute--more
especially when the same object might have been as easily
accomplished by the authority of Parliament, where the
Protector's popularity would have ensured a ready compliance with
his wishes. This view of the case receives confirmation from the
total absence of any allusion to this grant in the charges which
were soon afterwards urged against him--everything that malice
could devise was raked together for the purpose of swelling the
articles of impeachment; but neither when he was degraded from
the Protectorate, nor afterwards when he was deprived of life,
was any accusation brought against him, tending to show that
these letters patent were considered illegal or unconstitutional.
Nearly a century later, Lord Coke lays it down that no Act of
Parliament can bind the king from any prerogative which is
inseparable from his person, 'but that' (Mr. Hallam adds) 'was
before he had learned the bolder tone of his declining
years.'[10]
[10] Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. 84.
The order of Baronets was a new creation by James I., but his
decision of the controversy which arose touching a point of
precedency thereupon, shows the prevailing notions of the royal
prerogative.
'The King's most excellent Majesty, having taken into his royal
audience and censure a certain controversy, touching place and
precedence, between the younger sons of viscounts and barons, and
the baronets, being a degree by His Majesty recently created,
which controversy did arise out of some dark words contained in
the letters patent of the said baronets. His Majesty well
weighing that the letters patent of the Baronets have no special
clause or express words to give them the said precedence, and
being a witness unto himself, which is a testimony above all
exception, that his princely meaning was only to give and advance
the new dignity of His Majesty's creation, but never therewithal
tacitly and obscurely to injure a third party.'[11] ... And then
he goes on to give precedency to Knights of the Garter, Privy
Councillors, Judges, &c.; over the younger sons of Viscounts and
Barons, 'in all places, and upon all occasions, any constitution,
order, degree, office, service, place, employment, custom, use,
or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding.' From Henry VIII.
to James I. were the high and palmy days of prerogative, when the
authority of the Crown was something even more transcendental
than that of Parliament itself, and when it was no doubt held
that, while the Crown could dispense with the provisions of an
Act of Parliament, an Act of Parliament could never bind the
prerogative of the Crown; but when Lord Coke began to adopt his
'bolder tone' he laid down very different law, and he says
expressly, in speaking of the Act of Henry VIII., 'But Henry,
though standing as much upon his prerogative, as any of his
progenitors, finding how vexatious it was to himself, and
distasteful to his ancient nobility, to have new raised degrees,
raised to precedency of them, and finding that this kind of
controversy for precedency was of that nature, that it had many
partakers, spent long time, and hindered the arduous, urgent, and
weighty affairs of the Parliament, was content to bind and limit
his prerogative by Act of Parliament, concerning the precedency
of his great officers, and his nobility.'[12]
[11] Titles of Honour, p. 119.
[12] 4th Inst. 362.
Whatever may have been the constitutional notions of the
sixteenth or the seventeenth century, there can be no doubt that
the lawyers of the nineteenth would hold, according to Lord
Coke's latter dictum, that the prerogative of the Crown is
limited and restrained by the 31st Henry VIII., and it is only
worth while to ascertain what it previously was, in so far as
such an enquiry can assist in the solution of the present
question; for the same lawyers would probably be unanimous in
declaring that, except so far as it was expressly limited and
restrained by that statute, the prerogative still remains
undiminished and in all its pristine vigour--that Queen Victoria
possesses all the power which Henry VIII. enjoyed, saving that of
which he was specifically divested by this Act.
The Act 'for placing the Lords' restrains the Queen from granting
any precedence in Parliament _or in the Council_, over any of the
Royal and official personages and others, who have places
assigned to them therein. She may make any man a Privy
Councillor, but she cannot authorise him to sit in a higher place
than that to which he is by law entitled, or above those whose
places are marked out by the statute. If Prince Albert, for
example, was to be made a Privy Councillor, not being a peer, he
would, _of absolute right_, be entitled to no place but that of a
junior Privy Councillor, or to such as a Knight of the Garter
might claim; and all the persons specified in the Act would have
_an absolute right_ to take precedence of him _in Council_. And
it is worth while to consider in what a curious predicament he
might have been placed, if the Bill for his naturalisation had
passed with those amendments as to his precedence which are said
to have been contemplated by the Opposition Lords--that is,
supposing always the rule of precedence established by law to be
carried inflexibly into operation.
If the status of Prince Albert had been fixed immediately after
all the members of the Royal Family, and immediately before the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and if Her Majesty should be hereafter
pleased to make both Prince George of Cambridge and Prince Albert
members of her Most Honourable Privy Council, in what order of
precedence would these princes be obliged to take their
respective seats at the board? In order clearly to comprehend
this point, it is necessary to explain the ancient usage as to
Royal precedence, and the manner in which it has been affected by
the 31st Henry VIII. The Royal Family are to be considered in two
lights, according to the different senses in which the term
_Royal Family_ is used--the larger sense includes all who may
_possibly_ inherit the Crown; the confined sense, those within a
certain degree of propinquity _to the reigning Prince_, and to
whom the law pays an extraordinary respect; but, after that
degree is past, they fall into the rank of ordinary subjects. The
younger sons of the king, and other branches of the Royal Family,
not in the immediate line of succession, were only so far
regarded by the ancient law as to give them a certain degree of
precedence over peers and other officers, ecclesiastical and
temporal. This was done by the 31st of Henry VIII., which assigns
places in the Parliament Chamber and Council to the king's sons,
brothers, uncles, and nephews, &c.--'therefore, after these
degrees are past, peers, or others of the blood royal, are
entitled to no place or precedence, except what belongs to them
by their personal rank or dignity, which made Sir Edward Walker
complain that, by the creation of Prince Rupert to be Duke of
Cumberland, and of the Earl of Lennox to be duke of that name,
previous to the creation of James to be Duke of York, it might
happen that their grandsons would have precedence of the
grandsons of the Duke of York.'[13]
[13] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 226.
Prince George of Cambridge, then, being neither son, brother,
uncle, or nephew to the Queen, and having no personal dignity, is
not entitled to any precedence over the Archbishop of Canterbury,
or the great officers of state; the 31st Henry VIII. would place
him below them all; but the 3rd Victoria (supposing such an Act
to have passed) would have placed Prince Albert below Prince
George, but above the Archbishop, who is himself above Prince
George, thus giving to the Master of the Ceremonies the solution
of a somewhat difficult problem of precedence--namely, how to
place A above B, B above C, and C above A. This _reductio ad
absurdum_ at least proves that the amended Act would not only not
have settled the question of precedence satisfactorily, but would
not have settled it at all.
It may seem surprising or paradoxical to assert, and many may
with difficulty believe, that Prince George of Cambridge is
entitled to no precedence of his own, inseparable from his royal
birth, but such, nevertheless, is undoubtedly the fact. By law,
he can only take _royal_ rank as the son, brother, uncle, or
nephew, of the reigning sovereign, none of which he is, and he
derives none whatever from having been nephew of William IV. and
George IV., and grandson of George III. The princes of the Blood
Royal have, as to precedence, a moveable and not a fixed status,
constantly shifting, with their greater or less propinquity to
the actual sovereign; and in the event of Prince George's
succession to his father's dukedom, he would only be entitled to
a place _in Parliament and in the Council_, according to the
ancienty of his peerage.
The practice, however, does not wait upon the right, and is
regulated by the universal sense and feeling of the respect and
deference which is due to the Blood Royal of England. The
Archbishop of Canterbury does not take a legal opinion or pore
over the 31st of Henry VIII. to discover whether he has a right
to jostle for that precedence with the cousin, which he knows he
is bound to concede to the uncle, of the Queen; but he yields it
as a matter of course, and so uniform and unquestionable is the
custom, that in all probability neither the Prince nor the
Prelate are conscious that it is in the slightest degree at
variance with the right.
The obscurity which involves the question of precedence, and the
prevailing doubts as to the extent of the Royal prerogative,
proceed, in a great measure, from the intermixture of law and
custom, by which the practice is regulated and enforced. The
table of precedence, the authority of which is recognised for all
social and ceremonial purposes, rests upon statutory enactments,
ancient usages, and the king's letters patent; usage creeping in
to disarrange the order, and break the links of the chain forged
by the law; for, while the 31st of Henry VIII. places earls after
marquises, custom interposes and postpones the former to the
eldest sons of dukes (and so of Marquis's eldest sons and
viscounts), though these are only commoners in the eye of the
law. Now, as no custom (unless expressly saved) can prevail
against the force of a statute, this renders it still more clear,
that nothing was intended by the 31st Henry VIII. but 'the
placing the Lords' in Parliament,[14] and that the question of
general precedence (with all the prerogatives of the Crown
thereunto appertaining) was left untouched by it.[15] In point of
fact, the royal prerogative always has been, and still
continually is exercised, in violation of the order of the
established table; for when the King, by his Royal warrant, gives
to one of his subjects, having neither rank nor dignity, the
place and precedence of a duke's or an earl's son, the individual
thus elevated supersedes all those (below that rank) whose place
and precedence is determined either by law or custom.
[14] Lord Herbert, in his Life of Henry VIII, says, in
allusion to this statute, 'it was declared also how the
Lords in Parliament should be placed,' p. 218.
[15] Lord Coke clearly distinguishes between precedence in
Parliament and Council and general precedence:--Thus
far for avoiding contention about precedency in
Parliament, Star Chamber, and all other assemblies,
Council, &c. Now, they that desire to know the places
and precedency of the nobility and subjects of the
realm, as well men as women, and of their children
(which we have added the rather, for that the
contention about precedency between persons of that sex
is even fiery, furious, and sometimes fatal), we will
refer you to a record of great authority in the reign
of Henry VII., entitled.'--4th Inst. 363.
The result, then, appears to be that, in the olden time, the king
had unlimited power in matters of honour and precedence, and
could confer whatever dignity or pre-eminence he thought fit,
upon any of his subjects. That this power has been expressly
restrained, quoad the Parliament Chamber and the Council, but
exists unfettered in all other respects.
In Parliament (should Prince Albert be created a peer), he would
only be entitled to a seat at the bottom of the degree to which
he might belong, and he would be expressly prohibited from
sitting nearer to the throne. In the Privy Council likewise (if
made a Privy Councillor) he would be entitled to no especial
place, but everywhere else, at ceremonials of every description,
at royal marriages, christenings or funerals, at banquets,
processions, and courtly receptions, at installations and
investitures, at all religious, civil, or military celebrations,
upon all occasions, formal or social, public or private, the
Queen may grant to her husband an indisputable precedence and
pre-eminence over every other subject in the realm. It will
probably be less difficult to obtain a concurrence of opinion as
to the extent of the Queen's constitutional right in granting
precedence, than as to the manner in which it would be morally
fit, and just to others, that this right should be exercised.
The bill, as originally introduced in the House of Lords, was
undoubtedly liable to serious objections; but it is difficult to
discover any valid reason why the Prince, Consort to the Queen,
should not be invested for his own life with the highest personal
dignity which it is in the power of the Crown to confer.
It has been said, that to place Prince Albert before the princes
of the blood royal would be an invasion of the _birth right_ of
these illustrious persons. This seems to be the result of a
confused notion, that a privilege of precedence is identical with
a beneficial interest--it may be a man's birth right to succeed
in some contingency to the throne, or to a title or to an estate,
and it would be injurious, and therefore unjust, to thrust any
interloper between him and his chance, however remote it might
be, of such succession. But the same Act which limits the
prerogative of the Crown, confers on the Royal Dukes and Great
Officers of State the only right of precedence which they
possess, and while they can claim no more than was given to them,
the Crown is as surely entitled to all that was left to it by
that Act. No individual can insist upon an indefeasible right
never to be preceded, under any circumstances, by any other
individual not having a status defined by this Act, and as the
uncles of the Queen, and the hereditary Earl Marshal of England,
occupy their respective steps in the ladder of precedence, by the
self-same title, there would be no greater violation of
birthright in placing an individual without a status before the
Duke of Sussex, than there would in placing him before the Duke
of Norfolk; if there be any injustice at all, the difference
would not be in the principle, but in its local or personal
application.
The question, then, is one of expediency, and of propriety, to be
determined with reference to its own special circumstances, and
according to the analogies which can be brought to bear upon it;
there is not only no case exactly in point to refer to, but there
is none sufficiently analogous to be taken as a precedent. When
Queen Anne came to the throne, Prince George of Denmark was the
only prince in England (all his children being dead), and no new
Act was necessary to give him precedence, if the Queen had
desired it, inasmuch as there was nobody for him to precede. The
condition of a Queen Consort is certainly very different from
that of a Prince Consort; but upon the broad principle of moral
fitness, there seems no reason why the husband of the Queen
regnant should not be invested, by virtue of his _consortium_,
with the highest dignity, over other men, just as the wife of the
king is participant by virtue of her marriage of divers
prerogatives over other women. For the prerogatives with which
the law invests her are allotted to her not upon her own account,
but upon that of the king; she is considered as a _feme sole_,
and has certain capacities and rights, 'in order that the king
whose continual care and study is for the public, should not be
troubled and disquieted on account of his wife's domestic
affairs.' And the law, which out of respect to the king makes it
high treason to compass or imagine the death of his wife, when
she becomes a widow ceases to surround her with this protection.
It is the king alone, his dignity and his comfort, which the law
regards, and the privileges and pre-eminences of his family are
conferred or established in such modes and proportions as may be
most conducive thereto.
The principle on which precedence is established is that of
propinquity to the sovereign, and no propinquity can be so close
as that of the husband to the wife, nor does it seem unreasonable
that all other subjects should be required to yield the outward
forms of honour and respect to the man who is elevated to a
station so far above them, whom she is herself bound to 'love,
honour, serve, and obey,' and who is superior to her in their
natural, while still subordinate in their civil and political
relations. Many people who are not unwilling to concede a high
degree of precedence to the Prince, are very sensitive about the
dignity of the heir apparent, and while they are content that he
should precede his other children, would on no account allow him
to be superior in rank to a Prince of Wales. The difficulty in
these cases is to establish a principle; but that difficulty is
rendered much greater if, when the principle is once admitted, it
is not taken with all its legitimate and necessary consequences.
If the Prince is entitled to claim precedency over any of the
blood-royal of England, above all others, he may claim it upon
every moral ground over his own children, nor is there any civil
or political consideration in reference to the heir apparent,
requiring that an exception should be made in his behalf. There
seem to exist confused notions of something very extraordinary
and transcendant in the status of a Prince of Wales, but the
difference between him and his younger brother is not very great;
and the only positive privilege with which the law certainly and
exclusively invests the heir apparent, is that of making it high
treason to attempt his life.[16]
[16] It is also treason to kill certain judicial officers
when in actual execution of their offices.--Hale, P. C.
13.
The heir apparent is Prince of Wales, and Duke of Cornwall, but
he is not necessarily either the one or the other, and except on
a certain condition he cannot be the latter.[17] For as the king
_creates_ his elder son, or heir apparent, Prince of Wales, he
has the power of withholding such creation, and though the eldest
son of the king is Duke of Cornwall by inheritance, the dukedom
is limited to the first begotten son of the king.[18]
[17] Two months elapsed between the death of Frederick
Prince of Wales, and the creation of his son, George
III., Prince of Wales.
[18] If, for example, George IV. had died in his youth, his
next brother might have been heir apparent, with no
other title than that of Bishop of Osnaburgh. Henry
VIII. after the death of Prince Arthur, and Charles I.
after that of Prince Henry, were Dukes of Cornwall, but
by special new creation.--H., P.C. 13.
The Prince of Wales has no right or privilege beyond those of any
other subject; he owes the same faith and allegiance to the
sovereign; and since 1789 none have ever ventured to assert that
he could claim the regency rather than any other subject. His
political condition, therefore, is little if at all different
from that of the rest of the Royal Family. His personal
propinquity to the sovereign must be less than that of his
father, and the question is, whether there is anything so
peculiar in his status as to supersede those natural relations of
father and son, which, according to all human custom, as well as
divine injunction, involve the duty of honour from the latter to
the former.
The son's enfranchisement from parental rule when he arrives at
years of discretion does not exempt him from the honour he is
bound by the law of God and nature to pay to his parents.[19] The
son is under a perpetual obligation to honour his father by all
outward expressions, and from this obligation no state can
absolve him. 'The honour due to parents' (says Locke) 'a monarch
on his throne owes his mother, and yet this lessens not his
authority, nor subjects him to her government.'[20] The
monarchical theory ascribes to the King of England two bodies or
capacities, a natural body, and a politic or mystical body, and
'from this mystical union of the ideal with the real king, the
enquirer after constitutional information is led through childish
reasoning and unintelligible jargon, to practical consequences
founded on expediency.'[21] These practical consequences are the
complete subordination of the natural to the politic capacity of
the sovereign, and that moral revolution which supersedes the
duty of the son to the father by the superior duty of the subject
to the sovereign. Nothing less transcendental seems sufficient to
cancel the force of this natural obligation, and while father and
son are both in the condition of subjects, the filial and
parental relations need not be outwardly reversed.
[19] Locke, vol. iv. p. 347.
[20] Ibid. vol. iv. p. 376.
[21] Allen on the Royal Prerogative, p. 29.
If the Queen, therefore, should be advised to grant to her Royal
Consort letters patent of precedence immediately next to her own
person, and at the same time make him a Privy Councillor, there
would be no practical difficulty with regard to his place at the
Council Board, notwithstanding the legal exception; there custom
has in a great measure superseded law. The occasions are very
rare when any of the Royal Dukes are present; and upon all
others, the Prince would sit upon the right hand of Her Majesty,
and precedence would be conceded to him as a matter of course.
The Council Board is no longer what it was in the days of Henry
VIII., at which time the King sat there regularly in person. The
greater part of the Privy Councillors were in constant attendance
upon him.[22] They resided in the Court, and accompanied him
wherever he went; much (though far from all) of the most
important business of the State was transacted there, and the
order of sitting, when the members had to deliver their opinions
seriatim, beginning with the lowest, was not unimportant.
Councils are now merely formal assemblies, for the expedition of
certain orders, which must emanate from the sovereign in person.
[22] Sir H. Nicholas' Preface to Council Register, vol. i.
p. 13.
When any of the Royal Dukes are present, they sit next the Queen
on her right hand, the Lord President always next her on her
left. And, although the Lord President and the Chancellor (when
present) sit on either side of the Queen, all the other officers
are indiscriminately placed. It would not probably be deemed
advisable to go back to the end of the seventeenth century for a
precedent, or it would be found that Prince George of Denmark sat
in council, without taking any oaths; not, therefore, as a Privy
Councillor, but _pro honoris causâ_. He always, however, occupied
the place of honour, and his attendance was very regular, though
there is no record of his having ever taken the oaths; and, at
the accession of King William, when all the other Privy
Councillors were sworn, it is expressly stated that Prince George
was not.[23]
[23] He was first brought into Council by James II. in
person, and placed on his right hand, but not sworn.
It is much to be regretted that such heat and irritation have
been manifested in the discussion of this question, and certainly
between the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament. Prince
Albert may well have thought his reception neither cordial nor
flattering; but the truth is, that any mortification which either
the Prince or the Queen may have felt (and in her it is only
natural, whether just or not) is at least as attributable to the
really objectionable nature of the propositions which were made,
as to the opposition which they encountered.
Nothing herein is more to be deplored than that any mistaken zeal
should misrepresent the conduct, or any hasty impression
misconstrue the motives, of the Duke of Wellington. His whole
life has been a continual manifestation of loyalty and of
superiority to petty purposes, and unworthy inducements; but his
notions of loyalty are of a nature which mere courtiers are
unable to comprehend, because he always considers the honour and
the interests of the Crown, in preference to the personal
inclination of the sovereign.
Of all men who ever lived he has sought the least the popularity
he has so largely acquired--the tide of which, sometimes diverted
by transient causes, has always returned with accumulated force.
With him it is no 'echo of folly, and shadow of renown,' but a
deep, affecting, almost sublime national feeling, which exults in
him as the living representative of national glory. If there be
an exception in any place to this universal sentiment, let us
hope that the impression will not endure, that the cloud of
momentary error will be dispersed, and that justice, ample and
not tardy, will be rendered to
'The noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of time.'
END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
INDEX.
Abbotsford, visit to, iii. 291
Aberdeen, Rt. Hon. Earl of, Foreign Secretary in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, ii. 37; and the Spanish quarrels, 73, 74; at
the Château d'Eu, 200; communications of, with the 'Times,'
200; Scotch Church Patronage Bill, 206; handsome behaviour of,
to Lord Palmerston, 406; communications of, with the 'Times' on
the Corn Laws, 311; reluctance of, to distrust M. Guizot, iii.
53; negotiations with, on the formation of a Government (1851),
383
Acland, Sir Thomas, motion of, i. 92
Adair, Sir Robert, anecdotes, iii. 212
Adelaide, Queen, at Exeter Hall, ii. 97
Afghanistan, expedition to, i. 241; events in (1842), ii. 85, 89;
withdrawal from, 99, 101; recapture of Ghuznee and Cabul and
release of the prisoners, 123, 125; indignation in England, 136
Aix-la-Chapelle, visit to, ii. 167
'Alarm,' accident to, at the Derby, ii. 284; wins at Newmarket,
302; wins the Emperor's Cup, 396
Alava, General, i. 241; conversation with, 241, 242
Albert, H.R.H. Prince, betrothal of, to the Queen announced,
i. 247; proposed allowance for, 258; naturalisation of, 259;
precedence of, 259, 263; refused, 265; Mr. Greville's pamphlet
on the Precedence Question, 266, 269; _see_ Appendix, vol. i.;
marriage of, 266, 269, 272; precedence conceded by the Duke of
Cambridge, 270; name inserted in the Liturgy, 272; gazetted,
273; introduction of, 305; at Oxford, ii. 13; declines an
invitation to the Waterloo Dinner, 15; and the King of Hanover,
192; hunting at Belvoir, 216; conversation with the Duke of
Bedford, 264; elected Chancellor of the University of
Cambridge, iii. 65; installed, 97; at Balmoral, 296; on Lord
Palmerston's conduct of foreign affairs, 317
Aldborough, Lady, at Baden Baden, ii. 183
Alexander, Grand Duke (afterwards Emperor Alexander II. of
Russia), departure of, i. 215; munificence of, 215
Allen, Mr. John, i. 38; death of, ii. 153; account of, 154
Alliance meeting at Hertford, ii. 415
Althorp, library at, ii. 275
Alvanley, Lord, death of, iii. 304; character of, 305
America, case of McLeod, i. 383; boundary question settled,
ii. 101; discovery of a missing map, 102
Ampthill, visit to, i. 250
Anglesey, Marquis of, the, speech of, at the Waterloo Dinner,
i. 102-104; wounded at Waterloo, 135; visit to, in North Wales,
ii. 16-17; reception of, at Carnarvon, 18
Anti-Papal Bill, the objections of the Peelites to, iii. 385,
387; objections to, 392, 393; debate on, 400
Antwerp, visit to, ii. 287
Arbuthnot, Mr., death of, iii. 362; character of, 363
Arkwright, Mr., death of, ii. 157
Armstrong, Colonel, ii. 94
Ashburton, Lord, mission of, to the United States, ii. 71; signs
the Treaty of Washington, 101
'Atlantic,' _fête_ on board the, iii. 409
Auchterarder Case, the, ii. 206, 207
Auckland, Lord, great ability of, ii. 63; First Lord of the
Admiralty, 405; death of, iii. 254; career of, 255; character
of, 255
Augusta, H.R.H. Princess, Royal consent given for the marriage of
the, ii. 118
Austin, Mrs., _salon_ of, in Paris, iii. 38
Austria, revolution in, iii. 155, 158; victories over the
Piedmontese, 218; at Novara, 282
Austria, Ferdinand, Emperor of, decision of, iii. 159
Backhouse, Mr., correspondence of, with Mr. Urquhart, i. 158
Bacourt, M. de, opinion of, of the Treaty of Washington, ii. 101
Baden Baden, arrival at, ii. 176; society at, 177-186;
excursions, 178-186; scenery, 179
Bagot, Sir Charles, Governor-General of Canada, ii. 117
Baillie, Right Hon. Henry, motion of, for a Committee of Enquiry
on Ceylon, British Guiana, and Mauritius, iii. 269
Ball, fancy, at the Palace, ii. 283
Ballot, The (for debates on, _see_ Lords, House of, and Commons,
House of), division on, i. 61; an open question, 216
Balmoral, Council at, iii. 295; the Court at, 296
Bangor Cathedral, service at, ii. 17
Bank Charter Act, the, suspended, iii. 101
Barcelona, bombardment of, ii. 201
Baring, Hon. William Bingham (afterwards second Baron Ashburton),
returned for North Staffordshire, i. 17
Baring, Hon. Francis (afterwards third Baron Ashburton), on
French politics, iii. 35
Baring, Sir Francis, First Lord of the Admiralty, iii. 260
Barnes, Mr., i. 123; death of, ii. 2; anecdote, iii. 75
Bath, visit to, i. 222; Mr. Harry Greville at, 222; Abbey Church
at, 223
Battersea Schools, the, i. 131; lecture at, 151; visit to the,
ii. 86
Battle of the Diamond, the, i. 30, 31
Bavaria, King of, the, abdication of, iii. 155
Beaudesert, party at, i. 48
Beaumaris, visit to, ii. 17
Beaumont, M. Gustave de, appointed French Ambassador to the Court
of St. James's, iii. 218
Beauvale, Lord, and Lord Palmerston, iii. 120
Bedchamber, ladies of the, affair of the, i. 201, 209
Bedford, fourth Duke of, diary of, ii. 47
Bedford, sixth Duke of, letter of Lord Brougham to, on education,
i. 238
Bedford, seventh Duke of, Devonshire property of, iii. 206
Bedford, Duchess of, resignation of, ii. 32
Bentinck, Lord George, racing transactions of, ii. 160; speech on
the Corn Laws, 373; denounces a supposed job, 413; railway
scheme defeated, iii. 57; speech on the Cracow affair, 67;
attack on Mr. Labouchere, 71; attacked by Lord J. Russell, 197;
death of, 222; character of, 223, 232; career of, 224, 234;
'Orlando' trial, 228; political career of, 229; Disraeli's life
of, 417, 423
Bentinck, Lady William, death of, and character, ii. 157; funeral
of, 159
Berlin, revolution in, iii. 155
Berry, Miss, ii. 201; anecdote of, 202
Berry, Miss Agnes, ii. 201, 202
Bessborough, Right Hon. Earl of, opinion of, on affairs, ii. 353;
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, 405; illness of, iii. 77, 80;
letter to Lord J. Russell, 81; death of, 82
Beyrout, bombardment of, i. 328
Birkenhead, visit to, ii. 282
Birthday reflexions, i. 85
Blanc, Louis M., iii. 152; at dinner, 235
Blessington, the Countess of, society at Gore House, i. 167;
works of, 168
Bonaparte, Jérôme, Count de Montfort, at Gore House, i. 277
Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon, afterwards Emperor of the French,
_see_ Napoleon
Bordeaux, Duc de, visit to England of the, ii. 211; reception of
the, 212, 213
Bourqueney, Baron, letter from M. Guizot to the, i. 348;
misreported conversation with Lord Palmerston, 381
Bowood, party at, ii. 69
Bradshaw, Mr., disloyal speech of, at Canterbury, i. 244; duel
with Mr. Horsman, 254, 255
Bresson, Count, instructions to, on the Spanish marriages,
iii. 24 (_see_ Spanish Marriages)
Bridgewater House, private theatricals at, ii. 96
Bridgewater Trust, account of the, ii. 303
British Museum, correspondence with the, about the missing Privy
Council Registers, ii. 162
Broadlands, visit to, ii. 104
Brocket, visits to, iii. 119, 375; manuscripts at, 376
Broglie, Duc de, speech of the, iii. 37
Brougham, Lord, scene with Lord Melbourne, i. 32; ability of, 33;
on the ballot, 59; anecdote of, 59; habits of, 60; and Wakley,
60; at the Council Office, 65; qualities of, 66; in the House
of Lords, 69, 71; anti-slavery speech, 73; speech on Small _v._
Attwood, 83; article on Lady C. Bury's book, 90; and Mr.
Handley, 99; contrast to the Duke of Wellington, 111; attacks
Lord Durham's Ordinance, 123; pamphlet letter to the Queen,
149; reconciled to Lord Durham, 150; denies the pamphlet, 152;
and Lord Melbourne, 152; and the Serjeants-at-Law, 156;
anecdote of, and Lord Lyndhurst, 160; on the Bedchamber affair,
211, 212; attacks the Ministers, 213; great speech censuring
the Irish policy of the Government, 228; freaks of, at a
Greenwich dinner, 229; proposes the health of the Duke of
Wellington at the Dover dinner, 237, 240; letter on education,
238; anecdotes of, 240; pretended death of, 243, 245, 247;
squabbles with M. de Tocqueville and others, ii. 150, 151;
intercourse with the Court, 151; endeavours to obtain an
affidavit from Mr. Reeve, 207; Judicial Committee Bill, 225,
234; caprices of, 235; makes eleven speeches in the House of
Lords, 242; at the Judicial Committee, 242; executor to Lord
Melbourne, iii. 252
Brown, Mr., M.P., _fête_ on board the 'Atlantic,' iii. 409
Brunnow, Baron, mission of, to England, i. 242; letter of,
complaining of Lord Palmerston's conduct, iii. 332; on foreign
affairs, 345
Buccleuch, the Duke of, Lord Privy Seal, ii. 82; Lord President
of the Council, 337
Buccleuch, the Duchess of, Mistress of the Robes, ii. 44
Buckingham, the Duke of, Lord Privy Seal in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, ii. 37; resignation of, 79; First Lord of the
Admiralty in Lord Derby's Administration, iii. 451
Buckinghamshire, dispute on the appointment of sheriff, ii. 144
Buckinghamshire magistrates, appointment of the, ii. 66; opinion
of the Duke of Wellington on, 77
Buckland, Dr., at the Grange, ii. 264
Bugeaud, Marshal, commands the troops in Paris in 1848, iii. 144
Buller, Charles, Mr., Radical opinions of, i. 32; appointed by
Lord Durham, 109; author of Lord Durham's report, 163; paper
of, on Ireland, iii. 221; death of, 241; character of, 249
Bulwer, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Lytton, play of 'Richelieu,' i. 173
Bulwer, Sir Henry, expulsion of, from Spain, iii. 169; arrival
of, in London, 180; defence, 181; debate in the House of
Commons, 190; intrigues in Spain, 194 (_for_ despatches to,
_see_ Spanish Marriages)
Burge, William, Mr., Q.C., i. 255
Burghersh, Lord (afterwards Earl of Westmorland), opera by,
i. 116; mistake of, ii. 275
Burghley, party at, i. 37
Burgoyne, Sir John, letter from the Duke of Wellington to,
iii. 107
Burke, Rt. Hon. Edmund, iii. 213
Bury, Lady Charlotte, book by, i. 48; book reviewed by Lord
Brougham, 65, 90
Butler, Mrs., reading of, at Bowood, ii. 69; in the 'Hunchback,'
96
Cabul, retreat from, ii. 85, 89, 107; recapture of, 123; opinion
of the Duke of Wellington on the events at, 137, 138
Cambridge, visit to, ii. 238
Cambridge, University of, H.R.H. Prince Albert elected Chancellor
of, iii. 65; installed, 97
Cambridge, H.R.H. Adolphus, Duke of, concedes precedence to
Prince Albert, i. 270; death of, iii. 366
Cambridge, H.R.H. George, Duke of, precedence of, iii. 365, 366
Campbell, Lord, Lord Chancellor of Ireland with a peerage, ii.
14; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 405; speech of son
of, at Cambridge, iii. 89; Lord Chief Justice of England, 327;
success in the Court of Queen's Bench, 327
Canada, insurrection in, i. 34; debate on, in the House of
Commons, 34; Duke of Wellington on, 37; Lord Durham sent out as
Governor-General, 49; state of, 53; discussions on, 55; Lord
Durham's Ordinance, 123; disallowed, 125; Lord Durham's
Proclamation, 134; report on administration of, 162; bill
dealing with the Canada Clergy Reserves, 294; government of,
ii. 117; Sir Charles Bagot succeeds Lord Sydenham, 117; Sir
Charles Metcalfe appointed Governor-General, 117
Canada Bill, _see_ Commons, House of
Candlish, Dr., sermon by, iii. 292
Canford, visit to, ii. 105
Canning, Rt. Hon. George, distrust of, ii. 399
Canning, Stratford, Rt. Hon. Sir, opposition of, to Russia, iii.
279
Cannizzaro, Duchess of, death of the, i. 365; account of the,
365, 366
Canterbury, Archbishop of, Dr. Sumner appointed, iii. 125
Capel, Hon. and Rev. William, dispute with the Bishop of London,
ii. 113
Capua, Prince of, the, at dinner at Devonshire House, i. 279
Carnarvon, visit to, with Lord Anglesey, ii. 18
Carnot, iii. 153
'Carolus' letter to the 'Times,' iii. 372, 374; _see_ Appendix B,
vol. iii.
Catholic Clergy, Endowment question, ii. 199
Cavaignac, General, iii. 199, 205
Cécille, Admiral, Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, iii.
268
Ceylon, committee of enquiry into administration of, iii. 269;
witnesses, 308; evidence of Captain Watson, 312
Chantrey, death of, ii. 60; monument by, in Lichfield Cathedral,
60
Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, defeat of, iii. 218; abdication
of, 282
Chartists, progress of the, i. 155; precautions in London for
great meeting of the (1848), iii. 160, 162, 164; failure of the
demonstration, 165; dangerous manifestations in the country,
188; Government measures, 190; agitation, 191; demonstration,
192; establishment near Chenies, 215
Chatham, Rt. Hon. Earl of, anecdotes of the, i. 245
Chatsworth, visit to, ii. 204; visit of the Queen to, 215
Chepstow, visit to, i. 222
Chester, visit to, ii. 16
Chester, Mayor of, question of baronetcy on the birth of the
Prince of Wales, ii. 52
Chillianwallah, battle of, iii. 273
China, war with, i. 283; debate on, 283; Duke of Wellington on
the war with, 286; annexation of Hong Kong, 383; return of
Captain Elliot from, ii. 49, 52; views of Sir George Grey on,
72; treaty of peace with, 123
Chiswick, visit of the Queen and Prince Albert to, ii. 14; _fête_
at, for the Czar, 244
Chloroform, an operation under, iii. 110
Christina, Queen of Spain, intrigues of, ii. 419, 421; M.
Guizot's account of, iii. 32; conduct of, 119
Church of Scotland, disruption in the, ii. 206
Circourt, Madame de, _salon_ of, iii. 45
Clanricarde, Marquis of, Postmaster-General, ii. 405
Claremont, council at, for events in the East, i. 328; lent to
King Louis Philippe, iii. 154
Clarence, H.R.H. Duke of, _see_ William IV., King
Clarendon, Rt. Hon. Earl of, office of Governor-General of Canada
offered to the, i. 173; first appearance of the, in the House
of Lords, 227; Lord Privy Seal, 243; on Eastern policy, 301;
dissents from the treaty (1840), 304; conversation with M.
Guizot, 305; offers to resign on the Eastern Question, 317;
letter of, on Lord Holland's death, and on French affairs, 341;
confidence of the Queen in, ii. 403; President of the Board of
Trade, 405; Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, iii. 85; requires a
Coercion Bill for Ireland, 105; and the Irish Catholics, 195;
applies for more powers, 212; Proclamation of, 207; policy of,
in Ireland, 217; interview of, with King Louis Philippe, 239;
on Irish emigration, 251; on taking high office, 251; Irish
relief, 285; conversation with Sir R. Peel, 286; success of the
Queen's visit to Ireland, 295; dismissal of Lord Roden, 310;
explanation in the House of Lords, 313; Encumbered Estates Act
in Ireland, 314; conversation with the Queen and Prince Albert
on foreign affairs, 317; conversation with Lord J. Russell,
361; spoken of as Foreign Secretary, 428, 431
Clifton, visit to, i. 222
Cobden, Richard, Mr. Greville's letter to, in the 'Times,' iii.
123; _see_ Appendix A, vol. iii.
Coburg marriage, fear of, in France, iii. 30
Colborne, Sir John, Lieutenant-Governor of Canada, i. 35
Coleridge, Stanza from 'Ode to Tranquillity,' i. 109
Colloredo, Count, and Lord Palmerston, iii. 282, 283, 288
Cologne, visit to the cathedral at, ii. 167
Commons, House of, select committee on pensions, i. 29; disorder
in, 31; debate on insurrection in Canada, 34; discussions on
Canada, 55; division on the ballot, 59; scene in, 68;
Pendarves' motion, 70; vote of censure on Lord Glenelg, 72;
amendment on, 73; Lord Eliot's motion on Spain, 83; motion of
Sir George Strickland on emancipation, 84; motion on Lord
Durham's expenses, 86; the Appropriation Clause, 93; Irish
Municipal Corporation Bill, 100; session of 1838, 127; debate
on the Irish policy of the Government, 190; Jamaica Bill, 196;
division on, 199; Sir H. Fleetwood's motion, 215; Ballot an
open question, 216; the privilege question, 257, 271; Prince
Albert's allowance, 258; Ministers defeated on the Irish
Registration Bill, 279; debate on vote of censure on measures
resulting in Chinese war, 283; debate on the Registration Bill,
287; two new Irish Registration Bills, 373; Government defeated
on Lord Morpeth's Bill, 391; division on the Sugar Duties, ii.
8; vote of censure carried by one, 10; dissolution, 14; Sir R.
Peel's Corn Bill, 83, 86; attack of Lord J. Russell on Lord
Corehouse, 84; Sir R. Peel's Budget, 87; Vote of Thanks to Lord
Ashburton, 152; Irish Arms Bill, 188, 194; debate on Ireland,
228, 230; division, 232; the Ten Hours Bill, 236; Government
defeated on the Sugar Duties, 246; Maynooth Grant, 276; debate,
279; Sir R. Peel's measure for sliding-scale duties on corn,
357; protracted debate on the Corn Laws, 366, 367, 371; scene
in the House, 392; debate on the annexation of Cracow, iii. 67;
Irish Poor Law, 69; Mr. Strutt's Railroad Bill, 93, 95; Irish
measures (1847), 104, 106; obstruction, 161, 163; mismanagement
of, 186; West India Committee, 187; alteration of the Oath
Bill, 187, 192; debate on occurrences in Spain, 190; West India
Sugar Bill, 193; subsequent crisis, 195; irritation, 197; Irish
Bill, 209; Irish grant opposed, 267; committee of enquiry on
Ceylon and British Guiana, 269, 309; debate on, 270; Sicilian
arms affair, 271, 277; maiden speech of Mr. Frederick Peel,
288; debate on the Poor Laws, 319; Mr. Hutt's motion on the
African squadron, 324; Stamp Bill, 325, 327; Mr. Roebuck's vote
of confidence, 344; Mr. Locke King's motion, 378; Anti-Papal
Bill, 400; Lord Palmerston's dismissal, 446; Militia Bill, 447,
449; dissolution, 454; Reform question, 469
Conference at Constantinople (1840), i. 328, 329
Conroy, Sir John, i. 14, 20
'Constitutionnel,' indiscreet article in the, iii. 34
Conway Castle, ii. 16
Coplestone, Dr. (Bishop of Llandaff), publishes Lord Dudley's
letters, i. 273
Corn Laws, i. 158, 164; allusion to, in the Queen's Speech, ii.
82; Sir R. Peel's Bill, 83; discussions on, 301; repeal of the,
announced by the 'Times,' 309; consequent agitation, 312, 316;
Sir R. Peel's Government broken up, 317; Mr. Greville's
pamphlet, 350; Duke of Wellington on the, 351; Sir R. Peel's
measure for sliding-scale duties, 357; immediate repeal of,
discussed, 360, 366; debate on the, 366; protracted
discussions, 379
Cornwall, the Duchy of, iii. 67
Coronation of Queen Victoria, i. 105, 106
Cottenham, Lord High Chancellor, ii. 405; resignation of, iii.
338
Council, picture of the Queen's first, i. 82; at Windsor, 145;
for declaration of the Queen's marriage, 247; at Windsor on
crutches, ii. 203; at Osborne, resignation of Sir R. Peel, 316
Courvoisier, murder of Lord W. Russell, i. 284
Cousin, Victor, visit to, iii. 44
Cowley, Lord, conversation with, in Paris, iii. 19; views of, on
the Spanish marriage question, 26
Cowley, Lord (afterwards Earl Cowley), Ambassador at Paris, iii.
441, 446; question of proxy, 472
Cracow, ii. 427; the annexation of, 430, 431; debate on
annexation of, iii. 67
Creevey, Mr., death of, i. 63; offices held by, 63; letters and
papers of, 64, 275
Croker, Right Hon. John Wilson, article by, in the 'Quarterly
Review,' i. 103, 105; two anecdotes of the Duke of Wellington,
248; on Sir R. Peel's policy, ii. 200; and the Duke of
Wellington, iii. 98; and Sir R. Peel, 98
Cromer, visit to, ii. 120
Curran, anecdote of, i. 153; Master of the Rolls in Ireland, 153
Czartoryski, Prince, at the Hôtel Lambert, iii. 44
Dalhousie, Right Hon. Earl of, President of the Board of Trade,
ii. 267; promising speech of, 395
Danton, anecdote of, iii. 111
D'Arblay, Madame, journal of, ii. 127
Day, Sam, the jockey, death of, i. 133
De Grey, Right Hon. Earl, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in Sir R.
Peel's Administration, ii. 37
Delane, Mr. John T., succeeds Mr. Barnes as editor of the
'Times,' ii. 3; information on the Corn Law question from Lord
Aberdeen, 310, 315 (_see_ 'Times')
Delessert, M., on the state of France, iii. 157
Denman, Lord, closes the term, ii. 63
Derby, Right Hon. (fourteenth) Earl of, forms a government, iii.
447; conduct of the Government, 453; dissolution of Parliament,
454; at Goodwood, 463; and Lord Cowley's proxy, 472; efforts to
strengthen the Government, 473; _see also_ Stanley
Derby, the, accident to 'Alarm,' ii. 284
De Ros, Lord, death of, i. 180
Devonshire, Duke of, letters and papers of the, ii. 377
Devonshire House, dinner at, to the Duke of Sussex and the Prince
of Capua, i. 278
Dickens, Charles, performance of, at the St. James's Theatre,
ii. 302
Disraeli, Right Hon. Benjamin, maiden speech of, i. 26, 30;
quarrel with General Peel, ii. 388; Protectionist speech of,
392; and Mr. Moxon, iii. 75; defends Lord G. Bentinck, 197,
198; leader of the Protectionists, 264; 'Life of Lord G.
Bentinck,' 417, 423; Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord
Derby's Administration, 451; speech on the Budget, 451
Dolly's Brae affair, iii. 310, 313
D'Orsay, Count, at Gore House, i. 167; death of, iii. 465;
character of, 466
Dost Mahomed, surrender of, i. 360
Downton Castle, visit to, i. 218
Drouyn de Lhuys, M., French Ambassador in London, iii. 326; on
the Greek affair, 326; recall of, 330
Drumlanrig, visit to, iii. 299
Drummond, Mr. Edward, assassination of, ii. 141
Drummond Castle, visit to, iii. 299
Dudley, Lord, letters of, published, i. 273; diary of, destroyed,
275; diary of, iii. 74
Duncannon, Lord, and the apartments in St. James's Palace, i. 280
Duncombe, Mr. Thomas, attack of, on the Post Office, ii. 272
Dundas, Right Hon. Sir David, at Ampthill, i. 250; conversation
of, ii. 133; as Solicitor-General, iii. 122
Durham, Right Hon. Earl of, Governor-General of Canada, i. 49,
54; motion on expenses of, 86; behaviour of, 88; appointments
of, attacked, 109; entry of, into Quebec, 110; ordinance of,
attacked, 123; disallowed, 125; resignation of, 133;
proclamation of, 134; return of, from Canada, 137, 141; conduct
of, in Canada, 143; excuses of, 158; report of, on the
administration of Canada, 162; distributes copies of report,
163; position of, 165; anecdote of, iii. 75
Eastern Question, the, beginning of, i. 242; in 1840, 297; anti-
Palmerstonian policy of France, 302; communication of M. de
Pontois to the Porte, 304, 306; conduct of ministers at the
beginning, 308; protocol signed, 309; conversations with M.
Guizot on, 310, 315, 319; indecision of ministers, 312
intentions of Lord John Russell, 313; discussions on, 315, 317,
325; cabinet on, 320; Prince Metternich's suggestion, 325; Lord
Holland's remarks, 325; bombardment of Beyrout, and deposition
of Mehemet Ali, 328; Lord Palmerston gains his point, 330; Lord
Ponsonby's despatch, 334; note from the French Government, 335;
surrender of the Emir Beschir, 344; terms of conciliation with
France, 351; mission of Baron Monnier, 356; unsettled affairs
in Egypt, 361; settlement of (1841), 377-383; protocols signed,
383; the Hatti-sherif, 385; fresh obstacles, 387
Easthope, Sir John, proprietor of the 'Morning Chronicle,' i. 179
Eastnor Castle, i. 219
Eaton, visit to, ii. 15; lines cut on an hotel window, 16
Eden, Hon. and Rev. Robert (afterwards Bishop of Bath and Wells),
Rector of Battersea, i. 131; lecture in Battersea, 151;
Battersea Schools, ii. 86
Eden, Hon. Emily, letter of, i. 383; bitterness of, against Lord
Ellenborough, ii. 128, 150
Edinburgh, visit to, iii. 291
'Edinburgh Review,' originators of the, ii. 153
Education question, the, ii. 212
Egerton, Lord Francis, at Ems, ii. 287; house of, at Worsley, 303
Egremont, Right Hon. Earl of, death of the, i. 23; character of
the, 24; at Petworth, 25
Egypt, _see_ Eastern Question
Election, general, result of, in 1837, i. 13, 16, 18; in 1841,
ii. 15; result of, 20-22; in 1852, iii. 454; result of, 459
Eldon, Right Hon. Earl of, death of the, i. 49
Ellenborough, Right Hon. Earl of, Board of Control in Sir R.
Peel's Administration, ii. 37; anecdotes of, 78; proclamation
of, 123, 125; attacks on, 128, 136, 138; Duke of Wellington's
opinion of, 139; extraordinary behaviour of, 141; position of,
145; vindication of, 148; despatch on the secret committee of
the directors, 219; recall of, 238
Ellice, Right Hon. Edward, at Brocket, iii. 375
Elliot, Captain (afterwards Sir Charles), return of, from China,
ii. 49, 52
Emir Beschir, _see_ Eastern Question
Ems, visit to, ii. 287
Endsleigh, visit to, iii. 205
Epsom, racing transactions of Lord G. Bentinck and Lord Kelburne,
ii. 160
Espartero, downfall of, ii. 201
Eton College case, ii. 411
Eu, Château d', visit to, of Queen Victoria, ii. 196, 200; the
agreement at, 201
Evans, Sir De Lacy, made a K.C.B., i. 65
'Every Man in his Humour,' performance of, ii. 302
Exchequer Bills, forgery of, ii. 50; anecdotes of, 56, 57
Exchequer, Court of, anecdote, iii. 125
Exeter, Bishop of, attacks the Archbishop, i. 120; on the St.
Sulpice question, 388; charge of, ii. 136; attack on Newman,
136; reply to a Privy Council judgement, 136; the Gorham Case,
iii. 300
Exeter, visit to, iii. 207
Exhibition, the Great, 1851, opening of, iii. 405
Eyre, Lieutenant, book by, on Cabul, &c., ii. 137
Faubourg St. Germain, political feeling in the, iii. 42
Faucher, M. Léon, in London, iii. 410
Felbrigg Hall, visit to, ii. 120
Ferdinand I., Emperor of Austria, political crisis, 1848, iii.
159
FitzGerald and Vesey, Lord, conversation with, i. 46; death of,
ii. 158
Fitzroy, Lord Charles, resigns the office of Vice-Chamberlain,
i. 86
Fleetwood, Sir H., motion on £10 householders, i. 216
Foley, Lord, anecdote, i. 217
Foster, Lady Elizabeth, ii. 378
Fox, Right Hon. C. J., account of the death of, i. 154
Fox, Maule, Right Hon., Secretary at War, ii. 405
Fox, Mr. William, member for Oldham, iii. 103
Fox, Miss, death of, ii. 274
France, Lord Palmerston's hostility to, i. 347; attempt at
conciliation with, 351; debate in the Chamber on Eastern
affairs, 354; dispute with, on the Tahiti affair, ii. 253;
opinions on change of government in England (1845), 345, 347;
estrangement with, on the Spanish marriages question, iii. 10,
11; effect of conciliatory debate in England, 39; threatened
rupture with, 62; estrangement from England, 73; revolution in
1848, 132; state of, 148, 152; Provisional Government in, 152;
M. Delessert on affairs in, 157; anarchy in, 178; fighting in
Paris, 202; tranquillity, 219; Prince Louis Napoleon elected
President of the Republic, 253; unsatisfactory condition of the
country, 284; share in the English and Greek dispute, 334, 337;
_coup d'état_ of Louis Napoleon, 420
France, Bank of, arrangement with the Emperor of Russia, ii. 70
Francis, Sir Philip, at Woburn, ii. 47
Frankfort, visit to, ii. 169; Dannecker's 'Ariadne,' 170;
Rothschild's house, 171; Jews' Street, 173; the mother of the
Rothschilds, 173
Frost, Mr. John, a magistrate, i. 250; concerned in a Chartist
riot, 250; trial of, 256
Fullerton, Lady Georgiana, novel by, ii. 205
Galiera, Duchesse de, ball at the house of the, iii. 35
Garnier Pagès, iii. 153
George II., King, anecdote of, ii. 215
George IV., King, Memoirs of the time of, i. 48
Germany, condition of the country and people of, ii. 180, 181
Ghent, visit to, ii. 285
Girondins, Histoire des, by Lamartine, iii. 111
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. William E., President of the Board of Trade
in Sir R. Peel's Administration, ii. 37; resignation of, on the
Maynooth Endowment, 267; explanation, 271
Glasgow, visit to, iii. 292
Glastonbury, Lord, and his peerage, ii. 236
Glenelg, Rt. Hon. Lord, resignation of, i. 161
Gomm, Sir William, Commander-in-Chief in India, iii. 273
Goodrich Castle, i. 220
Goodrich Court, armoury at, i. 221
Goodwood, party at, ii. 408; iii. 463
Gore House, dinner at, i. 166; hoax of Lord Brougham's death,
243; party at, 255; Jérôme Bonaparte at, 277
Gorham _v._ the Bishop of Exeter, iii. 300-304; judgement, 323
Gorhambury, visit to, ii. 111; Bishop of London at, 111, 112
Goulburn, Rt. Hon. Henry, Chancellor of the Exchequer in Sir R.
Peel's Administration, ii. 37
Graham, Rt. Hon. Sir James, conduct of, i. 9; negotiation of,
between Sir R. Peel and Lord J. Russell, 185, 189; Home
Secretary in Sir R. Peel's Administration, ii. 37; on the state
of parties, iii. 51; and the Governor-Generalship of India, 87;
on the Cumberland election, 89; declines the Governor-
Generalship of India, 92; on colonial matters, 124; on
obstruction in the House of Commons, 161; declines the
Admiralty, 259; reasons for declining, 262, 264; on
administrative reforms, 338; forebodings of, 382; negotiations
with the Whigs, 383; on the state of parties, 390; vacillation
of, 394; and the Whigs, 398, 401; Lord J. Russell's overtures
to, 410; mission of Sir G. C. Lewis to Netherby, 411, 412; on
public affairs, and a possible coalition, 435-439
Granby, Marquis of, chosen leader of the Protectionist party,
iii. 123; consistent conduct of, 471; appointed Lord-Lieutenant
of Lincolnshire, 472
Grange, The, visit to, i. 137
Granville, Rt. Hon. (first) Earl, paralytic seizure of, i. 390
Granville, Rt. Hon. (second) Earl, Foreign Secretary, iii. 428;
conversation with Lord Palmerston, 433; paper of, on foreign
policy, 442
Greece, disputes with, iii. 308, 311, 314; disputes continued,
325; opinions of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, 326; further disputes,
334; debate in House of Lords on dispute, 341; Lord Palmerston
on brigandage in, 418
Green, Mr., anatomical lecture by, iii. 375
Greenwich dinner, freaks of Lord Brougham at a, i. 229; Lord
Normanby's health drunk at a, 237
Gregory, Mr., house of, near Belvoir, i. 42
Grenville, Thomas, Mr., anecdote of, i. 80; dinner with, ii. 114;
anecdote of Porson, 114; Julio Clovio, 115; recollections and
anecdotes, 116; anecdote of Wolfe, 120; death of, iii. 1;
character of, 2
Greville, Charles C., Mr., pamphlet of, on Prince Albert's
Precedence, i. 266, 269, 270 (_see_ Appendix, vol. i.); book
of, on Ireland, ii. 259; criticisms on, 260; publication of,
objected to, 261, 266; publication decided on, 274; criticisms
on, 276; opinions of the press on, 284; letters to France, 345;
pamphlet 'Sir R. Peel and the Corn Law Crisis,' 350, 368;
success of pamphlet, 354; visit to Paris (1847), iii. 16;
birthday reflexions, 73; letter to Cobden in the 'Times,' 123
(_see_ Appendix A, vol. iii.); removes to Bruton Street, 277;
elected a member of Grillon's Club, 321; letter of 'Carolus,'
372, 374 (_see_ Appendix B, vol. iii.)
Greville, Harry, Mr., at Bath, i. 222
Greville, Mrs. Algernon, death of, i. 390
Grey, Rt. Hon. Earl, prevents the formation of a Whig Government,
ii. 330, 331; explanation of conduct of, 341-344, 353; Colonial
Secretary, 405; Lord-Lieutenant of Northumberland, iii. 65;
remonstrance of, on Lord Palmerston's conduct, 185; speech of,
on the suppressed despatches, 200; discredit of, 309
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir George, Home Secretary, ii. 405
Grey, Sir George (formerly Chief Justice of Bengal), views of, on
Chinese affairs, ii. 72
Grillon's Club, dinner at, iii. 321
Grote, George, Mr., returned for the City of London, i. 13;
Radical party reduced to, 215; visit to, iii. 122
Grove, The, visit to, ii. 111; agreeable party at, 289; Macaulay
at, 415; return to, iii. 409
Guards, the, question of promotion on the birth of the Prince of
Wales, ii. 51
Guernsey duties, affair of the, ii. 292
Guizot, M., French Ambassador in London, i. 282; on the Eastern
Question, 302, 303; at dinner at Windsor, 310; conversations
with, on Eastern affairs, 311, 315, 317; on the deposition of
Mehemet Ali, 328; difficulty of dealing with Lord Palmerston,
330; conciliatory efforts of, 335; note from the French
Government, 335; succeeds M. Thiers (1840), 343; letter of, to
Baron Bourqueney, 348; speech in the Chamber, 355; critical
position of, ii. 269, 270; amicable meeting with M. Thiers,
278, 288; alarm at possible return of Lord Palmerston to the
Foreign Office (1845), 345; conduct of, in the Spanish
Marriages affair, 425; iii. 6; note in reply to Lord
Palmerston, ii. 433; explanation relating to the Spanish
Marriages, iii. 17; conversation with, on the Spanish
Marriages, 20-26; complaints of Lord Palmerston, 30; and Lord
Palmerston's despatch, 33; indignation of, 42; bad terms of,
with Lord Normanby, 42; resentment at Lord Normanby and Lord
Palmerston, 46, 47; invited to the British Embassy 'by
mistake,' 59; continuance of the quarrel, 60; the quarrel made
up, 66; escape of, to England, 137, 145; conduct of, in the
Revolution, 138; narrative of the Revolution, 142-145; dines
with Lord Palmerston, 157
Gurwood, Colonel, second of Mr. Bradshaw, i. 254
Habeas Corpus Act suspended in Ireland, iii. 207; suspension of,
renewed, 265
Haddington, Rt. Hon. Earl of, the First Lord of the Admiralty in
Sir Robert Peel's Administration, ii. 37; declines the
Governor-Generalship of India, 46; correspondence of, with the
Duke of Wellington, 224
Hampden, Dr., made Bishop of Hereford, iii. 109; consequent
disputes, 112, 114; correspondence of, with the Bishop of
Oxford, 115; correspondence on appointment of, as Regius
Professor, 116, 117; case of, 118
Hannibal, comparison with the Duke of Wellington, i. 57
Hanover, the King of, proclamation of, i. 12; act of, on his
accession, 42; declines to give up the apartments in St.
James's Palace, 280; arrival of, ii, 161; in London, 192;
anecdote, 192
Hanover, Stade Treaty with, ii. 107
Hardinge, Rt. Hon. Lord, Secretary at War in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, ii. 37; Governor-General of India, 240; dinner
at the India House, 242; sent to Ireland, iii. 213
Harewood Lodge for Ascot, ii. 11
Harrowby, Rt. Hon. Earl of, death of the, iii. 112
Harrowby, Countess of, the, death of, i. 96; character of, 96, 98
Hastings, Lady Flora, i. 172; death of, 224
Head, Right Hon. Sir Edmund, Poor Law Commissioner, ii. 60
Head, Right Hon. Sir Francis Bond, position of, i. 166; book by,
174
Heidelberg, visit to, ii. 175
Herbert, Right Hon. Sidney, in the Cabinet, ii. 267
Hereford, Bishop of, appointment of, iii. 109, 112; consequent
disputes, 114
Herefordshire, state of the constituency, iii. 463
Herrenheim, Château de, visit to the, ii. 287
Herries, Right Hon. John C., President of the Board of Control in
Lord Derby's Administration, iii. 451
Hertford, Marquis of, the, death of, ii. 90; account of, 91, 92;
will of, disputed, 111; will case at the Judicial Committee,
231
Hervey, Lord William, pamphlet by, suppressed, ii. 130
Hesse, the Elector of, at Ems, ii. 287
Hillingdon, visit to, ii. 121
Hobhouse, Right Hon. Sir John Cam, conversation with, i. 241;
President of the Board of Control, ii. 405
Hodgson, Mr., i. 48
Holland, Right Hon. Lord, objects to Lord Palmerston's Eastern
policy, i. 308, 309; on the Eastern Question, 325, 329; death
of, 341; M. Guizot's estimate of, 370
Holland, Lady, death of, ii. 306; character of, 307
Holland House, dinner at, i. 152; anecdotes of George Selwyn,
217; anecdotes, 245; dinner at, after Lord Holland's death,
367; anecdotes, 368; death of John Allen, ii. 153
Hook, Rev. Mr. (afterwards Dean of Chichester), preaches before
the Queen, i. 116
Horsman, Mr., duel of, with Mr. Bradshaw, i. 254, 255
Hôtel de Ville, ball at the, iii. 42
Howick, Lord, _see_ Grey, Earl
Hudson, Mr., 'The Railway King,' ruin of, iii. 273
Hullah, John, Mr., system of teaching vocal music, i. 372; choral
meeting at Exeter Hall, ii. 97
'Hunchback, The,' amateur performance of, ii. 96
Huntington, William, S.S., story of, i. 369
Huskisson, Right Hon. William, anecdote of, and Sir Robert Peel,
iii. 216; conduct of, on the East Retford franchise, 424
Hutt, Mr., motion of, on the African squadron, iii. 324
India, the Sikh war, ii. 372; terminated, 380; retrospect of the
campaign, iii. 214; discussions on the Governor-Generalship of,
iii. 87; Governor-Generalship offered to Sir James Graham, 92
Inverary, visit to, iii. 292
Irby, Mr., death of, ii. 115
Ireland, administration of Lord Normanby, i. 176; state of, ii.
197; debate on, 228, 230; division, 232; Mr. Greville's book on
the 'Policy of England to,' 259, 263; publication of book, 274;
criticisms on, 275; opinions of the press on, 284; potato
failure, 301; state of, 375, 426, 434, iii. 71; Lord-
Lieutenancy discussed, 77, 80; plan for abolishing the office,
80; discussions on the Lord-Lieutenancy of, 81-85; critical
state of, 103; Government measures, 104, 106; seditious state
of, 156, 160; plans for improvement of, 167; affray at
Limerick, 172; proclamation of the Lord-Lieutenant, 207; Habeas
Corpus Act suspended, 207; strong measures taken, 209; reported
outbreak, 210; flight of Smith O'Brien, 213; and capture, 215;
Lord Clarendon's policy in, 217; disaffection in, 220; proposed
remedies for, 221; financial difficulties in, 237; emigration
scheme, 251; renewal of suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act,
265; distress in, 267; relief for, 285; the Queen's visit to,
295; Encumbered Estates Act, 314; proposed abolition of the
office of Lord-Lieutenant, 314; Papal Aggression, 367
Irish Arms Bill, ii. 188, 194; proposal for renewing the, 408;
given up, 410
Irish Coercion Bill, ii. 375
Irish Poor Law, iii. 69
Irish Registration Bills, i. 373; Government defeated on Lord
Morpeth's Bill, 391
Isabella II., Queen of Spain, marriage of, ii. 418, 420; conduct
of, iii. 78; account of, 118; _see_ Spanish Marriages
Isturitz, sent away, iii. 193
Jamaica Bill, the, i. 196
Jarnac, Philippe de Rohan Chabot, Comte de, First Secretary of
the French Embassy in London, ii. 409; Spanish marriages
affair, 420, 431; on the annexation of Cracow, 430; details of
the Spanish marriages, iii. 6; on Lord Normanby, Lord
Palmerston, and M. Guizot, 56
Jekyll, Mr., pun of, ii. 232
Jersey, Right Hon. Earl of, the, Master of the Horse, ii. 37
Jervis, Right Hon. Sir John, Attorney-General, difficulty about
his son's election, iii. 122
Journal, reflexions on keeping a, i. 36
Judge and Jury Court, the, ii. 123
Judicial Committee, the, petition of apprentices from British
Guiana, i. 80; Amendment Bill, 273; suggestions for, 274;
petition of the Serjeants-at-Law, 156-160; James Wood's Will
case, ii. 28; Lord Brougham's Bill, 225; working of, 226; Vice-
Presidency of, 227; Lord Hertford's Will case, 231; the Gorham
case, iii. 300-304; judgement, 323
Junius, letters of, proposed new edition of, ii. 346; Macaulay's
opinion on, 416
Kay, Dr. (afterwards Sir James Kay Shuttleworth, Bart.), visit to
Poor Law school of, i. 230; Battersea schools, ii. 86
Kelburne, Viscount (afterwards Lord Glasgow), racing
transactions, ii. 160
Kent, H.R.H. the Duchess of, conversation of, with Princesse
Lieven, i. 15, 16
King, Locke, Mr., motion of, for the extension of the suffrage,
iii. 378
Kisseleff, Count, and M. Guizot, iii. 46
Kossuth, in England, iii. 413; reception of, 414; speeches of,
416
Labouchere, Right Hon. Henry, Under-Secretary for the Colonies,
i. 171; Chief Secretary for Ireland, ii. 405; afterwards Vice-
President of the Board of Trade, 405
Ladies of the Bedchamber, affair of the, i. 201, 209; steps taken
(1841) to avert recurrence of difficulty, ii. 7, 8
Lahore, death of the King of, i. 360
Lakes, the English, visit to, iii. 409
Lamartine, 'Histoire des Girondins,' iii. 111; greatness of, in
the French revolution, 141; reply to the Irish deputation, 161
Lambert, Hôtel, account of the, iii. 44
Lambeth, dinner at, i. 99
Lancaster, Duchy of, appointment of a council for, ii. 427
Langdale, Right Hon. Lord, at the Judicial Committee, ii. 266
Lansdowne, Right Hon. Marquis of, Lord President of the Council,
ii. 405; defence of Lord Palmerston, iii. 174; declines the
Premiership, 243; and Count Colloredo, 289; on Reform, 414
Lansdowne House, ball at, i. 282
'Lays of Ancient Rome,' publication of, ii. 116
Ledru Rollin, iii. 153
Lehzen, Baroness, the, i. 21; at Windsor, 246; leaves Windsor,
ii. 110
Le Marchant, Sir Denis, anecdote, iii. 75
Lemoinne, M., iii. 240
Lemon, Mr., ii. 162
Lesseps, M., Consul at Barcelona, iii. 38
Lewis, Right Hon. George Cornewall, Lewis _v._ Ferrand, ii. 429;
mission of, to Netherby, iii. 411, 412; Herefordshire election,
463
Lichfield, Rt. Hon. Earl of, quarrel of, with Mr. Wallace, i. 29
Liège, visit to, ii. 166
Lieven, Princesse, audience of the Queen, i. 15; of the Duchess
of Kent, 15; and Lady Palmerston, ii. 130; account of interview
between Guizot and Thiers, 287; on the Spanish marriage
disputes, iii. 18; conversations with, 36, 42, 48; flight of,
137; account of the Revolution (1848), 137-141; on French
affairs, 153; dines with Lord Palmerston, 157
Limerick, affray at, iii. 172
Lincoln, Rt. Hon. Earl of (afterwards fifth Duke of Newcastle),
in the Cabinet, ii. 267; Woods and Forests in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, 37
Lines cut on an hotel window, ii. 16
Literature, evils of inferior, iii. 208
Livy, character of Hannibal, i. 57
Logan, Dr., iii. 126
London, Bishop of, at Gorhambury, ii. 111, 112; charge of, 112;
dispute of, with the Hon. and Rev. William Capel, 113
Lonsdale, Rt. Hon. Earl of, the, Lord President of the Council in
Lord Derby's Administration, iii. 451
Lord Mayor, the, and the picture of the Queen's First Council,
i. 79, 82
Lords, House of, debate on Canadian Rebellion, i. 49; debates on
the Canada Bill, 51-53; skirmish between Lords Melbourne and
Lyndhurst, 68; violence of Lord Brougham, 71; debate on the
Coolie question, 73; appeal of Small _v._ Attwood, 83; debate
on affairs in Spain, 102; debate on the naval instructions,
111; the Bishops on the Ecclesiastical Discipline Bill, 120;
attack on Lord Durham's Ordinance, 123; review of session of
1838, 126; the Turton case, 170; Lord Roden's motion on the
state of Ireland, 175; debate on the Bedchamber affair, 211,
212; Lord Melbourne declines to make Radical concessions, 213;
debate, 213; majority against proposed Committee of Council on
Education, 224; debate on Irish policy of the Government, 228;
naturalisation of Prince Albert, 259; debate on the China
question, 286; St. Sulpice question, 388; debate on the Address
(1841), ii. 31; vote of thanks to Lord Ashburton, 152; debate
on Lord Roden's motion, 194; Lord Aberdeen's Scotch Church
Patronage Bill, 206, 207; Lord Brougham's Judicial Committee
Bill, 225, 234; debate on the Corn Laws, 370; debate
conciliatory to France, iii. 39; defeat of the Protectionists,
59; debate on the Enlistment Bill, 77; Government beaten on the
Diplomatic Bill, 126; opening of the session (1849), 263;
Sicilian arms affair, 276; debate on the Navigation Bill, 287;
affair of Lord Roden, 310, 312; debate and division on the
Pacifico affair, 341; Lord Torrington's defence, 402
Louis Philippe, King, policy of, on the Eastern Question, i. 339;
receives Queen Victoria at the Château d'Eu, ii. 196, 200; on
Spanish affairs, 200; aversion of, to Lord Palmerston, 345;
shot at by Lecomte, 388; letter to M. Guizot, 414; conduct of,
in the affair of the Spanish marriages, 418-423; Cracow affair,
429; at the Tuileries, iii. 35; and Danton, anecdote of, 111;
fall of, 135; arrival of, in England, 137; as Comte de Neuilly,
137; conduct of, during the Revolution, 139, 143; narrative of
the Revolution, 150; at Claremont, 154; letter of, on the
Spanish marriages, 168; courtesy of Queen Victoria to, 186; on
the French generals, 205; reported communication from M.
Thiers, 239; interview with Lord Clarendon, 239; and Admiral
Cécille, 268; M. Malac's mission, 328; death of, 364
Lowther, Rt. Hon. Lord, Postmaster-General, ii. 37
Ludlow, visit to, i. 217; castle of, 218
Lushington, Rt. Hon. Dr., negotiation of, with the Duke of
Wellington, i. 278
Luttrell, Mr., death and character of, iii. 425
Lyndhurst, Rt. Hon. Lord, and Lord Melbourne, i. 69; judgement
of, in Small _v._ Attwood, reversed, 80; anecdote of, and Lord
Brougham, 160; at Gore House, 255; Lord Chancellor in Sir R.
Peel's Administration, ii. 37; exchange of patronage with Lord
Ripon, 413; reply to Lord G. Bentinck, 413, 415
Lynedoch, Lord, at Woburn, ii. 46
Macaulay, Rt. Hon. Thomas Babington, return of, from India,
i. 112; on the state of parties, 112; talents of, 121; elected
at Edinburgh, 215; 'Grote and his wife,' 215; speech of, 215; a
saying of Lord Brougham's, 240; conversational powers of, 367;
Mr. Henry Taylor's remark on, 367; anecdotes of, 368; collected
ballads, ii. 60; at Bowood, 69, 70; 'Lays of Ancient Rome,'
116; meets Ranke, 203; Maynooth speech of, 279; attack on the
Irish Church, 282; repartee of, 339; on Junius, 416; History of
England, iii. 252; elected at Edinburgh, 460
MacDougal, Mr., Chartist meeting, iii. 193
MacGregor, Mr., and Lord Ripon, on Free Trade, ii. 53
MacHale, Dr., appointment of, ii. 217
MacLeod, case of, i. 383
Macready as 'Richelieu,' i. 173
Maitland, General Sir Thomas, anecdote of mistaken identity,
i. 285
Malac, M., mission of, to Claremont, iii. 328
Malmesbury, Rt. Hon. Earl of, the, Foreign Secretary in Lord
Derby's Administration, iii. 451
Malvern, visit to, i. 219
Manchester, riots at, ii. 98; visit to, 305
'Mango,' trial of, i. 23; wins the St. Leger, 23
Manners, Rt. Hon. Lord John, First Commissioner of Works in Lord
Derby's Administration, iii. 451
Marie Amélie, Queen, courage of, iii. 140
Marlborough, Duchess of, letters of the, ii. 67; anecdotes of, 67
Marliani, pamphlet by, i. 251
Mayence, visit to, ii. 169, 174
Maynooth Grant, ii. 276; debate on, 279
Mehemet Ali, _see_ Eastern Question
Melbourne, Rt. Hon. Lord, adviser of the Queen, i. 22; attack of,
on Lord Brougham, 33; position of the Government, 62; and Lord
Lyndhurst, 69; and the Queen, 130; at Windsor, 147; resigns,
199; the Bedchamber difficulty, 201-209; resumes the
Government, 207; declines to make Radical concessions, 213;
effect of speech, 214; on Mr. Creevey's Journal, 275; alarmed
at affairs in the East, 303, 307; indecision of, 312; asleep at
the Cabinet, 321; remarks on Lord Palmerston, 363; advice to
the Queen, ii. 23; advice to Sir R. Peel on behaviour to the
Queen, 39; attack of palsy, 116; failing health of, 214; and
the Court of Rome, 217; on O'Connell's trial, 233; on the Post-
Office affairs, 289; nervous condition of, 292; breaks out on
the Corn Laws at Windsor, 351; visit to, at Brocket, iii. 119;
anecdote of, 121; death of, 240; character of, 241; devotion
of, to the Queen, 244; compared to Sallustius Crispus, 246;
conversations and opinions, 247; declaration in regard to the
Hon. Mrs. Norton, 253; manuscript books of, 376
Melrose, visit to, iii. 291
Metcalfe, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles, on Afghanistan, ii. 99; Governor-
General of Canada, 117
Metternich, Prince, on the Eastern Question, i. 306; suggestion
of, 325; flight of, iii. 155; fall of, 158
Milman, Very Rev. Dean, dinner at the house of, ii. 60
Minto, Rt. Hon. Earl of, the, Lord Privy Seal, ii. 405; mission
of, to Italy, iii. 108
Miraflores, mission of, to Paris, iii. 20
Mirasol, mission of, to London, iii. 183
Mitchell, John, affray at Limerick, iii. 172; conviction of, 182
Molé, M., opinion of affairs, iii. 20; attempts to form a
government, 139, 143
Molesworth, Right Hon. Sir William, moves vote of censure on Lord
Glenelg, i. 72
Monmouth, visit to, i. 219; historical interest of, 219
Monmouth convicts, the, i. 261
Montgomery, Mr. Alfred, hoax of Lord Brougham's death, i. 243
Montpensier, H.R.H. Duchesse de, Infanta of Spain, marriage of
the, ii. 418; at the Tuileries, iii. 35 (_see_ Spanish
Marriages)
'Morning Chronicle,' the, conduct of, i. 179; ill-timed hostility
of, to France, 326, 327; violent article on M. Guizot, iii. 42;
attacks on Lord Aberdeen, 52; purchased by the Peelites, 128
Mounier, Baron, mission of, i. 356
Moxon, Mr., and Mr. Disraeli, iii. 75
Mulgrave, Right Hon. Earl of, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, i. 30
Munster, Right Hon. Earl of, returns the keys of the Round Tower,
i. 17; death of the, ii. 94
Muntz, Mr., appointed magistrate, i. 227
Murray, Sir George, asked to review the 'Wellington Despatches'
in the 'Edinburgh Review,' i. 38, 57
Napier, Sir Charles, sent to India as Commander-in-Chief, iii.
274, 276, 280
Napier, Admiral, proclamation of, i. 305
Naples, insurrection at, iii. 216; Lord Palmerston's breach of
neutrality, 261, 271; Lord Palmerston's claims on, 419
Napoleon, Louis, Prince (afterwards Emperor of the French), at
Gore House, i. 167; success of, iii. 239; elected President of
the French Republic, 253; position of, 329; _coup d'état_,
1851, 420; M. Thiers' account of, 443; and Lord Normanby, 441
Narvaez, intrigues of, iii. 194
Navigation Laws, the, iii. 283, 287
Netherlands, King of the, at Goodwood, ii. 287
Newcastle, fourth Duke of, dismissed from the Lord-Lieutenancy of
Nottinghamshire, i. 194; letter of the, to the Lord Chancellor,
195; interview of the, with the Duke of Wellington, 195
Newport, Mayor of, the, at Court, i. 249
Newport, Chartist riot at, i. 249, 256; result of the trial, 260
Norbury, Right Hon. Earl of, murder of the, i. 157
Norman Court, visit to, i. 133
Normanby, Right Hon. Marquis of, the, succeeds Lord Glenelg at
the Colonial Office, i. 161, 164; Irish administration of, 176;
at a Greenwich dinner, 237; despatches relating to the Spanish
marriages, iii. 17; indiscretion of, 30, 34; relations of, with
M. Thiers, 35; communications of, with M. Thiers, 40; bad terms
of, with M. Guizot, 43, 46; condition of the Embassy, 49;
perplexity of, 58; further misunderstanding, 59, 60; the
quarrel made up, 66; more blunders, 69; results in Europe of
the squabble, 72; proposed as Ambassador to Rome, 108; resigns,
441, 445; and Louis Napoleon, 442
North, Right Hon. Lord, anecdote of, ii. 116
Nottinghamshire election, iii. 389
Novara, battle of, iii. 282
Oakley Park, visit to, i. 218
O'Brien, Smith, return of, to Ireland, iii. 167; affair at
Limerick, 172; search for, 213; capture of, 215
O'Connell, Daniel, speech of, at the 'Crown and Anchor' Tavern,
i. 66, 67; declines the Mastership of the Irish Rolls, 101;
speech of, 279; conduct of, on Irish measures, ii. 132;
proclamation of, prohibiting Repeal meeting, 204; arrest of,
205; trial of, 210, 218; popularity of, 214; advice of, on
Ireland, 220, 221; result of the trial of, 228; release of,
255; death of, iii. 82; career of, 85
O'Connor, Feargus, at the Chartist meeting (1848), iii. 166
Odilon Barrot, conduct of, in the French Revolution, iii. 140,
144
Orange, Princess of, the, ii. 287
Orangemen, discomfiture of, i. 30
Orford, Right Hon. Earl of (Horace Walpole), letters of the, to
Sir Horace Mann, ii. 202
'Orlando' takes the Derby Stakes, ii. 250; the trial, iii. 228
Orleans, H.R.H. Duchesse d', iii. 35; on the proposed
reconciliation between the two branches of the French Royal
family, 329
Ossington, visit to, ii. 309
Ostend, passage to, ii. 166
Ovid, quotation from, i. 238
Oxford, Bishop of, anti-slavery speech of, ii. 411; want of tact
of, 411; correspondence with Dr. Hampden, iii. 115
Pacifico, Don, the case of, iii. 308, 311; debate on, in the
House of Lords, 341
Pakington, Right Hon. Sir John, Colonial Secretary in Lord
Derby's Administration, iii. 451
Palace, the, dinner at, i. 77; balls at, 9, 109
Palmerston, Right Hon. Viscount, and Mr. Urquhart. i. 117, 119;
and the 'Portfolio,' 159; policy in the East (1840), 297-304;
objections to policy of, 301; coolness of, 304; conduct of, at
the outset of the Eastern Question, 308; offers to resign, 308;
independence of, at the Foreign Office, 309; the Eastern
Question, 312-314; at the Cabinet on the Eastern Question, 321;
hostility of, to France, 326; article in the 'Morning
Chronicle,' 326; triumph of, 330; note from the French
Government, 335; ignores his colleagues, 345; defends Lord
Ponsonby, 347; hostility to France, 347, 353; and the Tories,
363; position of, 364; settlement of the Eastern Question,
377-383; jobbing at the Foreign Office, ii. 48; attack on, in a
Berlin newspaper, 75; and consequent misunderstanding, 75;
abuses the treaty of Washington, 104, 109; attacks on the
Government, 105, 106; and the press, 130; commencement of
coalition with M. Thiers, 267; consternation in France at
possible return of, to the Foreign Office, 345; visit of, to
Paris, 383; letter to King Louis Philippe, 388; Foreign
Secretary, 405; incipient disputes with France, 409; Spanish
marriages, 418, iii. 6; despatch to Sir H. Bulwer, ii. 424;
conversation with, on the Spanish marriages, iii. 15; conduct
discussed by M. Guizot, 20, 26; effect of despatch, 25; M.
Guizot's complaints of, 30; mismanagement of, 40; and the
'Morning Chronicle,' 52; threatens a rupture with France, 62;
consequences in Europe, 72; anecdote of, 121; dinner to M.
Guizot, 157; despatch to Sir H. Bulwer, 169; conduct of,
attacked in the House of Lords, 173; omission of, 178; and the
Duc de Broglie, 185; Sicilian arms affair, 261, 271, 276;
attacks on, 261; and Count Colloredo, 282, 283; suppression of
a despatch, 288; the Greek dispute, 308, 311; quarrels with
France, 330; Baron Brunnow complains, 332; able speech of, 346;
Radical dinner to, 362; conversation with, 374; and Kossuth,
413, 416; Finsbury and Islington deputation, 415; claims on
Naples, 419; dismissal of, from the Foreign Office, 426; own
version of the affair, 428; succeeded by Earl Granville, 433;
complete account of the affair, 434; further details, 444;
explanations in Parliament, 446
Palmerston, Lady, conversation with, on Eastern affairs, i. 330
Panic in the money market, iii, 99; proposed measures of the
Government, 101
Panshanger, party at, ii. 415
Papal aggression, iii. 366
Paris, visit to (1847), iii. 16-50; Mrs. Austin's _salon_, 38;
ball at the Hôtel de Ville, 42; ball at Mme. Pozzo di Borgo's,
42; visit to M. Cousin, 44; the Hôtel Lambert, 44; Mme. de
Circourt's _salon_, 45; Mme. de Girardin's _salon_, 45;
farewell visits, 48; Revolution (1848), 132; state of, 149,
284; fighting in the streets of, 199; details of fighting, 202;
the Archbishop of, killed on a barricade, 200, 203; the _coup
d'état_ of Louis Napoleon, 420
Parke, Rt. Hon. Baron, and Lord Brougham, i. 59
Parker, Admiral, instructions to, iii. 216
Parkes, Mr. Joseph, tour of, i. 194
Parliament, dissolution of, debated, ii. 5; resolved on, 9, 12,
13; dissolved, 14; opening of (1842), 81; opening of, and state
of parties (1844), 222
Parliamentary proceedings, _see_ Lords, House of, _and_ Commons,
House of
Payne, Knight, built Downton Castle, i. 218
Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert, informed of the moderation of Lord J.
Russell, i. 188; caution of, 193; sent for by the Queen, 200;
the Bedchamber difficulty, 201-209; coldness of, to Lord J.
Russell, 259; thrown over on the Canada Bill, by the Duke of
Wellington, 294; vote of censure on the Government, ii. 10;
sent for to Windsor, 33; forms an administration (1841), 37;
conversation with the Queen, 41; Corn Bill (1842), 83; Budget,
87; difficulties of, 189; unpopularity of, 191, 247; Maynooth
Grant, 276; resignation of, 317; position of, 324; conduct of,
328; resumes office, 332; vindication of, in Mr. Greville's
pamphlet, 350, 368; measure for sliding-scale duties on corn,
357; discussions on the measure, 357-366; position of, 380;
anecdote of, 387; conversation with, 389; assailed by the
Protectionists, 392; behaviour to Mr. Canning, 397; resigns
office, 401; resolution of, not to take office, 433; position
of, iii. 94; unpopularity of, in Liverpool, 97; correspondence
with Mr. Croker, 98; influence of, 100; position of, 146; on
obstruction, 163; reluctance of, to take office, 199; anecdote
of, and Huskisson, 216; conversation with Lord Clarendon, 286;
on foreign affairs, 315; accident to, 347; death of, 348;
character of, 349; career of, 350-358; effects of death of,
358; conduct of, on the East Retford franchise, 424
Peel, Rt. Hon. Gen. Jonathan, affronts Mr. Disraeli, ii. 388
Peel, Frederic (afterwards Rt. Hon. Sir F. Peel, K.C.M.G.),
maiden speech of, iii. 288
Penryn Castle, visit to, ii. 17
Perceval, Rev. Mr., preaches before the Queen, i. 116
Pereira, Mr., lecture of, i. 78
Perez, Antonio, anecdote of a manuscript, ii. 129
Phillips, Sir Thomas, at Windsor, i. 249
Phillpotts, _see_ Exeter, Bishop of
Pigou, Mr., and the Duke of Wellington's letter on the defence of
the country, iii. 107
Piscatory, M., in the French Revolution, iii. 140
Pitt, Rt. Hon. William, peerages, ii. 235
Plas Newydd, visit to Lord Anglesea at, ii. 16
Plunket, Rt. Hon. Lord, compelled to resign the office of Lord
Chancellor of Ireland, ii. 14
Plymouth, visit to, iii. 207
Poland, reported annexation of, by Russia, iii. 4
Ponsonby, Rt. Hon. George, Irish Chancellor, i. 153; and Curran,
153
Ponsonby, Viscount, despatch of, announcing Mehemet Ali's
deposition, i. 334; recall of, proposed, 346; defended by Lord
Palmerston, 347; violence of, 361; conversation with, ii. 110
Pontois, M. de, communication of, to the Porte, i. 304
Porson, anecdote of, ii. 114
'Portfolio,' the, i. 117, 118, 158
Portland, third Duke of, anecdote of the, iii. 212
Portugal, Donna Maria, Queen of, iii. 79
Portugal, state of affairs in, iii. 76, 77, 79
Post Office, letters opened at the, ii. 249; alleged opening of
Mr. Thomas Duncombe's letters, 272; Lord Melbourne's warrants
for opening letters, 289
Pozzo di Borgo, Comtesse, ball at the house of, iii. 42
Prandi, at Burnham Beeches, iii. 122
Precedence Question, _see_ H.R.H. Albert, Prince; Mr. Greville's
pamphlet on, _see_ Appendix, vol. i.; of ambassadors, i. 282
'President,' the, loss of, i. 391
Pritchard, Mr., and the Tahiti affair, ii. 252
Privilege Question, the, i. 257; disputes on, 270
Privy Council, position of the sons of the Sovereign, i. 274;
introduction of Prince Albert, 274
Privy Council Office, correspondence with the British Museum on
the missing registers, ii. 162; (_see_ Judicial Committee)
Protectionist party, position of the, iii. 380
Protestant agitation, iii. 368, 369, 373
Protocol signed, 1840, i. 309
Prussia, King of, arrival of the, ii. 77; sight-seeing, 78; at
the House of Lords, 81; lunches with Mrs. Fry. 81
Prussia, Prince of, the, flight of, iii. 155; visit of, to Queen
Victoria, 179
Prussia, state of, iii. 238; retrospect of 1848, 257
'Punch,' cartoon in, iii. 407
Quarterly Review, the, article on Sir R. Peel's policy, ii. 200;
article on Lord Orford's letters, 202
Rachel, Mlle., as Hermione, ii. 6; recites at Windsor Castle, 11
Radetzki, Marshal, victory of, iii. 282
Radical party, the, reduced, i. 215; dissatisfaction at Lord J.
Russell, 216
Radowitz, General, invited to Windsor, iii. 372
Raglan Castle, visit to, i. 220
Railway, first time of travelling on the, i. 11; speculation, ii.
300
Ranke, Professor, breakfasts with Sir G. C. Lewis, ii. 203
Rapallo, Exchequer Bills, ii. 50; advanced money to Louis
Napoleon, 50
Reeve, Henry, Mr., first acquaintance of, with Mr. Greville, i.
27; goes to Paris, 388; declines to make an affidavit for Lord
Brougham, ii. 207; and King Louis Philippe, 216; letters of,
from Paris, 345-347
Reform, question of, iii. 469
Repeal magistrates, the, restored, ii. 407
Revolution, the French (1848), iii. 132; details of, 138, 142
(_see_ France)
Revolution in Austria, iii. 155, 158
Rhine, voyage up the, ii. 167
'Richelieu,' first representation of, i. 173
Riddlesworth, visit to, ii. 205
Ripon, Right Hon. Earl of, the, and Mr. Macgregor at the Board of
Trade, ii. 5; President of the Board of Trade in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, 37; differs with Mr. Macgregor, 53; exchange of
patronage with Lord Lyndhurst, 413
Roden, Right Hon. Earl of, dismissed from the Commission of the
Peace, iii. 310
Roebuck, Mr., vote of confidence in the Government, iii. 344
Rolfe, Right Hon. Baron (afterwards Lord Chancellor Cranworth),
at Ampthill, ii. 265; estimate of Lord Eldon, 265
Rolle, Lord, at the Queen's Coronation, i. 107
Rome, retrospect of the year 1848, iii. 257
Romsey, church at, ii. 105
Ross, visit to, i. 219; 'The Man of,' 219
Rossi, Count, on French affairs, i. 343
Rothschild, house of the family of, at Frankfort, ii. 171, 173
Royal Academy of Arts, lecture at the, iii. 375
Royal Institution, evening at the, i. 78
'Running Rein,' case of, ii. 250
Russell, Right Hon. Lord John, attack on the Bishop of Exeter,
i. 66; finality speech of, 181; position of, 182; sentiments
of moderation towards Sir R. Peel, expressed through Sir J.
Graham, 183, 189; skilful speech of, 190; threatened by the
Radicals, 191; slight to an Irish member, 194; letter to the
electors of Stroud, 196; brings in the Jamaica Bill, 196;
speech on Sir H. Fleetwood's motion, 216; note to Sir R. Peel,
259; as leader, 293; alarmed, at affairs in the East, 303, 307;
opposes Lord Palmerston's policy, 312; Cabinet on the Eastern
Question, 320; weakness of, 331; efforts of, to settle affairs
in the East, 333; threatens to resign, 344; intentions of
(1841), ii. 27; attack on two judges, 84; conversation at
Holland House on the Reform Bill, 121; dissatisfaction of, at
the American Treaty, 126; sent for by the Queen, 317;
difficulties in forming a Government, 319, 331; resigns, 332;
promise to the Queen, 361; convokes a meeting of Whig Peers,
394; forms a Government, 405; conversation with, on French
affairs, iii. 55; threatened with personal violence, 65; speech
on the Irish Poor Law, 69; position of, 96; financial statement
of, 126; results, 128; difficulties with Lord Palmerston, 185;
West India Sugar Bill, 193; subsequent crisis, 195; peerage
suggested for, 281, 285; despatch relating to the Spanish
marriages, 298; Government defeated on the Pacifico affair,
341; indecision of, 342; conversation with Lord Clarendon, 361;
letter on the Papal aggression, 367, 370; resigns, 378;
negotiations for the formation of a government, 383; return of,
to office, 389; negotiations with Sir J. Graham, 395, 399, 401;
overtures to Sir J. Graham, 410, 412; dismissal of Lord
Palmerston, 426, 429; details of the affair, 434, 444;
explanations in Parliament, 446; resignation of, 447
Russell, Lord William, murder of, i. 284
Russell, Lord William, G.C.B., recalled from Berlin, ii. 66
Russia, the Emperor Nicholas of, visit to London, ii. 243; review
in Hyde Park, 243; fête at Chiswick, 244; appearance of, 244;
arrangement with the Bank of France, iii. 70; and Louis
Napoleon, 441; remark of, on the British fleet, 315
Russia, measures in Poland, iii. 5; interference with, 279;
complains of Lord Palmerston, 332
Russian Note, the, iii. 323
Rutland, Duke of, birthday festivities of, i. 41, 44, 45
St. Aulaire, Marquis de, French Ambassador in London, ii. 58;
dinner with, iii. 54
St. James's Palace, arrangements for the apartments in, i. 280
St. Jean d'Acre, capture of, i. 354
St. Leger, won by 'Mango,' i. 23
St. Leonards, Right Hon. Lord, Lord Chancellor in Lord Derby's
Administration, iii. 451
Salamanca, battle of, Duke of Wellington's account of the, i. 39
Sale, Mrs., letter of, from Cabul, ii. 85
Salic Law, the, proposed revival of, in Spain, iii. 13
Salisbury, Right Hon. the Marquis of, Lord Privy Seal in Lord
Derby's Administration, iii. 451
Salisbury Cathedral, visit to, i. 223
Sampayo, anecdote of a manuscript, ii. 129
Sandwich, Countess of, appointment of, i. 224
Sardinia, defeated by Austria, iii. 282
Schleswig-Holstein question, the, iii. 371
Schwabe, Mr., on Spain, iii. 38
Scotland, visit to, iii. 291; Balmoral, 295
Scrope, Davies, iii. 47
Seaton, Lord, _see_ Colborne
Sefton, Right Hon. Earl of, death of the, i. 138; character of
the, 138, 139
Selwyn, George, anecdotes of, i. 217
Serjeants-at-law, petition of the, i. 156, 160
Serrano, Marshal, intrigues of, iii. 194
Session, review of the (1838), i. 126, (1839) 231, (1840) 291,
(1842) ii. 97, 98; opening of the (1849), iii. 263
Sicily, revolution in, iii. 123; Lord Palmerston's breach of
neutrality with the Government of, 261, 271, 276
Sikh war, the, ii. 372; termination of, 380; the campaign, iii.
214
Singleton, Archdeacon, death of, ii. 94
Smith, Rev. Sydney, death of, ii. 273
Smith, Bobus, death of, ii. 274
Small _v._ Attwood, i. 80, 81; judgement in, reversed, 83
Sobraon, victory of, ii. 380
Somerset, Lord Fitzroy (afterwards Lord Raglan), account of the
Duke of Wellington's campaigns, i. 135-137
Somerset, Right Hon. Lord Granville, Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster in Sir R. Peel's Administration, ii. 37
Somnauth, Temple of, the gates of the, carried off, ii. 123, 139
Sophia, H.R.H. Princess, death of the, iii. 184
Sotomayor, Duke of, and Lord Palmerston, iii. 169
Soult, Marshal, arrival of, in London, i. 103; at Queen
Victoria's coronation, 106; reception of, 113
Southern, Mr., on Irish affairs, iii. 171
Southwell, Church at, ii. 309
Spain, termination of the Carlist war, i. 241, 242; quarrels in,
ii. 73; insurrection in, 201; intrigues in, 421; proposed
revival of the Salic Law, iii. 13; political crisis in, 45;
affairs in, 78; relations with, 183; debate in the House of
Commons, 190; intrigues in, 194; expulsion of Sir H. Bulwer,
169
Spanish Marriages, the, first proposals for the Queen's marriage
(1838), i. 251; papers relating to the, iii. 6; detailed
account of the affair, 7-11; further details, 15, 17; Princesse
Lieven on the quarrels, 18; discussion with M. Guizot, 20-26,
30-33; letters relating to the, 168; beginning of the disputes,
412; account of intrigues, 418-423; indignation at, 425;
conversation on, with M. de Jarnac, 431
Speakership, discussion on the, ii. 23
Spencer, Right Hon. Earl, anecdote of, when leader of the House
of Commons, ii. 152; death of, 295; character of, 295-298
Spencer, Hon. John, anecdotes of, ii. 67
Spottiswoode Gang, the, i. 31
Stade Dues, the, ii. 107
Staleybridge, riots at, ii. 98
'Standard,' the, contradicts the 'Times' on the repeal of the
Corn Laws, ii. 313
Stanley, Right Hon. Lord (afterwards fourteenth Earl of Derby) at
Knowsley, i. 11; Colonial Secretary in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, ii. 37; called up to the House of Lords, 256;
good speech of, 395; replies to Lord Grey, iii. 200; Steward of
the Jockey Club, 205; on the Dolly's Brae affair, 310, 312;
negotiations for the formation of a Government, 381, 384, 385;
attempt to form a Government, 385; failure of the attempt, 386;
at Newmarket, 402 (_see_ Derby, Earl of)
Stanley, Edward Henry, Hon. (afterwards fifteenth Earl of Derby),
maiden speech of, iii. 337
Stephen, Right Hon. Sir James, position of, at the Colonial
Office, i. 174
Stephens, arrest of, i. 155
Sterling, John, Mr., and Coleridge, i. 109
Stowe, sale at, iii. 216
Strachan, Lady, ii. 91
Strutt, Right Hon. Edward (afterwards Lord Belper), Railroad Bill
of, iii. 93, 95
Sudeley, Lord, loses three forged Exchequer Bills, ii. 57
Sumner, Dr., appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, iii. 125
Sussex, H.R.H. Duke of, the, claim of, i. 113, 115; at dinner at
Devonshire House, 278; dissatisfaction of, 279; death of, ii.
155; funeral of, 156
Sutton Sharpe, anecdotes, ii. 78
Sybilla, Margravine, the residence of, near Baden, ii. 184
Syria, military operations in, i. 328; affairs of, 346, 354
Tahiti affair, the, ii. 252
Talleyrand, death of, and character, i. 94; and Napoleon, ii. 193
Tavistock, Marquis of, i. 10
Taylor, Mr. Henry, paper by, on the West Indies, i. 197
Taymouth, visit to, iii. 292
Temple Church, service at the, ii. 159
Temple, Sir William, award on the claims on Naples, iii. 419
Thiers, M., resignation of, i. 343; beginning of coalition with
Lord Palmerston, ii. 267; amicable meeting with M. Guizot, 278,
288; visit to England, 298; interview with Lord Aberdeen, 299;
bitterness of, towards Talleyrand, 299; visit to, and
conversation, iii. 27-29; dinner at, 29; cordial relations of,
with the British Embassy, 35; communications with Lord
Normanby, 40; bitterness of, 48; conduct of, during the
Revolution, 140, 144; reported communication of, to King Louis
Philippe, 239; visit to London, 407; account of the _coup
d'état_, 443
Thomson, Right Hon. Charles Poulett (Lord Sydenham), sent to
Canada, i. 235; death of, ii. 117; abilities of, 117
Thynne, Rev. Lord John, visit to, iii, 207
'Times,' the, on the Corn Laws, i. 158; on Lord Durham's report,
163; on the Eastern Question, 324; and Lord Palmerston, 362;
death of Mr. Barnes, ii. 2; Mr. Delane appointed editor, 3;
communications with the Government, 200; Mr. Henry Reeve's
article on the Duc de Bordeaux, 216; article announcing the
repeal of the Corn Laws, 309; contradiction, 312, 314; supports
Lord J. Russell's Administration, 406; anecdote, iii. 75; on
Lord Palmerston's breach of neutrality, 261, 272; letter of
'Carolus,' 272, 274, _see_ Appendix B, vol. iii., letter to
Cobden, Appendix A, vol. iii.
Tintern Abbey, visit to, i. 221
Tocqueville, M. de, letter of, i. 362; attacked by Lord Brougham,
ii. 150; on the state of parties in France, iii. 41
Torrington, Viscount, attack on, iii. 269; defence of, 402
Tory-Radical, a, i. 19
Tower of London, fire at the, ii. 51
Treason, High, cases of, i. 289
Treaty, July 15, 1840, for settling the affairs of the East,
i. 297 (_for results of_ Treaty, _see_ Eastern Question)
Trench, Sir Frederic, and the statue of the Duke of Wellington,
i. 106
Troy House, visit to, i. 219; built by Duke of Beaufort, 1689,
219
Tuileries, reception at the, iii. 35
Turton, Mr., appointed by Lord Durham, i. 110; appointment
criticised, 158; debate on, in House of Lords, 170
Underwood, Lady Cecilia, at dinner at Devonshire House, i. 278;
created Duchess of Inverness, 282; at a ball at Lansdowne
House, 282
Urquhart, Mr., and Lord Palmerston, i. 117; account of, 119; the
'Portfolio,' 158
Usk Castle, visit to, i. 220
Usk salmon, i. 220
Ventura, General, ii. 100
Victoria, Her Majesty Queen, accession of, i. 2; praise of, 14,
20; audience to Princesse Lieven, 15; interview of, with the
Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Conyngham, 20; visit to Queen
Adelaide, 21; cordiality to Lord Melbourne, 22; picture of
first Council of, 83; at a ball at the Palace, 91; Coronation
of, 105, 106; two sermons, 116; and Lord Melbourne, 130; life
at Windsor, 146; resignation of Lord Melbourne's Cabinet, 200;
the Bedchamber difficulty, 201-206; declaration of marriage of,
247; opens Parliament (1840), 253; Marriage of, 266; goes to
the Ancient Concert, 275; at a ball at Lansdowne House, 282;
shot at, 288; on the Eastern Question, 323; visit to Nuneham
and Oxford, ii. 13; visit to Chiswick, 14; visit to Woburn, 26;
council for appointing ministers in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, 37; admirable behaviour of, 38; appointments in
the Household (1841), 42, 43; reception of the new Ministers,
44; birth of the Prince of Wales, 51; the new Ministers, 84;
shot at, 96; first visit to Scotland, 108; visit to the Château
d'Eu, 196, 200; visit to Chatsworth, 215; fancy ball, 283;
absence in Germany, 292; sends for Lord J. Russell, 317; Lord
J. Russell's audience, 322, 323; letter on Lord Palmerston's
despatch, 424; decorations for the Peninsular soldiers, 434;
good order of private affairs of, iii. 67; correspondence on
the Spanish marriages, 168; visit of the Prince of Prussia to,
179; affection of, for the Orleans Royal family, 186; annoyance
of, at Lord Palmerston's conduct, 289; visit to Ireland, 295;
life at Balmoral, 296; on Lord Palmerston's conduct of foreign
affairs, 317; sends for the Duke of Wellington, 388; on the
crisis, 390
'Victoria and Albert,' the, Royal yacht, ii. 196
Vienna, outbreak at, iii. 158
Villiers, Right Hon. Charles P., correspondence with Cobden, ii.
349
Villiers, Hon. Edward, death and character of, ii. 208, 209
Visconti, Madame, i. 365
Wakefield, Mr. Edward Gibbon, appointed by Lord Durham, i. 110
Wakley, Mr., i. 60
Wales, H.R.H. Prince of, birth of, ii. 51; question of promotion
for the officer on guard, 51; question of a baronetcy for the
Mayor of Chester, 52; armorial bearings of, 63; gazetted Duke
of Saxony, 65
Wales, North, excursion to, ii. 15-20; the inhabitants of, 19
Walewski, Count, mission of, i. 315; opinion of Lord Palmerston,
iii. 418
Walpole, Rt. Hon. Spencer, position of, iii. 397; Home Secretary
in Lord Derby's Administration, 451; clause in the Militia
Bill, 449
Walter, John, Mr., returned for Nottingham, i. 391; succeeds to
the 'Times,' iii. 64
Washington, the Treaty of, signed, ii. 101; discovery of a
missing map, 102; attacked by Lord Palmerston, 101, 104-106;
controversy kept up, 109, 111; dissatisfaction of Lord J.
Russell at, 126; ratification of, 147
Wellington, Duke of, the, on operations in Canada, i. 37; on his
Spanish campaigns, 37-41, 46; advice of, to the King of
Hanover, 42; patriotism of, 45; on the Canada Bill, 53;
comparison of, with Hannibal, 57; at the Waterloo dinner, 103;
meets Marshal Soult, 105; and Mr. Croker, 105; equestrian
statue of, 106; contrast to Lord Brougham, 111; panegyric on
despatches of, 120, 121; with Lord Anglesey at Waterloo, 135;
at Orthez, 135; at Salamanca, 136; lost his army, 136;
interview of, with the Duke of Newcastle, 195; assurance of
support to Lord Melbourne after moderation of the latter, 213;
effect of speech of, 214; angry vein of, 225; at the Dover
dinner, 237; Mr. Croker's anecdotes of, 248; serious seizure
of, 267; on the Privilege Question, 270; altered appearance of,
271, 275; at Court, 278; instance of failing memory, 278;
speech on the China question, 286; conversation with, 287;
opposes the Canada Bill, 294; influence of, 296; on Eastern
affairs, 300; illness of, 373; self-reliance of, ii. 34;
irritability of, 43; chattels of, 59; delusions of, 61; meets
the King of Prussia, 77; on events in Afghanistan, 89, 100,
137; at Exeter Hall, 97; opinion of Lord Ellenborough, 139; on
the Duke of Marlborough, 192, 193; Talleyrand and Napoleon,
193; on the evils of the press, 220; deference shown to, at the
Cabinet, 223; increasing irritability of, 223; correspondence
with Lord Haddington, 224; at a review, 243; on the Corn Laws,
351; decorations for the Peninsular soldiers, 434; conversation
with, iii. 55; reasons against taking office, 55; on the
defence of the country, 76; on the Enlistment Bill, 76, 78;
Wyatt's statue of, 91; failing powers of, 97; and Mr. Croker,
98; letter of, on the defence of the country, 107; preparations
of, for the great Chartist meeting, 162; death of Mr.
Arbuthnot, 362; sent for by the Queen, 388; death and character
of, 474
Wells, visit to, iii. 207
West Indies, threatened emancipation of the, i. 84
West India question, the, iii. 175
West India Committee, iii. 187
West India Bill, iii. 193
Westminster Play 'Phormio,' ii. 216
Wharncliffe, Rt. Hon. Lord, Lord President in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, ii. 37; management of the Privy Council Office,
212; contradicts the statement of the 'Times' on the repeal of
the Corn Laws, 312-314; death of, 335
Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, in society, iii. 73
Wheatstone, Mr., i. 79
Whig Government, prospects of the, i. 180; state of the party,
193; split with the Radicals, 192; Government resigns, 199;
defeat of the party at the general election (1841), ii. 21-23;
negotiations with the Peelites (1851), iii, 383; possible
coalition with the Peelites, discussed, 437-440
Wiesbaden, visits to, ii. 171, 285; theatre and society at, 172
'Wilberforce, Life of,' review of, in the 'Edinburgh Review,'
i. 90
Wilberforce, Archdeacon (afterwards Bishop of Oxford), at the
Grange, ii. 264
Wilde, Right Hon. Lord Chief Justice, dinner party at, iii. 125
Wilkie, David, picture of the Queen's First Council, i. 79, 82
William IV., H. M. King, as Duke of Clarence, i. 2; Lord High
Admiral, 3; character of, 3; funeral of, 8
Wilton, visit to, i. 223
Windcliffe, visit to, i. 222
Windsor Castle, invitation to, i. 132; the Queen at, 146; Council
at, 246; dinner at, 246; Mayor of Newport at, 249; anecdote of
M. Guizot, 310; dinner in St. George's Hall, ii. 11; Council
and dinner at, 44, 45
Wiseman, Dr., ii. 25; conversation on relations with the Pope,
iii. 108; manifesto of, 369
Woburn, visit of the Queen to, ii. 26; visit to, 46, 47; party
at, 76; fire at, 76; management of the estate, 110; contrasted
with Bretby, 416
Wolfe, General, anecdote of, ii. 120
Wolff, Dr., i. 88
Wood, Right Hon. Sir Charles, Chancellor of the Exchequer, ii.
405; income-tax difficulty, iii. 146
Wood, Mr., President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce,
dismissal of, i. 165
Wood, James, Mr., will case of, ii. 28
Worms, visit to, ii. 287
Worsley, visit to, ii. 303
Wrest, visit to, i. 250-251
Wyatt, Matthew, statue by, of the Duke of Wellington, i. 106
Wye, the river, scenery on, i. 220, 222
Wyse, Right Hon. Sir Thomas, British Minister at Athens, iii.
334; instructions to, in the Greek dispute, 334
York, Archbishop of (Hon. Edward Harcourt), death of the, iii.
102
Zichy-Ferraris, Countess, ii. 91
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Greville Memoirs (Second Part) - A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1837 to 1852 - (Volume 1 of 3)" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.