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
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Greville Memoirs - A Journal of the Reigns of King George IV and King William IV, Vol. III
Author: Greville, Charles, 1794-1865
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The Greville Memoirs - A Journal of the Reigns of King George IV and King William IV, Vol. III" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

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

    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

                     A JOURNAL OF THE REIGNS
                         KING GEORGE IV.
                         KING WILLIAM IV.

                           By the Late
                   CHARLES C. F. GREVILLE, Esq.
             Clerk of the Council to Those Sovereigns

                            Edited by
                           HENRY REEVE
                  Registrar of the Privy Council

                         IN THREE VOLUMES
                            VOL. III.

                          Second Edition

                     LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.

                   Contents of the Third Volume

                           CHAPTER XXI.

Dinner at Greenwich--Monk Lewis--The King's Letter--Lord
  Althorp's Finance--Salutes to the Royal Family--Death of Lord
  Dover--His Character--Lyndhurst and Brougham on the Local
  Courts Bill--Charles Napier captures the Miguelite Fleet--The
  Irish Church Bill--The Duke of Wellington and the Bonapartes--
  Blount's Preaching--Sir Robert Peel on Political Unions--Mr.
  George Villiers appointed to Madrid--Duke of Richmond--
  Suspension Clause in Irish Church Bill--Apprenticeship Clause
  in West India Bill--State of House of Commons--Lucien and
  Joseph Bonaparte--Lord Plunket--Denis Lemarchant--Brougham and
  Sugden--Princess Lieven--Anecdotes of the Emperor Nicholas--
  Affairs of Portugal--Don Miguel at Strathfieldsaye--Prorogation
  of Parliament--Results of the Reform Bill.
                                                            Page 1

                          CHAPTER XXII.

The Speaker a Knight of the Bath--Lord Wellesley Lord Lieutenant
  of Ireland--M. Thiers in England--Prince Esterhazy's Opinion of
  the State of England--Queen of Portugal at Windsor--The Duke of
  Leuchtenberg--Macaulay and Sydney Smith--Brougham's Anecdotes
  of Queen Caroline--Judicial Committee of the Privy Council--Sir
  Stratford Canning and M. Dedel--Sydney Smith and the 'Siege of
  Saragossa'--Edward Irving--The Unknown Tongues--Tribute to Lord
  Eldon--W. J. Fox--Lord Tavistock on the Prospects of his
  Party--Moore at the State Paper Office--Russia and England--
  Belvoir Castle--The Duke of Wellington at Belvoir--Visit to
  Mrs. Arkwright--Sir Thomas Lawrence and the Misses Siddons--A
  Murder at Runton--Sandon--Lord and Lady Harrowby--Burghley--
  Railroads talked of--Gloomy Tory Prognostications--State of
  Spain--Parliament opens--Quarrel of Sheil and Lord Althorp--
  Unpopularity of Lord Palmerston--Mrs. Somerville--O'Connell's
  Attack on Baron Smith--Lord Althorp's Budget--The Pension
  List--Lord Althorp as Leader of the House--Sir R. Peel's
  Position in the House--Meeting of Supporters of Government--Mr.
  Villiers on the State of Spain--Predicament of Horne, the
                                                           Page 30

                          CHAPTER XXIII.

Spain--Russia and Turkey--Sir R. Peel's Pictures--Peel and
  Stanley--Lord Brougham's Judicial Changes--Lord Brougham's
  Defence--Admission of Dissenters to the Universities--Lord
  Denman's Peerage--Growing Ascendancy of Peel--An Apology for
  Lord Brougham--Personal Reflections--Crime in Dorsetshire--
  Spain and Portugal--Procession of the Trades' Unions--Lady
  Hertford's Funeral--Petition of the London University for a
  Charter--Repeal of the Union--Excitement of the King--Brougham
  and Eldon at the Privy Council--Duke of Wellington's Aversion
  to the Whigs--Lord Brougham and Lord Wynford--Fête at
  Petworth--Lord Brougham's Conduct on the Pluralities Bill--
  Crisis in the Cabinet--Prince Lieven recalled--Stanley, Graham,
  and the Duke of Richmond resign on the Irish Church Bill--
  History of the Crisis--Ward's Motion defeated by moving the
  previous Question--Affairs of Portugal--Effects of the late
  Change--Oxford Commemoration--Peel's Declaration--Festival in
  Westminster Abbey--Don Carlos on his way to Spain--Stanley's
  'Thimble-rig' Speech--Resignation of Lord Grey--Mr. Greville's
  account of the Causes of his Retirement--The Government
  reconstituted by Lord Melbourne--Lord Duncannon Secretary of
                                                           Page 68

                          CHAPTER XXIV.

Taylor's 'Philip Van Artevelde'--Goodwood--Earl Bathurst's
  Death--Death of Mrs. Arbuthnot--Overtures to O'Connell--Irish
  Tithe Bill--Theodore Hook's Improvisation--Lord Westmeath's
  Case in the Privy Council--First Council of Lord Melbourne's
  Government and Prorogation--Brougham's Vagaries--Lord Durham's
  Exclusion--The Edinburgh Dinner--Windsor and Meiningen--Spencer
  Perceval--Lord Grey's Retirement--The Westmeath Case again--The
  Queen's Return--Melbourne and Tom Young--Holland House--
  Reflections--Conversation on the Poets--Miscellaneous Chat--
  Lord Melbourne's Literary Attainments--Lord Holland's Anecdotes
  of Great Orators--Execution of Charles I.--Lord Melbourne's
  Opinion of Henry VIII.--The 'Times' attacks Lord Brougham--His
  Tour in Scotland--His Unpopularity--Cowper's Secret--Canning on
  Reform--Lord Melbourne on Palmerston and Brougham--Canning and
  Brougham in 1827--Senior--Lord Melbourne and the Benthamites--
  His Theology--Spanish Eloquence--The Harley Papers--The Turf--
  Death of Lord Spencer--The Westmeath Case heard--Law
  Appointments--Bickersteth--Louis Philippe's Position.
                                                          Page 114

                           CHAPTER XXV.

Fall of Lord Melbourne's Government--History and Causes of this
  Event--An Intrigue--Effect of the _Coup_ at Holland House--The
  Change of Government--The two Camps--The King's Address to the
  New Ministers--The Duke's Account of the Transaction--And Lord
  Lyndhurst's--Difficult Position of the Tories--Their Policy--
  The Duke in all the Offices--Negotiation with Mr. Barnes--Power
  of the 'Times'--Another Address of the King--Brougham offers to
  be Lord Chief Baron--Mr. Barnes dines with Lord Lyndhurst--Whig
  View of the Recent Change--Liberal Views of the Tory
  Ministers--The King resolved to support them--Another Account
  of the Interview between the King and Lord Melbourne--Lord
  Stanley's Position--Sydney Smith's Preaching at St. Paul's--
  Lord Duncannon and Lord Melbourne--Relations of the four
  Seceders to Peel--Young Disraeli--Lord Melbourne's Speeches at
  Derby--Lord John Russell's Speech at Totness--The Duke of
  Wellington's Inconsistencies and Conduct.
                                                          Page 143

                          CHAPTER XXVI.

Sir R. Peel arrives--The First Council--The King's Address--Lord
  Stanley and Sir J. Graham decline to join the Government--Lord
  Wharncliffe and Sir E. Knatchbull join--The Ministers sworn
  in--Peel's Address to his Constituents--Dinner at the Mansion
  House--Offer to Lord Roden--Prospects of the Election--
  Stanley's Want of Influence--Pozzo di Borgo's Views--Russia and
  England--Nomination of Lord Londonderry to St. Petersburg--
  Parliament dissolved--State of the Constituencies--A
  Governor-General for India--Sebastiani and St. Aulaire--Anecdote
  of Princess Metternich--The City Elections--Lord Lyndhurst's View
  of the Government--Violence of the Opposition--Close Contest at
  Rochester--Sydney Herbert--Sir John Hobhouse's Views--
  Anecdotes--County Elections--The Queen supposed to be with
  Child--Church Reform--Dinner of Ministers--Story of La
  Roncière--The King's Crotchets.
                                                          Page 174

                          CHAPTER XXVII.

The Speakership--Temporary Houses of Parliament--Church Reform--
  Dissenters' Marriage Bill--Peel's False Position--Burke--
  Palmerston's Talents as a Man of Business and Unpopularity--
  Sympathy of Continental Courts with the Tories--Abercromby
  elected Speaker--Defeat of the Government--Tactics of the
  Opposition--The Speaker does not dine with Peel--Meeting of
  Stanley's Friends--Debate on the Address--Lord John Russell
  leads the Opposition--The Stanley Party--Second Defeat of the
  Government--Peel's Ability--The Lichfield House Meeting--Debate
  on Lord Londonderry's Appointment--His Speech in the Lords and
  Resignation--Sir E. Sugden resigns the Great Seal of Ireland--
  Lady Canterbury--Brougham in the House of Lords--Peel's
  Readiness and Courage--Lord Canterbury and Stratford Canning
  proposed for Canada--Approaching Fall of the Peel Government--
  Meetings of the Opposition--Further Defeat--Sir Robert Peel's
  own View of the State of Affairs--He resigns.
                                                          Page 204

                         CHAPTER XXVIII.

Lord Grey and Sir James Graham express Conservative Views--
  Opinions of Lord Stanley--Lord Grey sees the King, but is not
  asked to resume Office--Lord Melbourne's Second
  Administration--His Moderation--A Difficulty--Spring Rice--A
  Joyless Victory--Exclusion of Brougham--The New Cabinet--Lord
  John Russell defeated in Devonshire--Lord Alvanley and
  O'Connell--Duel with Morgan O'Connell--Lord Wellesley resigns
  the Lord Stewardship--The Eliot Convention--Swift _v._ Kelly--
  The Kembles--London University Charter discussed at the Privy
  Council--Corporation Reform--Formation of the Conservative
  Party--The King's Habits--Secretaryship of Jamaica--Lord
  Melbourne's Tithe Bill--The Pope rejects the Recommendation of
  the British Government--Relations with Rome--Carlists and
  Christinos in Spain--Walcheren--The King's Address to Sir
  Charles Grey--Stanley and Graham cross the House--Failure of
  Stanley's Tactics--Alava and the Duke of Cumberland--A Sinecure
  Placeman--Lord Glenelg and the King--Concert at Stafford
  House--The King's Aversion to his Ministers and to the
  Speaker--Decision on the Secretaryship of Jamaica--Archbishop
  Whateley--Irish Church Bill--Payment of Catholic Clergy--Peel
  and Lord John Russell--Factious Conduct of Tory Peers--The
  King's Violence--Debate on the Corporation Bill.
                                                          Page 248

                          CHAPTER XXIX.

Resistance of the Lords--Duke of Richmond--Happiness--Struggle
  between Lords and Commons--Peel keeps aloof--Inconsistency of
  the Whigs on the Irish Church Bill--Violent Language in the
  Lords--Lord John Russell and Peel pass the Corporation Bill--
  Dissolution of the Tory Party foreseen--Meeting of Peers to
  consider the Amendments--King's Speech in Council on the
  Militia--Lord Howick's Bitterness against the Lords--Lord
  Lyndhurst's Opinion of the Corporation Bill--The King's
  Language on the Regency--Talleyrand's View of the English
  Alliance--Comparison of Burke and Mackintosh--The St. Leger--
  Visit of Princess Victoria to Burghley--O'Connell's Progress
  through Scotland--Mackintosh's Life.
                                                          Page 290

                           CHAPTER XXX.

Emperor Nicholas's Speech at Warsaw--His Respect for Opinion in
  England--Burdett proposes the Expulsion of O'Connell from
  Brooks's--Club Law--George Villiers at Madrid--Lord Segrave
  Lord-Lieutenant of Gloucestershire--Dispute between France and
  America--Allen's Account of Mackintosh and Melbourne--
  Prolongation of a Patent--Should Dr. Arnold be made a Bishop?--
  Frederic Elliot--O'Connell's mischievous Influence--Bretby--
  Chesterfield MSS.--The Portfolio--Lord Cottenham and Lord
  Langdale--Opening of Parliament--The Judicial Committee--
  Poulett Thomson at the Board of Trade--Mr. Perceval's
  Interviews with the Ministers--Prospects of the Tories--Lord
  Stanley's Relations to them--Holland House Anecdotes--
  Mischievous Effects of the Division on his Address--The Youth
  of Macaulay--Brougham and Macaulay--Lord William Bentinck--
  Review of Sir R. Peel's Conduct--Dr. Hampden's Appointment--The
  Orange Lodges.
                                                          Page 319

                          CHAPTER XXXI.

Moore and O'Connell--Defeat of the Opposition--The Carlow
  Election--Lord Alvanley's Speech to the Tory Peers--Norton _v._
  Lord Melbourne--Catastrophe after Epsom--Mendizabal and Queen
  Christina--Lord John Russell's Moderation in the Ecclesiastical
  Commission--Theatricals at Bridgewater House--Irish Church--
  Ministerial Difficulties--Deplorable State of Spain--What was
  thought of Lord Palmerston in 1836--Weakness of Government--
  Lord Lyndhurst's Summary of the Session--Balance of Parties--
  Lady Augusta Kennedy's Marriage--King's Speech to Princess
  Victoria--Revolution of La Granja--Rudeness of the King to
  Ministers--Irritation of the King at the Duchess of Kent--Scene
  at Windsor on the King's Birthday--Prince Esterhazy's View of
  the Affairs of Europe--Emperor Nicholas at Vienna--A Crisis in
  Trade--State of the Court at Vienna--Duc de Reichstadt.
                                                          Page 346

                          CHAPTER XXXII.

Crisis in the City--The Chancellor of the Exchequer--A Journey to
  Paris--Lord Lyndhurst in Paris--Princess Lieven--Parties in
  France--Berryer--The Strasburg Conspirators--Rotten State of
  France--Presentation at the Tuileries--Ball at the Tuileries--
  Bal Musard--Lord Granville--The Due de Broglie--Position of the
  Duc d'Orleans--Return to England--Conservative Reaction--
  Sheil's Tirade against Lord Lyndhurst--Lyndhurst as a Tory
  Leader--Angry Debate on Church Rates--The Government on the
  Brink of Resignation--Sir R. Peel's Prospects--The King and
  Lord Aylmer--Death of Mrs. Fitzherbert--Ministerial
  Compromise--Westminster Election--Majority of the Princess
  Victoria--The King's Illness--The King's Letter to the
  Princess--Preparations for the Council--Sir E. Peel on the
  Prospects of the New Reign--Prayers ordered for the King's
  Recovery--Affairs of Lord Ponsonby--Death of King William IV.--
  First Council of Queen Victoria--The Queen proclaimed--
  Character of William IV.
                                                          Page 376

                            A JOURNAL
                              of the

                           CHAPTER XXI.

Dinner at Greenwich--Monk Lewis--The King's Letter--Lord
  Althorp's Finance--Salutes to the Royal Family--Death of Lord
  Dover--His Character--Lyndhurst and Brougham on the Local
  Courts Bill--Charles Napier captures the Miguelite Fleet--The
  Irish Church Bill--The Duke of Wellington and the Bonapartes--
  Blount's preaching--Sir Robert Peel on Political Unions--Mr.
  George Villiers appointed to Madrid--Duke of Richmond--
  Suspension Clause in Irish Church Bill--Apprenticeship Clause
  in West India Bill--State of House of Commons--Lucien and
  Joseph Bonaparte--Lord Plunket--Denis Lemarchant--Brougham and
  Sugden--Princess Lieven--Anecdotes of the Emperor Nicholas--
  Affairs of Portugal--Don Miguel at Strathfieldsaye--Prorogation
  of Parliament--Results of the Reform Bill.

June 29th, 1833 {p.001}

I am going, if not too lazy, to note down the everyday nothings
of my life, and see what it looks like.

We dined yesterday at Greenwich, the dinner given by Sefton, who
took the whole party in his omnibus, and his great open carriage;
Talleyrand, Madame de Dino, Standish, Neumann, and the Molyneux
family; dined in a room called 'the Apollo' at the Crown and
Sceptre. I thought we should never get Talleyrand up two narrow
perpendicular staircases, but he sidles and wriggles himself
somehow into every place he pleases. A capital dinner, tolerably
pleasant, and a divine evening. Went afterwards to the 'Travellers,'
and played at whist, and read the new edition of 'Horace Walpole's
Letters to Sir Horace Mann.' There is something I don't like in
his style; his letters don't amuse me so much as they ought to do.

A letter this morning from Sir Henry Lushington about Monk Lewis.
He is rather averse to a biographical sketch, because he thinks a
true account of his life and character would not do him credit,
and adds a sketch of the latter, which is not flattering. Lord
Melbourne told me the other day a queer trait of Lewis. He had a
long-standing quarrel with Lushington. Having occasion to go to
Naples, he wrote beforehand to him, to say that their quarrel had
better be _suspended_, and he went and lived with him and his
sister (Lady L.) in perfect cordiality during his stay. When he
departed he wrote to Lushington to say that now they should
resume their quarrel, and put matters in the 'status quo ante
pacem,' and accordingly he did resume it, with rather more
_acharnement_ than before.

Charles Wood came into my room yesterday, and talked of the King's
letter, said he understood the Archbishop had imparted it to the
seven Bishops who had voted, that nothing would come of it, for it
was a private letter which nobody had a right to take up. I see
the Government are not displeased at such an evidence of the
King's goodwill. The King and Taylor both love letter-writing, and
both are voluminously inclined. Wood told me that last year Lord
Grey got one letter from them (for Taylor writes and the King
approves) of seven sheets; what a mass of silly verbiage there
must have been to wade through.[1]

      [1] [This is not just. The published correspondence of King
          William IV. and Earl Grey proves that the King's
          letters were written by Sir Herbert Taylor with the
          greatest ability.]

July 3rd, 1833 {p.002}

Nothing to put down these last two days, unless I go back to my
old practice of recording what I read, and which I rather think I
left off because I read nothing, and had nothing to put down; but
in the last two days I have read a little of Cicero's 'Second
Philippic,' Voltaire's 'Siècle de Louis XIV.,' Coleridge's
'Journey to the West Indies;' bought some books, went to the opera
to hear Bellini's 'Norma,' and thought it heavy, Pasta's voice not
what it was. Everybody talking yesterday of Althorp's exhibition
in the House of Commons the night before (for particulars of which
see newspapers and Parliamentary debates). It is too ludicrous,
too melancholy, to think of the finances of this country being
_managed_ by such a man: what will not people endure? What a
strange medley politics produce: a wretched clerk in an office who
makes some unimportant blunder, some clerical error, or who
exhibits signs of incapacity for work, which it does not much
signify whether it be well or ill done, is got rid of, and here
this man, this good-natured, popular, liked-and-laughed-at good
fellow, more of a grazier than a statesman, blurts out his utter
ignorance before a Reformed Parliament, and people lift up their
eyes, shrug their shoulders, and laugh and chuckle, but still on
he goes.

July 4th, 1833 {p.003}


At Court yesterday, and Council for a foolish business. The King
has been (not unnaturally) disgusted at the Duchess of Kent's
progresses with her daughter through the kingdom, and amongst the
rest with her sailings at the Isle of Wight, and the continual
popping in the shape of salutes to Her Royal Highness. He did not
choose that this latter practice should go on, and he signified
his pleasure to Sir James Graham and Lord Hill, for salutes are
matter of general order, both to army and navy. They (and Lord
Grey) thought it better to make no order on the subject, and they
opened a negotiation with the Duchess of Kent, to induce her of
her own accord to waive the salutes, and when she went to the
Isle of Wight to send word that as she was sailing about for her
amusement she had rather they did not salute her whenever she
appeared. The negotiation failed, for the Duchess insisted upon
her right to be saluted, and would not give it up. Kemp told me
he had heard that Conroy (who is a ridiculous fellow, a compound
of 'Great Hussy' and the Chamberlain of the Princess of
Navarre[2]) had said, 'that as Her Royal Highness's _confidential
adviser_, he could not recommend her to give way on this point.'
As she declined to accede to the proposals, nothing remained but
to alter the regulations, and accordingly yesterday, by an Order
in Council, the King changed them, and from this time the Royal
Standard is only to be saluted when the King or the Queen is on

      [2] See Sir C. Hanbury Williams' Poems.

Friday, July 12th, 1833 {p.004}


Went to Newmarket on Sunday, came back yesterday, got back at
half-past nine, went to Crockford's, and heard on the steps of the
house that poor Dover had died that morning. The accounts I had
received at Newmarket confirmed my previous impression that there
was no hope; and, indeed, the sanguine expectations of his family
are only to be accounted for by that disposition in the human mind
to look at the most favourable side, and to cling with pertinacity
to hope when reason bids us despair. There has seldom been
destroyed a fairer scene of happiness and domestic prosperity than
by this event. He dies in the flower of his age, surrounded with
all the elements of happiness, and with no drawback but that of
weak health, which until within the last few months was not
sufficiently important to counterbalance the good, and only
amounted to feebleness and delicacy of constitution; and it is the
breaking up of a house replete with social enjoyment, six or seven
children deprived of their father, and a young wife and his old
father overwhelmed with a grief which the former may, but the
latter never can get over, for to him time sufficient cannot in
the course of nature be allotted. Few men could be more generally
regretted than Lord Dover will be by an immense circle of
connections and friends for his really amiable and endearing
qualities, by the world at large for the serious loss which
society sustains, and the disappointment of the expectations of
what he one day might have been. He occupied as large a space in
society as his talents (which were by no means first-rate)
permitted; but he was clever, lively, agreeable, good-tempered,
good-natured, hospitable, liberal and rich, a zealous friend, an
eager political partisan, full of activity and vivacity, enjoying
life, and anxious that the circle of his enjoyment should be
widely extended. George Agar Ellis was the only son of Lord
Clifden, and obtained early the reputation of being a prodigy of
youthful talent and information. He was quick, lively, and had a
very retentive memory, and having entered the world with this
reputation, and his great expectations besides, he speedily became
one of the most conspicuous youths of the day. Having imbibed a
great admiration for Lord Orford (Horace Walpole), he evinced a
disposition to make him his model, and took pains to store his
mind with that sort of light miscellaneous literature in which
Lord Orford delighted. He got into the House of Commons, but never
was able to speak, never attempted to say more than a few words,
and from the beginning gave up all idea of oratorical distinction.
After running about the world for a few years he resolved to
marry, and as his heart had nothing to do with this determination,
he pitched upon a daughter of the Duke of Beaufort's, who he
thought would suit his purpose, and confer upon him a very
agreeable family connection. Being on a tour in the North, he
intended to finish it at Badminton, and there to propose to Lady
Georgiana Somerset, with full assurance that he should not be
rejected; but having stopped for a few days at Lord Carlisle's at
Castle Howard, he there found a girl who spared him the trouble of
going any further, and at the expiration of three or four days he
proposed in form to Lord Morpeth's second daughter, Georgiana
Howard, who, not less surprised than pleased and proud at the
conquest she found she had so unconsciously made, immediately
accepted him. There never was a less romantic attachment, or more
business-like engagement, nor was there ever a more fortunate
choice or a happier union. Mild, gentle, and amiable, full of
devotion to, and admiration of her husband, her soft and feminine
qualities were harmoniously blended with his vivacity and animal
spirits, and produced together results not more felicitous for
themselves than agreeable to all who belonged to their society.
Soon after his marriage, Ellis, who had never been vicious or
profligate, but who was free from anything like severity or
austerity, began to show symptoms of a devout propensity, and not
contented with an ordinary discharge of religious duties, he read
tracts and sermons, frequented churches and preachings, gave up
driving on Sundays, and appeared in considerable danger of falling
into the gulf of methodism; but this turn did not last long, and
whatever induced him to take it up, he apparently became bored
with his self-imposed restrictions, and after a little while he
threw off his short-lived sanctity, and resumed his worldly habits
and irreverent language, for he was always a loose talker. Active
and ambitious in his pursuits, and magnificent in his tastes, he
devoted himself to literature, politics, and society; to the two
first with greater success than would be expected of a man whose
talents for composition were below mediocrity, and for public
speaking none at all. He became the patron of various literary
institutions and undertakings connected with the arts, he took the
chair at public meetings for literary or scientific purposes, he
read a good deal and wrote a little. The only work which he put
forth of any consequence was 'The Life of Frederick II.,' which
contained scarcely any original matter, and was remarkably barren
of original ideas; but as it was a compilation from several very
amusing writers, was not devoid of entertainment.[3] Though unable
to speak in Parliament, he entered warmly into politics, formed
several political intimacies, especially with the Chancellor
(Brougham), and undertook much of the minor Government work of
keeping proxies, making houses (in the House of Lords), and
managing the local details of the House itself. But however
contracted his sphere both in literature and politics, in society
his merits were conspicuous and his success unquestionable.
Without a strong understanding, destitute of fancy and imagination,
and with neither eloquence nor wit, he was a remarkably agreeable
man. He was hospitable, courteous, and cordial; he collected about
him the most distinguished persons in every rank and condition of
life. He had a constant flow of animal spirits, much miscellaneous
information, an excellent memory, a great enjoyment of fun and
humour, a refined taste and perfect good breeding. But his more
solid merit was the thorough goodness of his heart, and the strong
and durable nature of his friendships and early attachments. To
the friends of his youth he was bound to the last moment of his
life with unremitting kindness and never-cooling affection; no
greater connections or more ambitious interests cancelled those
early ties, and though he was not unnaturally dazzled and
flattered by the later intimacies he contracted, this never for a
moment made him forgetful of or indifferent to his first and less
distinguished friends.

      [3] [Lord Dover's volume on the 'Man in the Iron Mask'
          deserves not to be altogether forgotten, though more
          recent researches have proved that his theory
          identifying the 'Iron Mask' with Mathioli, the captured
          agent of the Duke of Parma, cannot be supported.]


The Local Courts Bill was thrown out by twelve. His party made the
_amende honorable_ to Lyndhurst, and went down in a body to back
him. He and Brougham each spoke for two hours or more, and both
with consummate skill, the latter especially in his very best
style, and with extraordinary power and eloquence. It would not
perhaps be easy to decide which made the ablest speech; that of
Lyndhurst was clear, logical, and profound, replete with a sort of
judicial weight and dignity, with a fine and cutting vein of
sarcasm constantly peeping from behind a thick veil of complimentary
phraseology. Brougham more various, more imaginative, more
impassioned, more eloquent, and exceedingly dexterous. Unable to
crush Lyndhurst, he resembled one of Homer's heroes, who, missing
his great antagonist, wreaked his fury on some ignominious foe,
and he fell upon Wynford with overpowering severity. As somebody
told me who heard him, 'He flayed him alive, and kept rubbing salt
upon his back.' It appears to have been a great exhibition. There
was Lyndhurst after his speech, drinking tea, not a bit tired,
elated and chuckling: 'Well, how long will the Chancellor speak,
do you think, eh? we shall have some good fun from him. What lies
he will tell, and how he will misrepresent everything! come, let's
have done our tea, that we mayn't miss him, eh?' The truth seems
to be that the Bill is not a good Bill, and is condemned by the
lawyers, that some such measure is required, but that this is
nothing more than a gigantic job, conferring enormous patronage
upon the Chancellor. The debate, however, appears to have afforded
a grand display of talent.[4]

      [4] [The successful efforts of the Tories to prevent the
          establishment of a system of Local Courts of limited
          jurisdiction, retarded for many years that important
          measure to which we, at last, owe the County Courts--now
          an institution of the utmost social utility.
          Nothing can be more characteristic of the blind bigotry
          of the Tory party at that time, and the party spirit of
          Lord Lyndhurst; for the measure had no bearing upon
          politics, and was simply a cheap and easy mode of
          recovering small debts.]

Macaulay is said to have made an admirable speech last night on
the Indian question in the House of Commons. I observe, by the
bye, that very few of the Bishops voted the other night, but all
who did voted with Government; even Exeter went away before the
division, so the King's letter seems to have produced some
effect. I have had a squabble with Lady Holland about some
nonsense, but she was insolent, so I was fierce, and then she was
civil, as she usually is to those who won't be bullied by her.

July 12th, 1833 {p.008}

It is extraordinary how little sensation the defeat of Government
in the House of Lords has caused. Everybody talks of the debate,
nobody thinks of the event, but I find several people expect that
the Church Bill will be thrown out, which would be a much more
serious thing. I betted Stanley five pounds to one yesterday that
they were not beaten on the second reading of the Irish Church
Bill. I have concluded a bargain with Murray for Lewis's journal
and sold it him for 400 guineas, the MSS. to be returned to
Lushington, and fifteen copies for him, and five for me, gratis.

July 14th, 1833 {p.008}


Wharncliffe told me yesterday that the Duke and the Opposition do
not mean to throw out the Irish Church Bill on the second
reading. He had been in great alarm himself after the Duke's
speech lest they should, but had since heard what satisfied him
they would not; he said that Sir John Wrottesley's motion for a
call of the House had given them great offence, and was an
extreme piece of folly, for it was obviously for the purpose of
bullying the House of Lords, who would not be bullied, and this
species of menace only increased the obstinacy of the majority
there, but that the Duke could command the greater number, and
though there might be a division (as some cannot be restrained
from dividing) there would be no endeavour to throw it out. Thus
it is that one folly produces another: the Duke's silly speech
about the Coronation Oath (a piece of nonsense quite unworthy of
his straightforward, manly sense) produced Wrottesley's bravado
in the other House. But Wharncliffe says he is persuaded nothing
can prevent a collision between the two Houses ultimately. There
is a great idea that the Government will fall to pieces before
the end of this year. Tavistock told me that Althorp would
certainly go out in a very few months, and _that he would go on
the turf_! Tom Duncombe is found guilty at Hertford (of a libel),
and recommended to mercy, to the infinite diversion of his

July 15th, 1833 {p.009}

Yesterday came the news of Captain Napier having captured the
whole of Don Miguel's fleet, to the great delight of the Whigs,
and equal mortification of the Tories. It appears to have been a
dashing affair, and very cowardly on the part of the Miguelites.
The day before the news came, Napier had been struck out of the
British Navy.

Met Duncannon in the morning, who was very gloomy about
Wednesday, at the same time saying he rather hoped the Tories
would throw out the Irish Church Bill, for it was impossible to
go on as they were now doing; that if they did, two motions would
infallibly be made in the House of Commons, an address to the
Crown to make Peers, and a vote for the expulsion of the Bishops,
and that both would be carried by great majorities. He talked
much of the Irish Church, and of the abominations that had been
going on even under his own eyes. One case he mentions of a man
who holds a living of £1,000 a year close to Bessborough, whom he
knows. There is no house, no church, and there are no Protestants
in the parish. He went there to be inducted, and dined with
Duncannon at Bessborough the day after. Duncannon asked him how
he had managed the necessary form, and he said he had been
obliged to borrow the clerk and three Protestants from a
neighbouring parish, and had read the morning and evening service
to them within the ruined walls of the old Abbey, and they signed
a certificate that he had complied with the forms prescribed by
law; he added that people would no longer endure such things,
that no existing interests were to be touched, and that if
remedial measures were still opposed, the whole fabric would be
pulled down. He was still persuaded that the Opposition meant to
throw out the Bill.

In the evening I dined at the Duke of Richmond's, and found
Stanley informed of the result of the meeting at the Duke of
Wellington's in the morning, which was decisive on the question.
The Duke, after his extraordinary speech in the House of Lords,
when he mounted the old broken-down hobby of the Coronation Oath
and cut a curvet that alarmed his friends and his enemies,
assembled the Tories at Apsley House, and there, resuming his own
good sense, though not very consistently, made them a speech, and
told them that some such measure must be passed, for nothing else
could save the Irish Church: that there were things in this Bill
that he did not approve of at all, but he could not resist its
going into committee, and he finished by announcing that he should
either vote for it or not vote at all, according to circumstances.
Lyndhurst goes on the circuit on Wednesday, so that though there
will be a division there will be a large majority for the Bill,
which is the best thing that could happen. Stanley said there
would be a great speech from Lord Grey, talked of his power in
that line, thought his reply at five in the morning on the
Catholic question the most perfect speech that ever was made. He
would rather have made it than four of Brougham's. He gave the
following instance of Lord Grey's readiness and clear-headed
accuracy. In one of the debates on the West India question, he
went to Stanley, who was standing under the gallery, and asked him
on what calculation he had allotted the sum of twenty millions.
Stanley explained to him a complicated series of figures, of terms
of years, interest, compound interest, value of labour, etc.,
after which Lord Grey went back to his place, rose, and went
through the whole with as much clearness and precision as if all
these details had been all along familiar to his mind. It is very
extraordinary that he should unite so much oratorical and
Parliamentary power with such weakness of character. He is a long
way from a great man altogether.


I met the Duke in the evening at the Duchess of Cannizzaro's,
talked of Napier's affair, at which he was extremely amused,
though he thinks it a very bad thing, and not the least bad part
of it that Napier should be lost to the service, so distinguished
as he is. It was he who in 1803 (I believe) was the cause of the
capture of a French squadron by Sir Alexander Cochrane. The
English fell in with and cleared the French fleet, but Napier in
a sloop outsailed the rest, and firing upon the stern of the
French Admiral's flagship, so damaged her (contriving by skilful
evolutions to avoid being hurt himself) that the rest of the
ships were obliged to haul to, to save the Admiral's ship, which
gave time to the British squadron to come up, when they took four
out of the five sail. The Whigs all talk of this action as
decisive of the Portuguese contest; the Duke says it is
impossible to say what the moral effect may be, but in a military
point of view it will not have much influence upon it. Lucien
Bonaparte was there, and was introduced to the Duke. He laughed
and said, 'He shook hands with me, and we were as intimate as if
we had known each other all our lives!' He said he had likewise
called on Joseph, who had called on him, but they had never met:
he added that some civilities had passed between them in Spain.
Before the battle of Salamanca he had regularly intercepted the
French correspondence, and as one of the King's daughters was ill
at Paris, and daily intelligence came of her health, he always
sent it to him. He did not forward the letters, because they
contained other matters, but he sent a flag every day to the
outposts, who said, 'Allez dire au Roi que sa fille se porte
mieux,' or as it might be. There was Lucien running downstairs to
look for his carriage, one brother of Napoleon who refused to be
a king, and another who was King of Naples, and afterwards King
of Spain, both living as private gentlemen in England!

July 16th, 1833 {p.012}

The Cabinet met at the instance of Lord John Russell to take into
consideration Lord Hill's _not voting_ on Brougham's Local Courts
Bill. Nothing came of it, and it is extremely absurd when their
own people continually vote as they please--Duncannon, Ellice,
Charles Grey, etc. On Sunday I went to hear Mr. Blount preach. He
is very popular, and has a great deal of merit, not so clever as
Thorpe, not so eloquent as Anderson, but with a great appearance
of zeal and sincerity, and he is very conscientious and
disinterested, for he refused the living of Chelsea (which Lord
Cadogan offered him) because he thought he could not discharge
the duties belonging to it together with those of his present
cure. Went last night to hear Malibran in the 'Sonnambula,' a
fine piece of acting and fine singing.

July 18th, 1833 {p.012}

I fell in with Sir Robert Peel yesterday in the Park, and rode
with him for an hour or two, never having had so much conversation
with him before in my life. He was very agreeable, told me that he
had just come from the Police Committee, when a member of one of
the political unions had been under examination, who had
acknowledged that they were provided with arms, and exercised
themselves in their use, to be ready for the struggle which they
thought was fast approaching. This evidence will appear in the
Report to the House of Commons, but what will not appear is that
an attempt was made (by Mr. Charles Buller especially) to prevent
its being elicited, and the aforesaid gentleman endeavoured to put
down Peel, who drew it out. The room was cleared, and they had an
angry discussion, but Peel insisted upon asking his question, and
carried his point, even in this Radical Committee. It seems to
have been very curious, and the man was nothing loth to say all he
knew. Peel thinks very ill of everything. I asked him if there was
no way of putting down the Repeal Union. He said none, and that
they had found the impossibility of doing so in Ireland, except by
investing the Lord Lieutenant with extraordinary powers; talked of
the Government and its strange way of going on, spoke highly of
Stanley in all ways.


Althorp's retirement seems certain, and if the Government goes on
Stanley will be leader, but unless he puts it all on a different
footing it must break up, and unless the Government people can be
brought under better discipline it will fall to pieces, for
nobody will support it on that motion of Wrottesley's for a call
of the House. Both Stanley and Althorp deprecated it in the
strongest way, in the name of their colleagues as well as their
own, with whom Stanley said they had consulted, and that they
felt it would materially embarrass the Government if persisted
in, and after this Duncannon, Kennedy, and Charles Grey voted for
the call, Ellice and Poulett Thomson stayed away. The other night
(I forget on what question) Ellice voted one way and Stanley the
other, and the former said to the latter as he was going out of
the house, 'You will see if the boys don't go with me instead of
with you.' The vote of the night before last against sinecures
was carried in a thin house, only one Cabinet Minister present
(Althorp), no pains taken to secure a majority, and he (Althorp)
saying that it signified more to the Tories than to him, and they
ought to have come down and rejected it. Peel thinks it of great
importance, and very difficult to get out of. However, it will be
got out of by some particular case being tried, on which Hume, or
whoever brings it forward, will be beaten, and then it will sleep
for a time; but there stands and will stand the resolution on the
journals, and the House of Commons has admitted the principle of
dealing with actual vested interests, and not confining their
operation to the future.

There seems every probability of Stanley's West India Bill being
thrown out. The Saints, who at first had agreed to support it,
object to pay the twenty millions for emancipation to take place
twelve years hence, and the present condition of the question
seems to be that all parties are dissatisfied with it, and there
is nearly a certainty that it will be received with horror by the
planters, while the slaves will no longer work when they find the
fiat of their freedom (however conditional or distant the final
consummation may be) has at length gone forth.

July 20th, 1833 {p.013}

I dropped into the House of Lords last night, and heard the
Bishop of London reply severally to the Duke of Newcastle and
Lord Winchilsea, the first of whom muttered, and the latter
bellowed something I could not hear, but I gathered that the last
was on the subject of the King's letter to the Bishops. The
Bishop made very pertinent answers to both, but the Duke of
Wellington got up after Winchilsea, and entreated nothing might
be said upon the subject, and put down discussion with that
authority which the Tories dare not resist, and which he
exercised on this occasion with the good sense and, above all,
consideration for public convenience and disdain of party rancour
which distinguish him above all men I have ever seen, and which
compel one to admire him in spite of the extraordinary things he
occasionally says and does.

George Villiers is going Minister to Madrid, instead of Addington,
who is so inefficient they are obliged to recall him, and at this
moment Madrid is the most important diplomatic mission, with
reference to the existing and the prospective state of things. The
Portuguese contest, the chance of the King of Spain's death and a
disputed succession, the recognition of the South American
colonies, and commercial arrangements with this country, present a
mass of interests which demand considerable dexterity and
judgment; besides, Addington is a Tory, and does not act in the
spirit of this Government, so they will recall him without
ceremony. There is another Ambassador (Frederic Lamb) whose
principles are equally at variance with those of Palmerston, and
who is completely be-Metternich'd, but his removal is out of the
question; he knows it, and no doubt conducts himself accordingly.
George Villiers told me that he touched incidentally one day with
Palmerston on Lamb's conduct in some matter relating to Lord
Granville, and he found that it was sacred ground, and he only
got, 'Ah, aw--yes, _Metternich_ is, I suppose, too old to mend

July 21st, 1853 {p.014}


The Duke of Wellington did not vote on Friday night, but he made a
bitter speech against Government, and attacked Lord Anglesey very
unnecessarily, when Melbourne retorted on him very well. Lord
Grey's reply appears to have been exceedingly good. I met the Duke
of Richmond last night, and talked to him about the prospects of
Government, and suggested that if Stanley (when Althorp retires)
does not make it a _sine quâ non_ that better discipline should be
observed in their ranks, the Government cannot go on. He agreed,
and said Stanley would, but he thought the House of Lords were
going on in such a way that before three years there would be
none. It appears to me totally impossible for Stanley or anybody
to go on without remodelling the Government, and one of his
difficulties would be in getting rid of Richmond himself. He is
utterly incapable, entirely ignorant, and his pert smartness,
saying sharp things, cheering offensively, have greatly
exasperated many people against him in the House of Commons, and
these feelings of anger have been heightened by his taking
frequent opportunities of comporting himself with acrimony towards
the Duke of Wellington, though he always professes great
veneration for him, and talks as if he had constantly abstained
from anything like incivility or disrespect towards him. It is
remarkable certainly that his colleagues appear to entertain a
higher opinion of him than he deserves, and you hear of one or
another saying, 'Oh, you don't know the Duke of Richmond.' He has,
in fact, that weight which a man can derive from being positive,
obstinate, pertinacious, and busy, but his understanding lies in a
nutshell, and his information in a pin's head. He is, however,
good-humoured, a good fellow, and personally liked, particularly
by Stanley and Graham, who are of his own age, and have both the
same taste for sporting and gay occupations. The Tories threaten
mighty things in the Committee, but I don't think they will
attempt much.

July 24th, 1833 {p.015}

Divisions in both Houses last night. The Duke of Wellington
proposed an important amendment (which he would afterwards have
withdrawn, but his friends would not let him), and he was beaten
by fourteen. A great division for Government _in the House of
Lords_. In the Commons 166 minority for triennial Parliaments,
and by every sort of whipping and Billy Holmes's assistance a
majority, but only of sixty or seventy; fine work this.

July 25th to 26th, 1833 {p.016}


_Half-past two in the morning._--Just come home, having heard of
the division in the House of Lords, in which Ministers were
beaten on what they call the Suspension clause by two. Alvanley,
Belhaven, and Clanricarde got there too late. Gower could not
attend, nor Lord Granville. Lyndhurst came all the way from
Norwich (being on the circuit) to vote. The question is, what
Ministers will do--go on with the Bill, or throw it up, resign,
make Peers, or what? Nothing can be more silly than the
amendment, although it may be questioned whether it signifies
very materially; but the light in which Ministers see it is this:
are they to submit night after night to the vexatious insolence
of the Tories, who are constantly on the watch to find some
vulnerable point, and without intending or daring to throw over
their great measures, to mangle their details as much as they can
venture to do, and hold the Government in a sort of subjugation
and in a state of sufferance? The Tory lords are perfectly rabid,
and reckless of consequences, regardless of the embarrassment
they cause the King, and of the aggravation of a state of things
they already think very bad, they care for nothing but the silly
vain pleasure of beating the Government, every day affording
fresh materials for the assaults that are made upon them by the
press, and fresh cause for general odium and contempt. The Duke
of Wellington has no power over them for good purposes, and they
will only follow him when he will lead them on to some rash and
desperate enterprise. This event has affected people differently
according to their several views and opinions, but all are in
eager curiosity to see what the Government will do.

In the House of Commons things are no better than in the House of
Lords. Stanley was nearly beaten on the Apprenticeship clause in
the West Indian Bill on Wednesday night, Macaulay opposing him;
so yesterday morning he came down to the House and gave it up. It
is remarkable that he made an admirable speech in defence of his
clause, was unusually and enthusiastically cheered, Macaulay's
speech falling very flat, and to all appearance the whole House
with Stanley, yet upon division he only carried it by some seven
or eight votes. It is said that after the vote he could not do
otherwise than give it up, but that if he had taken a higher tone
in his speech, and treated it as a compact fixed and agreed upon,
which nothing could shake, and to which he was irrevocably
pledged, he would have carried the House with him, and have got a
larger majority. But the truth is that the House of Commons is in
such a state that it is next to impossible to say what Ministers
can or ought to do, or what the House will do. There is no such
thing as a great party knit together by community of opinion,
'idem sentientes de republicâ.' The Government conciliate no
attachment, command no esteem and respect, and have no following.
Althorp is liked, Stanley admired, but people devote themselves
to neither; every man is thinking of what he shall say to his
constituents, and how his vote will be taken, and everything goes
on (as it were) from hand to mouth; by fits and starts the House
of Commons seems rational and moderate, and then they appear one
day subservient to the Ministers, another riotous, unruly, and
fierce, ready to abolish the Bishops and crush the House of
Lords, and to vote anything that is violent. The Tories in the
House of Commons are lukewarm, angry, frightened: they say, Why
should we come and support a Government that won't support
itself? the Government from weakness or facility, or motives of
personal feeling and partiality, suffers itself to be bearded and
thwarted by its own people, and does nothing. Duncannon, on the
triennial motion the other night, stayed in the House of Lords
and would not vote, there are some half-dozen of them whose votes
the Ministerial bench cannot count upon. Then it is no small
aggravation to the present difficult state of things that Stanley
does not appear to be a man of much moral political firmness and
courage, a timid politician, _ignavus adversum lupos_. He is bold
and spirited against individuals, but timid against bodies, and
with respect to results. Labouchere went to him some time ago,
and told him that it was evident a feeling was growing up in the
House of Commons against this Apprenticeship clause, and that he
had better make up his mind early what course he should pursue,
that if he meant to stand to it they would support him, but if
not, he had better give it up early and from foresight rather
than from necessity at last, but above all, not to drag them
through the mire by making them support him, and then throwing
them over. He declared he would stand to his clause. They
supported him, and he threw them over. This will not do for a man
who aspires to be leader, and Sandon told me last night that men
would not be led by him, in spite of his talents, that when
Althorp went under Stanley's banner the friends of Government
would not enlist. God only knows how it all will end, and out of
such a mass of confusion, of so much violence and folly and
weakness, and the working of so many bad passions, what will
result, but any day the chance becomes less of the elements of
disorder being resolved into a state of tranquillity and good
government. It is every day more apparent that with such a House
of Commons, so elected, so acted upon, no Government can feel
secure; none can undertake with confidence to carry on the
affairs of the country. It is difficult to describe the state of
agitation into which the minds of people of all persuasions are
thrown by the continual recurrence of these little events, of the
feeling of insecurity, of doubt, of apprehension which pervades
all classes. Nobody thinks the present Government can go on, at
the same time they can see no party and no individual who could
go on as well if they were to retire. The present House of
Commons it is found impossible to manage, but it is believed that
in the event of a dissolution another would be much worse; in
short, all is chaos, confusion, and uncertainty, and the only
thing in which all parties agree is that things are very bad, and
every day getting worse.


I dined the day before yesterday with old Lady Cork, to meet the
Bonapartes. There were Joseph, Lucien, Lucien's daughter, the
widow of Louis Bonaparte, Hortense's son,[5] the Dudley Stuarts,
Belhavens, Rogers, Lady Clarendon, and Lady Davy and myself; not
very amusing, but curious to see these two men, one of whom would
not be a King, when he might have chosen almost any crown he
pleased (conceive, for instance, having refused the kingdom of
Naples), and the other, who was first King of Naples and then
King of Spain, commanded armies, and had the honour of being
defeated at Vittoria by the Duke of Wellington. There they sat,
these brothers of Napoleon, who once trampled upon all Europe,
and at whose feet the potentates of the earth bowed, two simple,
plain-looking, civil, courteous, smiling gentlemen. They say
Lucien is a very agreeable man, Joseph nothing. Joseph is a
caricature of Napoleon in his latter days, at least so I guess
from the pictures. He is taller, stouter, with the same sort of
face, but without the expression, and particularly without the
eagle eye. Lucien looked as if he had once been like him, that
is, his face in shape is like the pictures of Napoleon when he
was thin and young, but Lucien is a very large, tall man. They
talked little, but stayed on in the evening, when there was a
party, and received very civilly all the people who were
presented to them. There was not the slightest affectation of
royalty in either. Lucien, indeed, had no occasion for any, but a
man who had ruled over two kingdoms might be excused for
betraying something of his former condition, but, on the
contrary, everything regal that he ever had about him seemed to
have been merged in his American citizenship, and he looked more
like a Yankee cultivator than a King of Spain and the Indies.
Though there was nothing to see in Joseph, who is, I believe, a
very mediocre personage, I could not help gazing at him, and
running over in my mind the strange events in which he had been
concerned in the course of his life, and regarding him as a
curiosity, and probably as the most extraordinary living instance
of the freaks of fortune and instability of human grandeur.

      [5] [This must have been the Emperor Napoleon III.]

The Duke of Sutherland is dead, a leviathan of wealth. I believe
he is the richest individual who ever died, and I should like to
know what his property amounts to, out of pure curiosity.

July 27th, 1833 {p.020}

This affair in the House of Lords blew over. The Patriots at
Brookes' were loud in their indignation, and talked nonsense
about dignity and resignation, and so forth, but Lord Grey took
the better course, and came down to the House with a lecture,
conceived in mild yet firm language, and announced his intention
of going on with the Bill. Accordingly they got through the
Committee last night without further obstructions. The amendment
is in fact so trivial that I don't think he will attempt to
re-establish the original clause on the report, and if he does
not, the Commons (I am told) will not either.

August 7th, 1833 {p.020}

At Goodwood from Saturday se'nnight to Saturday last. Magnificent
weather, numerous assemblage, tolerable racing, but I did not win
the great cup, which I ought to have won, a most vile piece of
ill luck, but good fortune seems to have deserted me, and the
most I can do is not to lose.

George Villiers is appointed to Madrid, but he tells me that he
can neither see nor hear from Palmerston, that though his
appointment is in everybody's mouth it has never been notified to
him. All this negligence is because our Foreign Secretary is
engaged in the conferences, in which, however, he gives no
greater satisfaction to those he is concerned with, for
Talleyrand complains that he invariably makes them wait from one
to two hours, and Dedel says that his manner is so insulting
towards the Dutch nation and King, and that on every occasion he
acts with so much partiality towards Belgium, that it is with the
greatest difficulty he can transact business with him at all.
They say the Duke of Wellington has scarcely missed a day during
this session in his attendance on the House of Lords, always in
his place from the beginning to the end of the debates, speaking
and evidently preparing himself on every subject, doing duty as
the head of a party.

August 8th, 1833 {p.020}

Met Lord Grey in the street; he said this session had nearly done
him up, and he must have repose, he talked of Portugal, of the
desirableness of getting rid of Pedro, and of putting Palmella at
the head of the Government. I said he must take care they did not
establish too liberal a Government. He replied the Portuguese
certainly were not fit for any such thing, and that the
constitution had undoubtedly done all the mischief; spoke of the
Duke of Wellington, and of his being always in the House of
Lords, speaking on anything, and generally not well, that he had
made a most tiresome bad speech on the India Charter question,
etc. Brougham's Privy Council Bill has, I perceive, passed the
House of Commons, having gone through both Houses without a
syllable said upon it in either.


George Villiers is at last acknowledged Minister to Madrid. He
told me he was with Palmerston at his house yesterday morning,
and was much struck with his custom of receiving all his numerous
visitors and applicants in the order in which they arrive, be
their rank what it may. Neumann told him he had never known him
vary in this practice, or deviate from it in anybody's favour. It
is a merit. There seems little danger of any movement on the part
of Spain, for Zea Bermudez (Palmerston told George Villiers) is
struck to the earth by the events in Portugal, and only anxious
to curry favour with England.

August 15th, 1833 {p.021}

At Council yesterday to swear in James Parke and Bosanquet (who
did not come) Privy Councillors, in order to carry into operation
the Chancellor's new Bill for the establishment of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council.

August 20th, 1833 {p.021}

To Stoke on Saturday with Creevey and Lemarchant, the
Chancellor's secretary. The Chancellor and others of the Ministry
were to have come, but they all dined at Blackwall. Brougham,
Plunket, and John Russell came the next day. Brougham is not so
talkative as he was; his dignities, his labours, and the various
cares of his situation have dashed his gaiety, and pressed down
his once elastic spirits; however, he was not otherwise than
cheerful and lively. Plunket I never met before, he was pretty
much at his ease, and talked sufficiently without exhibiting
anything remarkable. Lemarchant is a clever, industrious fellow,
whom I remember at Eton. The Chancellor's secretaryship must be
no sinecure, and he has particularly distinguished himself by his
reports of the debates in the House of Commons. He goes there
every night, and forwards to the Chancellor from time to time an
account of the debate, and the manner of it, very well executed
indeed. He talked to me of Brougham's labours and their
intensity, which put me in mind of his gasconading to Sefton a
year or two ago about his idleness, and finding the Great Seal a
mere plaything; Lemarchant said that by severe and constant
application he had made himself very tolerably acquainted with
equity law, and very extensively with cases. I find from Sefton
that he means to propose next year that his salary should be
reduced to £8,000 a year, and that the new Equity Judges should
be paid out of what he now has. I believe he is liberal about
money, and not careless, but I have some doubts whether this
project will be executed. Lemarchant told me that the cause of
Sugden's inveterate animosity against Brougham was this--that in
a debate in the House of Commons, Sugden in his speech took
occasion to speak of Mr. Fox, and said that he had no great
respect for his authority, on which Brougham merely said, loud
enough to be heard all over the House, and in that peculiar tone
which strikes like a dagger, 'Poor Fox.' The words, the tone,
were electrical, everybody burst into roars of laughter, Sugden
was so overwhelmed that he said afterwards it was with difficulty
he could go on, and he vowed that he never could forgive this


Sefton talked to me of Brougham's reluctance when the Government
was formed to take the Great Seal; after they had offered him the
Attorney-Generalship, which he so indignantly refused, they sent
Sefton to cajole him and get him to take the Seal. He wanted to
be made Master of the Rolls, and left in the House of Commons,
the Seal being put in Commission. This they would not hear of,
naturally enough not choosing to exist at his mercy in the House
of Commons, and rely upon his doubtful and capricious support. It
was very well for him to act the part of Atlas, and bear the
Government on his shoulders, but they shrewdly enough guessed
that they would not ride on them very comfortably, that they
would be considerably jolted, and perhaps at last shoved off. He,
on the other hand, would not suffer anybody to be Chancellor but
himself; and at last, with many misgivings, he yielded to the
gentle violence which would make him the first officer of the
Crown. Great was his lamentation at this necessity. 'How,' he
said, 'am I fallen! As member for Yorkshire in the House of
Commons, what a position was mine.' Sefton tried to comfort him
by representing that 'the fall' upon the woolsack was somewhat of
the softest, and that a few years ago he would not have
considered it so grievous a misfortune if it had been foretold
him that he should be seated there at such a time.

After dinner on Sunday Brougham talked of the Reform Bill and its
first appearance in the House of Commons. He said that once
allowed to take root there it could not be crushed, and that
their only opportunity was thrown away by the Tories. Had Peel
risen at once and declared that he would not even discuss such a
measure, that it was revolution, and opposed its being brought
in, he would have thrown it out, and if he had then come down
with a moderate measure, it would have satisfied the country _for
the time_. This is exactly what William Banks said to me last
year, and the very thing Peel had intended to do, and from which
he was deterred by Granville Somerset. The Duke of Wellington has
continued to attend in the House of Lords day after day,
proposing alterations and amendments to all the Bills, evidently
reading hard, and preparing himself for each occasion, always
loaded with papers. Lyndhurst said to somebody, 'I shall attend
no more, what's the use of it? The Duke comes down every day, and
tries to make the Bills _better_; if I could make them _worse_, I
would come too.'

August 22nd, 1833 {p.023}

Called on Madame de Lieven yesterday, who is just come back from
Petersburg, _rayonnante_ at her reception and treatment. The
Emperor went out to sea to meet her, took her into his own boat,
when they landed he drove her to the palace, and carried her into
the Empress's room, who was _en chemise_. She told me a comical
anecdote illustrative of the good humour of the Emperor (who, she
says, is an angel), and of the free and frank reception he gives
to strangers. In the midst of some splendid military fêtes, which
terminated with a sham siege by 50,000 of his guards the last
day, word was brought him that two strange-looking men had
presented themselves at the lines, and requested to be allowed to
see what was going on. They said they were English, had come from
Scotland on purpose to see the Russian manoeuvres, and had
started from Petersburg under the direction of a laquais de
place, who had conducted them to where they heard the firing of
the cannon. The Emperor ordered them to be admitted, received
them with the greatest civility, and desired apartments to be
prepared for them in the palace (Peterhof), at the same time
inviting them to dine with him, and be present at a ball he gave
at night. She said that one was a Don Quixote sort of figure;
they called themselves Johnstone. The Emperor asked her if she
knew them. She said no, but that there were many of that name in
England. There they remained, enchanted, astonished, behaving,
however, perfectly well. After seeing all the sights, they were
one evening led into a great hall, where all sorts of pastimes
were going on, and among others a _Montagne Russe_ (of which the
Emperor is passionately fond). He is a very tall powerful man,
and his way is to be placed at the top of the machine, when a man
mounts astride on his shoulders, and another on his, and so on
till there are fourteen; when a signal is given, with the
rapidity of lightning down they go. On this occasion the Emperor
took the Johnstones on his back, and she says their astonishment
at the position they occupied, and at the rapidity of the
descent, was beyond everything amusing. They were asked how they
liked it, and they said they thought it 'very good fun,' and
should like to begin again. So they were allowed to divert
themselves in this way for an hour. Bligh told her afterwards
that these men returned to Petersburg their heads turned, and
utterly bewildered with, such an unexpected reception.

In her serious talk the Princess said that the Emperor was full of
moderation and desire for peace, 's'il y a des orages ce ne sera
pas de ce côté qu'ils viendront,' that he could not comprehend the
English Parliament, nor the sort of language which was held there
about him, that he was 'le plus généreux, le plus humain, le
meilleur des hommes,' that they believed all the lies which were
'débités sur les affaires de Pologne, qui enfin est notre affaire,
qu'il était peu connu ici, qu'elle avait vu en Russie beaucoup de
respects, beaucoup d'amour pour l'Empereur, et voilà tout.' In
short, she is returned in a state of intoxication, and her
adoration for the Emperor is only exceeded by that which she has
for the Empress.

August 24th, 1833 {p.025}


Matters have taken a bad turn in Portugal. Bourmont is marching
on Lisbon with 18,000 men, 'regna il terror nella citta.' William
Russell, in a fit of enthusiasm, says, 'the capital must be saved
even at the hazard of a war.' Admiral Parker says he shall land
1,200 marines and make them occupy the forts. Our Government are
in great confusion and alarm, and have despatched a swift steamer
to Parker to desire him to do no such thing; but the steamer will
probably arrive too late, and if Bourmont is really there, we
shall cut a pretty figure with our non-intervention, for Parker
will probably have to surrender the forts to Miguel. I dined with
Talleyrand yesterday, who is furious, laughing non-intervention
to scorn; and he told me he had for the last ten days been
endeavouring to get the Government to take a decided part. What
he advised was that we should recognise Donna Maria and the
Regency appointed by the Charter; that is, Donna Isabella Regent,
with a Council to be comprised of Palmella, Villa Flor, and any
other; that our Minister should be directed to acknowledge _no
other government_, and at the same time concert with Palmella
that Pedro should be sent away, and the constitution be suspended
till the Queen shall be of age. Pedro has committed, since he was
in Lisbon, every folly and atrocity he could squeeze into so
small a space of time; imprisoning, confiscating, granting
monopolies, attacking the Church, and putting forth the
constitution in its most offensive shape. I suspect we shall have
made a sad mess of this business.

Just come from the Duke of Wellington; talked about Portugal and
the intercepted letters; the writer said that he (the Duke) had
told Neumann he approved of Bourmont's going, whereas he thought
it an objectionable nomination, because he had formerly deserted
from the Portuguese service.[6] He had never had any communication
with these agents, and did not believe Aberdeen had had any
either: he said Lisbon was more defensible than Oporto, but
required more men. Talking of Miguel, the Duke related that he was
at Strathfieldsaye with Palmella, where in the library they were
settling the oath that Miguel should take, Miguel would pay no
attention, and instead of going into the business and saying what
oath he would consent to take (the question was whether he should
swear fidelity to Pedro or to Maria) he sat flirting with the
Princess Thérèse Esterhazy. The Duke said to Palmella, 'This will
never do, he must settle the terms of the oath, and if he is so
careless in an affair of such moment, he will never do his duty.'
Palmella said, 'Oh, leave him to us, we will manage him.' He had
no idea of overturning the constitution and playing false when he
went there, but was persuaded by his mother and terrified by the
lengths to which the constitutional party was disposed to go. The
Duke said the Government would be very foolish to interfere for
Pedro, who was a ruffian, and for the constitution, which was
odious, and that Pedro would never have more than the ground he
stood on; talked of our foreign policy, his anxiety for peace, but
of France as our 'natural enemy!' and of the importance of
maintaining our influence in Spain, which so long as we did we
should have nothing to fear from France.

      [6] Bourmont was an emigrant, and went into the Portuguese
          service. When Junot came to Portugal he joined him, was
          taken into the French service, in which he continued to
          rise, till he deserted just before the battle of
          Waterloo from Napoleon to Louis XVIII.

September 3rd, 1833 {p.026}

On Wednesday last when the King's speech was read there was no
Council. Brougham brought Sir Alexander Johnston, formerly Chief
Justice in Ceylon, to be sworn a Privy Councillor without giving
any notice, consequently I was not there. The King, therefore,
comes again to-morrow on purpose, and, what is unpleasant,
desired a Clerk of the Council might always be in attendance when
there was anything going on. This, I suppose, His Majesty will
repeat to me himself to-morrow. The Parliament is at last up; it
was a fine sight the day the King went down, the weather
splendid, and park full of people, with guards mounted and
dismounted, making a picturesque show. He was very coolly
received, for there is no doubt there never was a King less
respected. George IV., with all his occasional unpopularity,
could always revive the external appearance of loyalty when he
gave himself the trouble.



The Parliament is up, and not before people were dead sick of it,
and had dropped out of town one by one till hardly any Parliament
was left. It may be worth while to take a little survey of the
present condition of things as compared with what it was a few
months ago, and consider at this resting time what has been the
practical effect of the great measure of Reform, without going
very deeply into the question. The Reform Bill was carried _in
toto_, the Tories having contrived that everything that was
attempted should be gained by the Reformers. No excuse, therefore,
was left for the Parliament, and if 'the people' did not choose a
good one it was their own fault. It was chosen, and when it met
was found to be composed of a majority of supporters of the
present Government, a certain number of Tories, not enough to be
powerful, and many Radicals, who soon proved to be wholly
inefficient. It speedily became manifest that in point of ability
it was not only inferior to the last, but perhaps to any
Parliament that has sat for many years. There were 350 new members
(or some such number), but not one man among them of shining or
remarkable talent; Cobbett, Silk, Buckingham, Roebuck, and such
men soon found their level and sunk into insignificance. The House
appeared at first to be very unruly, not under the command of
Government, talkative, noisy, and ill-constituted for the
transaction of business. After a little while it got better in
this respect, the majority, however, though evidently determined
to support Government, would not be _commanded_ by it, and even
men in place often took up crotchets of their own, and voted
against Government measures; but whenever the Ministers seemed to
be in danger they always found efficient support, and on the Malt
Tax the House even stultified itself to uphold them. As the
session proceeded the men who gained reputation and established
the greatest personal influence were Peel and Stanley; Macaulay
rather lost than gained; Althorp lost entirely, but the weight of
his blunders and unfitness could not sink him, his personal
character and good humour always buoyed him up. The great
measures, some of the greatest that any Parliament ever dealt
with, were got through with marvellous facility. They did not for
the most part come on till late in the session, when the House had
got tired, and the East India Charter Bill was carried through
most of the stages in empty Houses. The measures have generally
evinced a Conservative character, and the Parliament has not shown
any disposition to favour subversive principles or to encourage
subversive language. It has been eminently liberal in point of
money, granting all that Ministers asked without the slightest
difficulty; twenty millions for the West Indians, a million for
the Irish clergy, were voted almost by acclamation. Hume cut no
figure in this Parliament. Notwithstanding apprehensions and
predictions the Government has contrived to carry on the business
of the country very successfully, and great reforms have been
accomplished in every department of the State, which do not seem
liable to any serious objections, and in the midst of many
troubles, of much complaining and bickering; the country has been
advancing in prosperity, and recovering rapidly from the state of
sickly depression in which it lay at the end of last year. It is
fair to compare the state of affairs now and then, merely reciting
facts, and let the praise rest where it may, whether it be due to
the wisdom of men or the result of that disposition to right
itself which has always appeared inherent in the British
commonwealth. Some months ago there appeared every prospect of a
war in Europe; the French were in Belgium, whence many predicted
they would never be got away; Ireland was in a flame, every post
brought the relation of fresh horrors and atrocities; in England
trade was low, alarm and uncertainty prevalent, and a general
disquietude pervaded the nation, some fearing and others desiring
change, some expecting, others dreading the great things which a
Reformed Parliament would do. The session is over, and a Reformed
Parliament turns out to be very much like every other Parliament,
except that it is rather differently and somewhat less ably
composed than its predecessors. The hopes and the fears of mankind
have been equally disappointed, and after all the clamour,
confusion, riots, conflagrations, furies, despair, and triumphs
through which we have arrived at this consummation, up to the
present time, at least, matters remain pretty much as they were,
except that the Whigs have got possession of the power which the
Tories have lost. We continue at peace, and with every prospect of
so being for some time, we are on good terms with France, and by
degrees inducing the French to extend their incipient principles
of free trade, to the benefit of both countries. In Ireland there
never has been a period for many years when the country was so
quiet; it may not last, but so it is at the present moment. In
England trade flourishes, running in a deep and steady stream,
there are improvement and employment in all its branches. The
landed interest has suffered and suffers still, but the wages of
labour have not fallen with the rents of landlords, and the
agricultural labourers were never better off. Generally there is a
better spirit abroad, less discontent, greater security, and those
vague apprehensions are lulled to rest which when in morbid
activity, carrying themselves from one object to another, are
partly the cause and partly the effect of an evil state of things.
We hear nothing now of associations, unions, and public meetings,
and (compared with what it was) the world seems in a state of

                          CHAPTER XXII.

The Speaker a Knight of the Bath--Lord Wellesley Lord Lieutenant
  of Ireland--M. Thiers in England--Prince Esterhazy's Opinion of
  the State of England--Queen of Portugal at Windsor--The Duke of
  Leuchtenberg--Macaulay and Sydney Smith--Brougham's Anecdotes
  of Queen Caroline--Judicial Committee of the Privy Council--Sir
  Stratford Canning and M. Dedel--Sydney Smith and the 'Siege of
  Saragossa'--Edward Irving--The Unknown Tongues--Tribute to Lord
  Eldon--W. J. Fox--Lord Tavistock on the Prospects of his
  Party--Moore at the State Paper Office--Russia and England--
  Belvoir Castle--The Duke of Wellington at Belvoir--Visit to
  Mrs. Arkwright--Sir Thomas Lawrence and the Misses Siddons--A
  Murder at Runton--Sandon--Lord and Lady Harrowby--Burghley--
  Railroads talked of--Gloomy Tory Prognostications--State of
  Spain--Parliament opens--Quarrel of Sheil and Lord Althorp--
  Unpopularity of Lord Palmerston--Mrs. Somerville--O'Connell's
  Attack on Baron Smith--Lord Althorp's Budget--The Pension
  List--Lord Althorp as Leader of the House--Sir R. Peel's
  Position in the House--Meeting of Supporters of Government--Mr.
  Villiers on the State of Spain--Predicament of Horne, the

September 5th, 1833 {p.030}

At Court yesterday, the Speaker[1] was made a Knight of the Bath
to his great delight. It is a reward for his conduct during the
Session, in which he has done Government good and handsome
service. He told them before it began that he would undertake to
ride the new House, but it must be with a snaffle bridle.
Bosanquet and Sir Alexander Johnston were made Privy Councillors
to sit in the Chancellor's new Court. The Privy Council is as
numerous as a moderate-sized club, and about as well composed.
Awful storms these last few days, and enormous damage done, the
weather like the middle of winter.

      [1] [Rt. Hon. Manners Sutton, afterwards Viscount

September 6th, 1833 {p.030}


Yesterday the announcement of Lord Wellesley's appointment to be
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was received with as great astonishment
as I ever saw. Once very brilliant, probably never very efficient,
he is now worn out and _effete_. It is astonishing that they
should send such a man, and one does not see why, because it is
difficult to find a good man, they should select one of the very
worst they could hit upon. It is a ridiculous appointment, which
is the most objectionable of all. For years past he has lived
entirely out of the world. He comes to the House of Lords, and
talks of making a speech every now and then, of which he is never
delivered, and he comes to Court, where he sits in a corner and
talks (as those who know him say) with as much fire and liveliness
as ever, and with the same neat, shrewd causticity that formerly
distinguished him; but such scintillations as these prove nothing
as to his fitness for business and government, and as he was quite
unfit for these long ago, it is scarcely to be supposed that
retirement and increased age and infirmities should have made him
less so now.[2] They have judiciously waited till Parliament is up
before the appointment was made known. Lord Wellesley is said to
be in the hands of Blake the Remembrancer, a dangerous Jesuitical

      [2] [This opinion of Lord Wellesley was, however, speedily
          changed by his successful and vigorous administration
          of Ireland. See _infra_, November 14th.]

September 10th, 1833 {p.031}

At Gorhambury on Saturday till Monday. Dined on Friday with
Talleyrand, a great dinner to M. Thiers, the French Minister of
Commerce, a little man, about as tall as Sheil, and as mean and
vulgar looking, wearing spectacles, and with a squeaking voice.
He was editor of the 'National,' an able writer, and one of the
principal instigators of the Revolution of July. It is said that
he is a man of great ability and a good speaker, more in the
familiar English than the bombastical French style. Talleyrand
has a high opinion of him. He wrote a history of the Revolution,
which he now regrets; it is well done, but the doctrine of
fatalism which he puts forth in it he thinks calculated to injure
his reputation as a statesman. I met him again at dinner at
Talleyrand's yesterday with another great party, and last night
he started on a visit to Birmingham and Liverpool.

After dinner on Friday I had rather a curious conversation with
Esterhazy, who said he wanted to know what I thought of the
condition of this country. I told him that I thought everything
was surprisingly improved, and gave my reasons for thinking so.
He then went off and said that these were his opinions also, and
he had written home in this strain, that Neumann had deceived his
Government, giving them very different accounts, that it was no
use telling them what they might wish to hear, but that he was
resolved to tell them the truth, and make them understand how
greatly they were deceiving themselves if they counted upon the
decadence or want of power of this country; a great deal more of
the same sort, which proves that the Austrian Court were all on
the _qui vive_ to find out that we are paralysed, and that their
political conduct is in fact influenced by their notion of our
actual position. They probably hardly knew what they would be at,
but their hatred and dread of revolutionary principles are so
great that they are always on the watch for a good opportunity of
striking a blow at them, which they know they can only do through
England and France. They would therefore willingly believe that
the political power of England is diminished, and Neumann, who
wrote in the spirit of a disappointed Tory rather than of an
impartial Foreign Minister, no doubt flattered their desires in
this respect. Last night I sat by Dedel, the Dutch Minister, who
told me he knew Neumann had given very false accounts (not
intentionally) to his Government, that Wessenberg took much
juster views, and he (Dedel) agreed with Esterhazy, who said that
nobody could understand this country who had not had long
experience of it, and that he found it impossible to make his
Government comprehend it, or give entire credit to what he said.
Dedel told me that Holland is ruined, that the day of reckoning
will come, when they will discover what a state of bankruptcy
they are in, that the spirit of the nation had been kept up by
excitement, and that therein lay the dexterity of the King and
his Government, but that this factitious enthusiasm was rapidly
passing away. They now pay fifty millions of florins interest of
debt, about four millions sterling, and their population is not
above two millions.


The young Queen of Portugal goes to Windsor to-day. The King was
at first very angry at her coming to England, but when he found
that Louis Philippe had treated her with incivility, he changed
his mind, and resolved to receive her with great honours. He
hates Louis Philippe and the French with a sort of Jack Tar
animosity. The other day he gave a dinner to one of the regiments
at Windsor, and as usual he made a parcel of foolish speeches, in
one of which, after descanting upon their exploits in Spain
against the French, he went on: 'Talking of France, I must say
that whether at peace or at war with that country, I shall always
consider her as our natural enemy, and whoever may be her King or
_ruler_, I shall keep a watchful eye for the purpose of
repressing her ambitious encroachments.' If he was not such an
ass that nobody does anything but laugh at what he says, this
would be very important. Such as he is, it is nothing. 'What can
you expect' (as I forget who said) 'from a man with a head like a
pineapple?' His head is just of that shape.

The history of the French King's behaviour is that he wanted the
young Queen of Portugal to marry the Duke de Nemours, and when he
found that impossible (for we should have opposed it) he proposed
Prince Charles of Naples, his nephew. This was likewise rejected.
The Emperor Don Pedro wants the Duke of Leuchtenberg, his wife's
brother, to marry her.[3] This Duke went to Havre the other day,
where the Préfet refused to admit him, though he went with (or
to) his sister, pleading the law excluding Napoleon's family. He
went to the Préfet to say that he protested against such
application of the law, but, as he would not make any disturbance
there, desired to have his passports _visé_ for Munich, and off
he went. At the same time he wrote a letter to Palmerston, which
George Villiers, to whom Palmerston showed it, told me was
exceedingly good. He said that though he did not know Palmerston
he ventured to address him, as the Minister of the greatest and
freest country in the world, for the purpose of explaining what
had happened, and to clear himself from the misrepresentations
that would be made as to his motives and intentions in joining
his sister; that it was true that Don Pedro had wished him to
marry his daughter, and that he had written him a letter, of
which he enclosed a copy. This was a very well written letter,
begging the Emperor to pause and consider of this projected
match, and setting forth all the reasons why it might not be
advantageous for her; in short, Villiers says, exhibiting a very
remarkable degree of disinterestedness, and of longsighted views
with regard to the situation of Portugal and the general politics
of Europe.

      [3] [Queen Donna Maria did eventually many the young Duke
          of Leuchtenberg, son of Prince Eugène Beauharnais and a
          Bavarian Princess. But he survived his marriage only a
          few months, and died of a fever at Lisbon.]

He told me another anecdote at the same time. Palmerston showed
him a letter he had received from Charles Napier, in which,
talking of the possible interference of Spain, he said; 'Your
Lordship knows that I have only to sail with my fleet (enumerating
a respectable squadron of different sizes) to Cadiz, and I can
create a revolution in five minutes throughout the whole South of
Spain.' Palmerston seems to have been a little amused and a little
alarmed at this fanfaronade, in which there is, however, a great
deal of truth. He said that of course they should not allow Napier
to do any such thing, but as nothing else could prevent him if we
did not, the Spaniards may be made to understand that we shall not
be at the trouble of muzzling this bull-dog if they do not behave
with civility and moderation.

London, November 13th, 1833 {p.034}


Nothing written for nearly two months. I remained in town till the
end of September, when I went to Newmarket, and afterwards to
Buckenham, where I met Sir Robert Peel. He is very agreeable in
society, it is a toss up whether he talks or not, but if he thaws,
and is in good humour and spirits, he is lively, entertaining, and
abounding in anecdotes, which he tells extremely well. I came back
to town on Friday last, the 8th, dined with the Poodle, and found
Rogers, Moore, and Westmacott (the son); a very agreeable dinner.
On Sunday dined with Rogers, Moore, Sydney Smith, Macaulay. Sydney
less vivacious than usual, and somewhat overpowered and talked
down by what Moore called the 'flumen sermonis' of Macaulay.
Sydney calls Macaulay 'a book in breeches.' All that this latter
says, all that he writes, exhibits his great powers and
astonishing information, but I don't think he is agreeable. It is
more than society requires, and not exactly of the kind; his
figure, face, voice, and manner are all bad; he astonishes and
instructs, he sometimes entertains, seldom amuses, and still
seldomer pleases. He wants variety, elasticity, gracefulness; his
is a roaring torrent, and not a meandering stream of talk. I
believe we would all of us have been glad to exchange some of his
sense for some of Sydney Smith's nonsense. He told me that he had
read Sir Charles Grandison fifteen times!

Not a word of news, political or other; the Ministers are all
come, Spain and Portugal potter on with their civil contests and
create uneasiness, though of a languid kind. I came to town for a
meeting at the Council Office, the first under Brougham's new
Bill, to make rules and regulations for the proceedings of the
Court. All the lawyers attended, not much done, but there do not
seem to be any great difficulties. There was Brougham, with Leach
next him, and Lyndhurst opposite, all smirks and civility, he and
Leach quite fondling one another. Dined yesterday with Stanley,
who gave me a commission to bet a hundred for him on Bentley
against Berbastes for the Derby, and talked of racing after
dinner with as much zest as if he was on the turf. Who (to see
him and hear him thus) would take him for the greatest orator and
statesman of the day?

November 14th, 1833 {p.035}

Dined with Sefton yesterday; after dinner came in the Chancellor
in good humour and spirits; talked of Lord Wellesley, who, since
he has been in Ireland, has astonished everybody by his activity
and assiduity in business. He appeared, before he went, in the
last stage of decrepitude, and they had no idea the energy was in
him; but they say he is quite a new man, and it is not merely a
splash, but real and bonâ-fide business that he does. The
Chancellor talked over some of the passages of the Queen's trial,
to which he loves to revert. It was about the liturgy. The
negotiations which had taken place at Apsley House between the
Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh on one part and Brougham
and Denman on the other were broken off on that point. It was
then agreed to refer the matter to others; the Duke and
Castlereagh were to meet Lord Fitzwilliam and Sefton; a queer
choice, old Fitzwilliam a driveller, and Sefton, with all his
sharpness, totally unfit for the office of negotiator in a grave
matter. He can't be grave, life itself is to him a plaything; but
the night before they were to meet, Fitzwilliam took fright, and
backed out. Notice was sent to the other party, but they did not
get it, owing to some mistake. In the morning Brougham came to
Sefton and asked him to drive him up to the Queen's house, and as
they passed through Grosvenor Square, to their amazement they saw
Wellington and Castlereagh alighting (full dressed for the levée)
at Lord Fitzwilliam's door. Sefton went into the house, and found
them already in the dining-room, the table covered with papers,
when an explanation ensued, on which they had to bundle up their
papers again and trot off.


When the deputation from the House of Commons went up with the
address to the Queen, entreating her to come to terms (Banks,
Wortley, Acland, and Wilberforce), she had got all her Council
assembled, and before receiving the deputation from the Commons,
she asked their advice. Brougham said that she was disposed to
acquiesce, but wanted _them_ to advise her to do so, and that her
intention was, if they had, to act on that advice, but to save
her popularity by throwing the odium on them, and devoting them
to popular execration. He therefore resolved, and his brethren
likewise, to give no advice at all; and when she turned to him,
and said, 'What do you think I ought to do?' he replied, in a
sort of speech which he gave very comically, 'Your Majesty is
undoubtedly the best judge of the answer you ought to give, and I
am certain that your own feelings will point out to you the
proper course.' 'Well, but what is your opinion?' 'Madam, I
certainly have a strong opinion on the subject, but I think there
cannot be a shadow of doubt of what your Majesty ought to do, and
there can be no doubt your Majesty's admirable sense will suggest
to you what that opinion is.' 'Humph,' said she, and flung from
him; turning to Denman, 'And Mr. Solicitor, what is your
opinion?' 'Madam, I concur entirely in that which has been
expressed by the Attorney-General;' and so they all repeated. She
was furious, and being left to herself she resolved not to agree.
Sefton was on horseback among the crowd which was waiting
impatiently to hear the result of the interview and her
determination. He had agreed with Brougham that as soon as she
had made up her mind he should come to the window and make him a
sign. He _was to stroke his chin_ if she refused, and do
something else, I forget what, if she agreed. Accordingly arrived
Brougham at the window, all in gown and wig, and as soon as he
caught Sefton's eye began stroking his chin. This was enough for
Sefton, who (as he declares) immediately began telling people in
the crowd who were wondering and doubting and hoping that they
might rely upon it she would 'stand by them,' and not accept the

November 21st, 1833 {p.037}

Another meeting at the Council Office the day before yesterday.
The Chancellor arranging everything, but proposing many things
which meet with opposition, wants people to be allowed to plead
_in formâ pauperis_ before the Privy Council, which they object
to. I have doubts whether this Court will work well after all,
and foresee great difficulty about the rota; everybody had
something to prevent their attendance; however we meet on the
27th for the despatch of business. I have just finished
'Clarissa;' never was so interested or affected by any book.

November 28th, 1833 {p.038}

Yesterday the first meeting under Brougham's new Bill of 'the
Judicial Committee,' the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Baron Parke,
Justice Bosanquet, and Erskine (Chief Judge in Bankruptcy). I
can't perceive that matters are likely to go on a bit better than
when one Judge sat there, though the Chancellor endeavours to
confer all the importance he can on his Committee, that he may
hereafter figure there himself. There has been a lively
controversy between the Whig and Tory papers, of which he has been
the object, the former lauding his law reforms, the latter
attacking his judicial incompetence. It is actually true that
hardly any original causes are brought before him, and he has
little business except appeals which must come into his Court. He
feels himself every day in a more unpleasant predicament, and of
course has a growing impatience to get rid of his judicial duties.
That he will by a series of tricks wriggle out of them there can
be no doubt, for just now he can do whatever he pleases. What he
wants is to be Prime Minister; his restless and versatile mind
will then find sufficient occupation, and there is no department
of Government which he does not think himself capable of presiding
over, leaving as he would do all troublesome details to be worked
out by others.

November 30th, 1833 {p.038}

A long sitting of our Court yesterday. The Chancellor comes
regularly. Jenner (the King's Advocate) told me that he believed
the Chancellor's object was to transfer all appeals from the
House of Lords to the Privy Council. Lyndhurst (whom I met at
Mrs. Fox's) said that it was quite true that he had no business
in his own Court, for nobody would plead there, that he wanted to
be Prime Minister, retaining the emoluments and patronage of the
Great Seal, and getting rid of its duties. There can be no doubt
that he does, and if Lord Grey dies, or is ill (in which case he
will resign), he probably will succeed. It is amusing to see
Brougham's tricks in small things; his present object is to raise
the Judicial Committee as much as he can, and bring all the
business there he can collect; in order to increase the appeals
he proposed to allow of them from the Indian Courts _in formâ
pauperis_. This, however, was strenuously resisted by all the
Judges and others present, and as he always takes the lead in all
discussions relating to rules and regulations, when he found that
the unanimous opinion of the Committee was the other way, he
turned himself round and argued against his own proposal, stating
or anticipating the objections of the others, just insinuating
incidentally counter-arguments, and ending by letting the
question remain in abeyance.


Madame de Lieven told me an anecdote of Stratford Canning which
highly delighted her, because it justified the resistance which
the Court of Russia made to his nomination to that Embassy. The
other day Dedel called on Palmerston. When shown into the
waiting-room, he said, 'Tell Lord Palmerston that the Dutch
Minister will be glad to see him,' when a man who was there, and
whom he did not know, jumped up and said, 'And I desire you will
tell Lord Palmerston that I have been waiting here these two
hours, and that I expect to see him before anybody else;' and
then, turning to Dedel, 'Sir, this is too bad; two persons have
been already shown in to Lord Palmerston, both of whom came after
me, and I expect that you will not go in to his Lordship till
after me.' Dedel, who is the mildest and civillest of men,
replied, 'Sir, far be it from me to dispute your right, and I
assure you I have no desire to go in before you, but I only beg
that if Lord Palmerston should send for me first you will
understand that I cannot help going;' and then the other, 'Sir, I
am Sir Stratford Canning.' 'And I am Mr. Dedel.' This extraordinary
scene he told Madame de Lieven, not knowing what had passed about
the mission. Touching that affair, there is an understanding that
he shall not go there, and no other Ambassador is to be named till
it is quite convenient to Palmerston.

The day before yesterday I met Sydney Smith at dinner at Poodle
Byng's, when a conversation occurred which produced a curious
coincidence. We were talking of Vaughan, the Minister in America,
how dull he appeared, and yet how smart and successful had been
'The Siege of Saragossa,' which he published at the time of the
Spanish war. Sydney Smith said that the truth was he had not
written a word of it, and on being questioned further said that
he was himself the author. Vaughan, who was a friend of his, had
given him the materials, and he had composed the narrative. He
then went on to say that it was not the only instance of the
kind, for that the celebrated pamphlet which had been attributed
to Lady Canning had not been written by her, not a word of it,
that it had been written by Stapleton. I said that I had it in my
power to contradict this, for that I had been privy to the
composition of it, had seen the manuscript, and had at her
request undertaken the task of revising and correcting it. Thus
were two mistakes accidentally cleared up, by the circumstance of
the only persons who could have explained them being present.

December 2nd, 1833 {p.040}


I went yesterday to Edward Irving's chapel to hear him preach, and
witness the exhibition of the tongues. The chapel was formerly
West's picture gallery, oblong, with a semicircular recess at one
end; it has been fitted up with galleries all round, and in the
semicircle there are tiers of benches, in front of which is a
platform with an elevated chair for Irving himself, and a sort of
desk before it; on each side the chair are three arm-chairs, on
which three other preachers sat. The steps from the floor to the
platform were occupied by men (whether peculiarly favoured or not
I don't know), but the seats behind Irving's chair are evidently
appropriated to the higher class of devotees, for they were the
best dressed of the congregation. The business was conducted with
decency, and the congregation was attentive. It began with a hymn,
the words given out by one of the assistant preachers, and sung by
the whole flock. This, which seems to be common to all dissenting
services, is always very fine, the full swell of human voices
producing a grand effect. After this Irving delivered a prayer, in
a very slow drawling tone, rather long, and not at all striking in
point of language or thought. When he had finished, one of the men
sitting beside him arose, read a few verses from the Bible, and
discoursed thereon. He was a sorry fellow, and was followed by two
others, not much better. After these three Spencer Perceval stood
up. He recited the duty to our neighbour in the catechism, and
descanted on that text in a style in all respects far superior to
the others. He appeared about to touch on politics, and (as well
as I recollect) was saying, 'Ye trusted that your institutions
were unalterable, ye believed that your loyalty to your King, your
respect for your nobility, your'--when suddenly a low moaning
noise was heard, on which he instantly stopped, threw his arm over
his breast, and covered his eyes, in an attitude of deep devotion,
as if oppressed by the presence of the spirit. The voice after
ejaculating three 'Oh's,' one rising above the other, in tones
very musical, burst into a flow of unintelligible jargon, which,
whether it was in English or in gibberish I could not discover.
This lasted five or six minutes, and as the voice was silenced,
another woman, in more passionate and louder tones, took it up;
this last spoke in English, and words, though not sentences, were
distinguishable. I had a full view of her sitting exactly behind
Irving's chair. She was well dressed, spoke sitting, under great
apparent excitement, and screamed on till from exhaustion, as it
seemed, her voice gradually died away, and all was still. Then
Spencer Perceval, in slow and solemn tones, resumed, not where he
had left off, but with an exhortation to hear the voice of the
Lord which had just been uttered to the congregation, and after a
few more sentences he sat down. Two more men followed him, and
then Irving preached. His subject was 'God's love,' upon which he
poured forth a mystical incomprehensible rhapsody, with
extraordinary vehemence of manner and power of lungs. There was
nothing like eloquence in his sermon, no musical periods to
captivate the ear, no striking illustrations to charm the
imagination; but there is undoubtedly something in his commanding
figure and strange, wild countenance, his vehemence, and above all
the astonishing power of his voice, its compass, intonation, and
variety, which arrests attention, and gives the notion of a great
orator. I daresay he can speak well, but to waste real eloquence
on such an auditory would be like throwing pearls to swine. 'The
bawl of Bellas' is better adapted for their ears than quiet sense
in simpler sounds, and the principle 'omne ignotum pro magnifico,'
can scarcely find a happier illustration than amongst a
congregation whose admiration is probably in an inverse ratio to
their comprehension.

December 6th, 1833 {p.042}

The Vice-Chancellor, Parke, Bosanquet, and Erskine met yesterday
to consider a judgment, and took three hours to manage it;
business does not go on so quickly with many Judges as with one,
whether it be more satisfactory or not. The Chancellor, the last
time we met, announced to the Bar (very oddly) that for the
future their Lordships would give judgment in turn. (He had
himself delivered the only judgment that had been given.) The
Vice-Chancellor, who I thought was his friend, laughed at this
yesterday with me, and said that he wanted to throw off from
himself as much as he could. I asked him (he had said something,
I forget what, about the Chancery Bill) what would be left for
the Chancellor to do when that Bill was passed. He said,
'Nothing, that he meant to be Prime Minister and Chancellor, and
that it was what he had been driving at all along, that the Bill
for regulating the Privy Council was only a part of his own plan,
and that all his schemes tended to that end.' Setting political
bias aside, it is curious, considering his station, to hear the
lawyers talk of him, the contempt they universally have for him
professionally, how striking the contrast with the profound
respect which is paid to Lord Eldon. The other day, in the action
brought against the Chancellor for false imprisonment, Lord Eldon
was subpoenaed, and he appeared to give evidence; when he entered
the Court, while he was examined, and when he departed, the whole
Bar stood up, and the Solicitor-General _harangued_ him,
expressed in the name of his brethren the satisfaction they felt
at seeing him once more among them. There is something affecting
in these reverential testimonials to a man from whom power has
passed away, and who is just descending into the grave, and I
doubt if, at the close of his career, Brougham will ever obtain
the same.

December 9th, 1833 {p.043}

Went yesterday with Frederic Elliot and Luttrell to hear Fox, a
celebrated Unitarian preacher, at a chapel in South Place,
Finsbury Square. He is very short and thick, dark hair, black
eyes, and a countenance intelligent though by no means handsome;
his voice is not strong, and his articulation imperfect, he cannot
pronounce the s. His sermon was, however, admirable, and amply
repaid us for the trouble of going so far. He read the whole of
it, the language was beautiful, the argument clear and unembarrassed,
the reasoning powerful, and there were occasionally passages of
great eloquence. The conclusion, which was a sort of invocation to
the Deity, was very fine. I like the simplicity of the service:
hymns, a prayer, and the sermon, still I think a short liturgy
preferable--our own, much abbreviated, would be the best.

December 13th, 1833 {p.043}


Met Tavistock at dinner the other day, and talked about the
Government; from his intimacy with Althorp and connection with
the others he knows their sentiments pretty accurately. He said
that Lord Grey had so high an opinion of Althorp that he made his
remaining a _sine quâ non_, and accordingly he does remain. He
thought Lord Grey would be glad to retire, but that he will go on
as long as he can, because the Government would be placed in such
great embarrassment by his retreat. He did not think Brougham
could succeed him, though he believed his popularity in the
country to be great; that all depended on the part Peel took in
the next session, for in the event of Lord Grey's resignation he
looked to the King's sending for Peel to form a Government (much
as Canning did when Lord Liverpool died), principally composed of
course of the _purest_ materials, but not exclusively, and that
he did not think the great body of the Liberal party would make
any difficulty of accepting office under Peel; that Stanley would
not. He (Tavistock) thinks that Peel could not come into office
_with_ the Duke of Wellington; the Tories (Irvine, e.g.) think he
would not come in _without_ him.

December 18th, 1833 {p.044}

Went with Moore yesterday morning to the State Paper Office, and
introduced him to Lemon.[4] It was at the new office, where the
documents are in course of arrangement, and for the future they
will be accessible and useful. John Allen told Moore the other
day that he considered that the history of England had never
really been written, so much matter was there in public and
private collections, illustrative of it, that had never been made
use of. Lemon said he could in great measure confirm that
assertion, as his researches had afforded him the means of
throwing great light upon modern history, from the time of Henry
VIII. The fact is, that the whole thing is conventional; people
take the best evidence that has been produced, and give their
assent to a certain series of events, until more facts and better
evidence supplant the old statements and establish others in
their place. They are now printing Irish papers of the time of
Henry VIII., but from the folly of Henry Hobhouse, who would not
let the volume be indexed, it will be of little service. In the
evening dined with Moore at the Poodle's. He told a good story of
Sydney Smith and Leslie the Professor. Leslie had written upon
the North Pole; something he had said had been attacked in the
'Edinburgh Review' in a way that displeased him. He called on
Jeffrey just as he was getting on horseback, and in a great
hurry. Leslie began with a grave complaint on the subject, which
Jeffrey interrupted with 'O damn the North Pole.' Leslie went off
in high dudgeon, and soon after met Sydney, who, seeing him
disturbed, asked what was the matter. He told him what he had
been to Jeffrey about, and that he had in a very unpleasant way
said, 'Damn the North Pole.' 'It was very bad,' said Sydney;
'but, do you know, I am not surprised at it, for I have heard him
speak very disrespectfully of _the Equator_.'

      [4] [Robert Lemon, Esq., F.S.A., was the Deputy Keeper of
          the State Papers, who rendered the greatest services in
          the classification of the Records, which at this time
          were but little known and had not been opened to
          literary investigation.]

December 21st, 1833


There is great talk of war with Russia, which I don't believe will
take place. I had a long talk with Madame de Lieven the day before
yesterday, and was surprised to find her with such a lofty tone
about war. She said that it was '_chance égale_;' that they
neither desired nor feared it; that our tone had latterly been so
insulting that they had no option but that of replying with
corresponding hauteur; that if we sent ships to the Mediterranean
they would send ships: that if those measures were pursued, and
such language held, it was impossible to say that circumstances
might not bring about war, though equally against the wishes and
interests of all parties. In such a case we might destroy their
fleet and burn their harbours, but we could not exclude them from
Turkey, nor once established there get them out again. That we
must not fancy we should be able, in conjunction with France, to
keep the rest of Europe in check; for it was the opinion of the
wisest heads, and of Louis Philippe himself, that a war would
infallibly bring about his downfall. (This latter opinion is
likewise, I find, that of the French ultra-Radicals; but they
think the war must be a war of opinion, and that the extreme
Liberals, who would thereby gain the ascendency, would make the
King the first victim.) She complained bitterly of the language of
our newspapers, and of our orators in Parliament, described the
indignation of the Russian Court, and the dignified resentment
mixed with contempt of the Emperor; in short, talked very big, but
still there will be no war.--I met Dedel afterwards, and he told
me that at Broadlands, where they all met, some explanations in a
tolerably friendly tone did take place. The truth is that we have
divested ourselves of the right of objecting to Russia's measures
with regard to Turkey, although we do not dare acknowledge what we
have done, nor our motives. We were (and we are) in a false
position, and she has played her cards with great dexterity; but
the Treaty[5] is another thing, and is justly calculated to excite
our jealousy and suspicions. We have held this language to Russia
with regard to the Treaty: 'We do not remonstrate, because we
admit your right to make what treaties you think fit; but we give
you notice, that if any attempt is made to enforce the stipulations
of it against us, we shall not endure it, and you must be prepared
for the consequences.'

      [5] The treaty of Unkiar Skelesi.

                *       *       *       *       *


Belvoir Castle, January 7th, 1834 {p.046}


After many years of delay, I am here since the 3rd, to assist at
the celebration of the Duke of Rutland's birthday. The party is
very large, and sufficiently dull: the Duke of Wellington,
Esterhazy, Matuscewitz, Rokeby, Miss d'Este (afterwards Lady
Truro), and the rest a rabble of fine people, without beauty or
wit among them. The place is certainly very magnificent, and the
position of the castle unrivalled, though the interior is full of
enormous faults, which are wholly irretrievable. This results from
the management of the alterations having been entrusted to the
Duchess and Sir John Thurston (the former of whom had some taste
but no knowledge), and they have consequently made a sad mess of
it. There is immense space wasted, and with great splendour and
some comfort the Castle has been tumbled about until they have
contrived to render it a very indifferent house; no two rooms
communicating, nor even (except the drawing-room and dining-room,
the former of which is seldom or never inhabited) contiguous. The
gallery, though unfinished, is a delightful apartment, and one of
the most comfortable I ever saw. The outside of the Castle is
faulty, but very grand; so grand as to sink criticism in
admiration; and altogether, with its terraces and towers, its
woods and hills, and its boundless prospect over a rich and
fertile country, it is a very noble possession. The Duke lives
here for three or four months, from the end of October till the
end of February or March, on and off, and the establishment is
kept up with extraordinary splendour. In the morning we are roused
by the strains of martial music, and the band (of his regiment of
militia) marches round the terrace, awakening or quickening the
guests with lively airs. All the men hunt or shoot. At dinner
there is a different display of plate every day, and in the
evening some play at whist or amuse themselves as they please, and
some walk about the staircases and corridors to hear the band,
which plays the whole evening in the hall. On the Duke's birthday
there was a great feast in the Castle; 200 people dined in the
servants' hall alone, without counting the other tables. We were
about forty at dinner. When the cloth was removed, Esterhazy
proposed His Grace's health, who has always a speech prepared in
which he returns thanks. This time it was more simple than usual,
and not at all bad. To-night there is a ball for the servants,
which could not take place on the real birthday, as it fell on a

I have had snatches of talk with the Duke of Wellington, and
yesterday morning he retired with Matuscewitz, and had a long
conference with him. The absolute Courts have a great hankering
after the Duke, though their Ministers here can hardly look for
his return to office; nor do I believe that if he was to come
back he would be found indulgent to the projects of Russia,
though he might be disinclined to continue so very intimate as we
now are with France. He told me this morning he thought the
French King's speech to his Chambers exceedingly good. He of
course disapproves of all our foreign policy, particularly in the
Peninsula. He says he sees no daylight whatever through the
Portuguese affair. The Spanish may terminate in the success of
the Queen, but only by her opposing Liberalism. He is convinced
that if she introduces Liberal principles she will be lost. He
says that the Spanish Government will be too happy to interfere
in the Portuguese contest (as in fact I know that they have
offered to do), but that we never can allow this, which besides
the consequences of interference (as a principle) would
necessarily make Portugal dependent on Spain. Arbuthnot, who is
here, told me (and he hears these things from the Duke) that
Matuscewitz had expressed the greatest contempt for Palmerston,
and not the less for Lord Grey; and that, with regard to the
latter, he had been much struck with his ignorance. I do not know
on what points he meant, but it must be in history or diplomacy,
which I am surprised at, because I thought he was a man of a
cultivated mind and general information, who would be found, as
far as knowledge goes, competent to any discussion. He likewise
said that he found him slow of comprehension.

Belvoir, January 8th, 1834 {p.048}

There was a ball for all the servants and tenants on Monday,
which the Duke of Rutland opened with Lady Georgina Fane, and the
Duke of Wellington followed with Lady Brownlow. Yesterday half
the people went to Belton; it was nearly impossible to get any
talk with the Duke. He told me that the Russians were in no hurry
to do any overt act in Turkey, and that their policy was as it
had always been--to work very gradually. I asked him if he
thought they really intended a permanent occupation of Turkey. He
said certainly not; that they could not bear the expense of a
war, which in that case would ensue; that the difference of the
expense between their own and a foreign country was as between
10d. and 4s. a man.

To-day I have been all over this Castle; the arrangements are
admirable, and the order and cleanliness of every part of the
offices and the magnitude of the establishment are very
remarkable, and such as I have never seen elsewhere. This
afternoon Gosh [Mr. Arbuthnot] came and sat with me, and talked
over all matters, which I have heard from him before, though he
has forgotten it, which he well may, for his intellect, never
very bright, seems to be almost entirely obscured. I daresay I
have put down these things before, but as they are curious scraps
of history they may as well go down again. It all relates to the
break-up of Lord Grey's Government in '32, and the abortive
attempts of the Duke to form an administration.

The King had given his word that he had never promised to make a
single peer. Doubts arose whether he had not told a lie; they
pressed him on this point (Wellington and Lyndhurst); he
persisted in his denial, upon which they requested Taylor might
be sent for, and all the correspondence produced, when they found
he was pledged up to the throat, and without reserve. The King
then attempted to get out of it by saying he had consented to
call up the sons of Scotch peers and give to Irish peers English
peerages, which he did not consider a creation of peers!


When the Duke accepted the commission to form a Government, it
was resolved to prorogue Parliament, and Lyndhurst was desired by
the King to go to Lord Grey and tell him such was his pleasure.
Lyndhurst forgot it! In after times, those who write the history
of these days will probably discuss the conduct of the great
actors, and it will not fail to be matter of surprise that such
an obvious expedient was not resorted to, in order to suspend
violent discussions. Among the various reasons that will be
imagined and suggested, I doubt if it will occur to anybody that
the real reason was that it was _forgotten_.

Arbuthnot says they know that Lyndhurst was intriguing with the
Whigs when the Duke was turned out in '30, and that it had been
settled that he was to remain their Chancellor; and so he would
have been if Brougham would have consented to be Attorney-General,
and had not run restive, and given clear indications of his
resolution to destroy the Government if he was left out of it. He
says that notwithstanding the duplicity of Peel's conduct in 1832,
he and the Duke are always on good terms, and no great question is
ever agitated without Peel's coming to the Duke and talking it
over with him; that Peel is determined to have nothing to do with
the Whigs, and told him (Arbuthnot) so very lately, but the High
Tories are just as unmanageable as ever. Chandos came to the Duke
the other day, and told him he thought they ought to get up
petitions against the malt tax. The Duke said he would countenance
no such thing; that he thought the revenue of the country should
be supported; for if it failed, recourse must be had to a property
tax, which would fall on the aristocracy; and so he persuaded him
to let the malt tax alone.

January 26th, 1834 {p.049}

I left Belvoir on Friday, the 10th, and went to Mrs. Arkwright's,[6]
at Stoke, where I found nobody but her own family. I was well
enough amused for two days with her original conversation and her
singing, and her cousin, Miss Twiss, who, with a face of uncommon
plainness and the voice of a man, is sensible and well informed.
Then they both liked to have me, and that is a great charm; a
little agreeableness goes a great way in the Peak, and it is not
difficult to procure a triumph to one's vanity from people who,
with a good deal of power of appreciation, have very little
opportunity for comparison, and are therefore easily satisfied.
Arkwright told me that it was reported by those who were better
informed than himself of his father's circumstances, that he is
worth from seven to eight millions. His grandfather began life as
a barber, invented some machinery, got a patent, and made a
fortune. His son gave him offence by a marriage which he
disapproved of, and he quarrelled with him, but gave him a mill.
Arkwright, the son, saw nothing of his father for many years, but
by industry and ability accumulated great wealth. When Sir Richard
served as Sheriff, his son thought it right to go out with the
other gentlemen of the county to meet him, and the old gentleman
was struck with his handsome equipage, and asked to whom it
belonged. Upon being informed, he sought a reconciliation with
him, and was astonished to find that his son was as rich as
himself. From that time they continued on good terms, and at his
death he bequeathed him the bulk of his property.

      [6] [Mrs. Arkwright was a Kemble by birth, and had much of
          the musical and dramatic genius of that gifted family.
          Her singing was most touching, and some of her musical
          compositions were full of originality and expression.]

Mrs. Arkwright told me the curious story of Sir Thomas Lawrence's
engagements with her two cousins, the daughters of Mrs. Siddons.
They were two sisters, one tall and very handsome, the other
little, without remarkable beauty, but very clever and agreeable.
He fell in love with the first, and they were engaged to be
married. Of course under such circumstances he lived constantly
and freely in the house, and after some time the superior
intelligence of the clever sister changed the current of his
passion, and she supplanted the handsome one in the affection of
the artist. They concealed the double treachery, but one day a
note which was intended for his new love fell into the hands of
the old love, who, never doubting it was for herself, opened it,
and discovered the fatal truth. From that time she drooped,
sickened, and shortly after died. On her deathbed she exacted a
promise from her sister that she would never marry Lawrence, who
firmly adhered to it. He continued his relations with her with
more or less intimacy up to the period of her death, the date of
which I do not recollect.


From Stoke I went on Monday, 13th, to Drakelow, which Sir Roger
Gresley has lent to Craufurd, and stayed there two nights. It is
a miserable place, with the Trent running under the windows, and
Lord Anglesey's land close to the door. Thence on Wednesday to
Runton Abbey--Lord Lichfield's--who has added to it a farm-house,
and made a residence in the midst of his property, where he has
the best shooting in England. He and I went out the day after I
got there, and killed 41 pheasants, 74 hares, 24 rabbits, 8
woodcocks, and 8 partridges. He is a fine fellow, with an
excellent disposition, liberal, hospitable, frank and gay, quick
and intelligent, without cultivation, extravagant and imprudent,
with considerable aptitude for business; between spending and
speculating, buying property in one place, selling in another,
and declining to sell in a third, he has half ruined a noble

Just before I got there a murder had been committed close to his
house under very curious circumstances, of which some notice
appeared in the newspapers. A soldier in the Artillery got a
legacy of £500, with which he bought his discharge, went down to
the village near Runton, and took a very pretty girl of
indifferent character to live with him. He gave her shawls and
trinkets, and spent a good deal of money on her. Having addicted
himself immoderately to drink, he soon spent all his money, and,
to supply himself with the means of getting drunk, he began
robbing his mistress of the articles he had given her. It
happened that about this time somebody in the village who had
been robbed consulted a cunning man of great repute in the
neighbourhood, and so alarmed was the thief at the bare idea of
what this oracle might utter, that the stolen property was
secretly restored. The girl upon hearing of this restitution
resolved to have recourse to the cunning man, and invited her
lover to escort her to his abode. After endeavouring in vain to
dissuade her they set out together, but he was so overcome with
terror as he went along that he stopped short in the road and
refused to proceed. On this the girl said that it was easy to see
who was the thief, and that the reason he would not face the
conjuror was that he was conscious of his own guilt. Upon this
they fell to high words, then to blows, and he finished by
murdering her. He did not attempt to escape, but repaired to a
public-house, where he was soon after taken into custody. He
acknowledged the crime, and said he was weary of life, and
deserved to be hanged. Here is an example of the miserable
effects of good fortune upon a man who was unfit to use it, and
of the strange superstition of the common people. The murderer
will be tried at the next assizes.


I stayed at Runton till Sunday, 19th, when I came here,[7] where
there was nobody but the family and Ralph Sneyd. The place is
exceedingly beautiful, and arranged with excellent taste. It has
been very agreeable. Lady Harrowby is superior to all the women I
have ever known; 'her talk is so crisp,' as Luttrell once said of
her. She has no imagination, no invention, no eloquence, no deep
reading or retentive memory, but a noble, straightforward,
independent character, a sound and vigorous understanding,
penetration, judgment, taste. She is perfectly natural, open and
sincere, loves conversation and social enjoyment; with her
intimate friends there is an _abandon_ and unreserved communion
of thoughts, feelings, and opinions which renders her society
delightful. Of all the women I ever saw she unites the most
masculine mind with the most feminine heart. Lord Harrowby[8] has
all the requisites of disagreeableness, a tart, short, provoking
manner, with manners at once pert and rigid; but he is full of
information, and if made the best of may yield a good deal of
desirable knowledge. Though not illiberal in politics, he has
fallen into the high Tory despondency about the prospects of the
country, and anticipates every evil that the most timid alarmist
can suggest. Still, justice should be rendered to Lord Harrowby;
a purer and more disinterested statesman never existed. He was
always devoid of selfishness and ambition, honourable and
conscientious to a degree which rendered him incapable of a
sordid or oblique action. Always acute, but sometimes crotchety,
he had the same fault in politics which was the reproach of Lord
Eldon in law--indecision; and this in no small degree impaired
both his efficacy and his authority. His great idol was Pitt,
and, after him, he was the friend and admirer of Perceval. Bred
in their school, and a Tory by taste, by habit, and in opinion,
it is not a little to his honour that he was able to comprehend
the mighty changes which time and circumstances had effected, and
to perceive that an inflexible adherence to high Tory maxims was
dangerous, because their practical operation was no longer
possible; but justice must be rendered to him hereafter, for he
will never obtain it in his own time. By endeavouring to steer
between two great and exasperated factions he became thoroughly
obnoxious to both. After having refused the post of Prime
Minister, no one can doubt the sincerity of his desire to retire
from public life, and in the consciousness of rectitude, the
disgust of parties, and a calm and dignified philosophy, he finds
ample consolation for all the obloquy with which he has been

      [7] [This must have been written at Sandon, Lord Harrowby's
          seat in Staffordshire, but the entry is not dated.]

      [8] [Dudley Ryder, second Baron and first Earl of Harrowby,
          born in 1762; married in 1795 Susan, a daughter of the
          Marquis of Stafford.]

Burghley, January 28th, 1834 {p.053}

Came here yesterday, and found Lady Clinton, Lady Frederic
Bentinck, Lyne Stephens and Irby, not amusing. Captain Spencer
came to-day. I had almost forgotten the house, which is
surprisingly grand in all respects, though the living rooms are
not numerous or handsome enough. I just missed Peel, who went to
Belvoir yesterday. I heard wonderful things of railroads and
steam when I was in Staffordshire, yet by the time anybody reads
what I now write (if anybody ever does), how they will smile
perhaps at what I gape and stare at, and call wonderful, with
such accelerated velocity do we move on. Stephenson, the great
engineer, told Lichfield that he had travelled on the Manchester
and Liverpool railroad for many miles at the rate of a mile a
minute, that his doubt was not how fast his engines could be made
to go, but at what pace it would be proper to stop, that he could
make them travel with greater speed than any bird can cleave the
air, and that he had ascertained that 400 miles an hour was the
extreme velocity which the human frame could endure, at which it
could move and exist.

February 1st, 1834 {p.054}

Lord Wharncliffe has been here and is gone. He, like Harrowby, is
very dismal about the prospects of the country, and thinks we are
gravitating towards a revolution. He says that the constituency
of the great towns is composed of ultra-Radicals, and that no
gentleman with really independent and conservative principles can
sit for them, that the great majority of the manufacturers and of
the respectable persons of the middle class are moderate, and
hostile to subversion and violent measures, but that their
influence is overwhelmed by the numerical strength of the low
voters, who want to go all lengths. He says that he has received
greater marks of deference and respect in his own county, and
especially at Sheffield, where a short time ago he would have
been in danger of being torn in pieces, than he ever experienced,
but that he could no more bring a son in for Sheffield than he
could fly in the air. Sir John Beckett is just gone to stand for
Leeds, and certainly the catechism to which he was there forced
to submit is very ominous. A seat in the House of Commons will
cease to be an object of ambition to honourable and independent
men, if it can only be obtained by cringing and servility to the
rabble of great towns, and when it shall be established that the
member is to be a slave, bound hand and foot by pledges, and
responsible for every vote he gives to masters who are equally
tyrannical and unreasonable. I know nothing more difficult than
to form a satisfactory opinion upon the real state and prospects
of the country amidst the conflicting prejudices and impressions
of individuals of different parties and persuasions, and there
are so many circumstances that tell different ways, that at this
moment my judgment is entirely suspended on the subject.

[Page Head: STATE OF SPAIN.]

George Villiers gave a deplorable account of the state of Spain,
but he (unlike the Duke of Wellington) thinks that the only
chance of safety for the Queen is to make common cause with the
Liberals. He has been greatly instrumental to Zea's removal,
having conveyed to the Queen Regent that England by no means
considered his continuance in the Ministry indispensable, and
this intimation, together with the storm which assailed him from
all parts, determined her to dismiss him. Palmerston has never
written to George Villiers once since _October_. I heard the same
thing of him in some other case, I forget which.

February 6th, 1834 {p.055}

Returned to town yesterday from Newmarket, which I took in my way
from Burghley. Parliament had opened the day before, with a long
_nothingy_ (a word I have coined) speech from the throne, in
which the most remarkable points were a violent declaration
against O'Connell, that is, against Irish agitation, and strong
expressions of amity with France. It is comical to compare the
language of the very silly old gentleman who wears the crown, in
his convivial moments, and in the openness of his heart, with
that which his Ministers cram into his mouth, each sentiment
being uttered with equal energy and apparent sincerity. Lord Grey
is said to have made a very good speech on the Address. The House
of Commons has commenced with all the dulness imaginable, but it
was enlivened last night by a squabble on the Hill and Sheil
business[9] (dragged on by O'Connell), and the ultimate arrest of
Althorp and Sheil by the Serjeant-at-arms, a very foolish affair,
which must end as it began, in much declaiming and swearing, and
no positive conviction, though complete moral certitude. It
afforded much amusement, as everything personal does. The present
expectation is that the session will go off rather quietly.

      [9] [Mr. Hill, a member of Parliament, had stated in a
          speech that some of the Irish members most vehemently
          opposed to the Coercion Bill in the House of Commons
          had nevertheless privately stated to members of the
          Government that they were glad the Act should be
          renewed. This charge was denied with great heat by the
          Irish members in the House when Parliament met. But
          upon Mr. Sheil's calling upon Lord Althorp to state
          whether he was one of the members alluded to, Lord
          Althorp replied that the honourable gentleman was one
          of them. Sheil immediately denied it in the most solemn
          and emphatic terms; and as it was feared that a hostile
          meeting might ensue between him and Lord Althorp, they
          were both taken into custody by the Serjeant-at-arms.
          Further explanations ensued, and Lord Althorp
          subsequently withdrew the charge, stating that he
          believed Mr. Sheil's asseveration, and that he must
          himself have been misinformed.]

February 13th, 1834 {p.056}


It is observed by everybody that there never was a session of
Parliament which opened with such an appearance of apathy as
this. After the violent excitement which has almost incessantly
prevailed for the last two years or more, men's minds seem
exhausted, and though the undergrowl of political rancour is
still heard, and a feeble cry of the Church is in danger, on the
whole there is less bitterness and animosity, and a tolerably
fair promise that things will go on in a smooth and even course.
The storm that impended over Europe has blown off, and there
seems to be no danger of any interruption of the peace. Esterhazy
and Madame de Lieven both told me last night that they thought so
now, and the former that he had told Palmerston that we might
rely upon Austria's not being an indifferent spectator of the
political conduct of Russia, and if we would place confidence in
them, they would not only prevent any dangerous aggression on the
part of Russia in Europe, but would take such measures as should
contribute largely to the security of our Eastern dominions,
though that was no object of immediate interest to them. Madame
de Lieven told me that it was impossible to describe the contempt
as well as dislike which the whole corps diplomatique had for
Palmerston, and pointing to Talleyrand, who was sitting close by,
'surtout lui.' They have the meanest opinion of his capacity, and
his manners are the reverse of conciliatory. She cannot imagine
how his colleagues bear with him, and Lord Grey supports him
vehemently. The only _friend_ he has in the cabinet is Graham,
who has no weight. His unpopularity in his own office is quite as
great as it is among the foreign ministers, and he does nothing,
so that they do not make up in respect for what they want in
inclination. George Villiers complains that for above three
months he has not received a single line from him, and he is a
young minister, unpractised in the profession, to whom is
committed the most delicate and difficult mission in Europe. He
spends his time in making love to Mrs. P---- whom he takes to the
House of Commons to hear speeches which he does not make, and
where he exhibits his conquest, and certainly it is the best of
his exploits, but what a successor of Canning, whom by the way he
affects to imitate. What would be Canning's indignation if he
could look from his grave and see these new Reformers, who ape
him in his worst qualities, and who blunder and bluster in the
seat which he once filled with such glory and success. It must be
owned that we are in a curious condition, and if the character of
the Government, moral and intellectual, be analysed, it will
exhibit a very astonishing result: with a great deal of loose
talent of one sort or another scattered about it, but mixed with
so much alloy, that, compounded as it is, the metal seems very
base. However, we are not likely to get anything better, and
these people will very likely hammer on tolerably well.

Since Parliament met, the foolish business of Sheil and Hill has
been the sole topic of discussion, to the unspeakable disgust of
every sensible person in and out of the House. All feel the
embarrassment, the ridicule, the disgrace of such an occupation,
and the members of Parliament are provoked that the affair was
not strangled at the outset. The Speaker is now generally blamed
for not having prevented Althorp from answering O'Connell's
question, which he ought to have done, at least ought to have
warned the House of the consequences, when undoubtedly the matter
would have been stifled. They say Althorp did what he had to do
very well, like a gentleman and man of honour, and in excellent
style and taste, though many think he need not have said so much.
The committee began to sit yesterday; it was not a secret
committee, but they agreed to request members not to come in;
however, the tail would go in, and they found it would be a
difficult matter to exclude them, for which reason, and because
Sheil had no friend on the committee, they unanimously agreed
that the House should be invited to add O'Connell to it, and
after some difficulty raised by John Russell, this was consented

February 14th, 1834 {p.058}

Last night at Miss Berry's met Mrs. Somerville, the great
mathematician. I had been reading in the morning Sedgwick's
sermon on education, in which he talks of Whewell, Airy, and Mrs.
Somerville, mentioning her as one of the great luminaries of the
present day. The subject of astronomy is so sublime that one
shrinks into a sense of nothingness in contemplating it, and
can't help regarding those who have mastered the mighty process
and advanced the limits of the science as beings of another
order. I could not then take my eyes off this woman, with a
feeling of surprise and something like incredulity, all
involuntary and very foolish; but to see a mincing, smirking
person, fan in hand, gliding about the room, talking nothings and
nonsense, and to know that La Place was her plaything and Newton
her acquaintance, was too striking a contrast not to torment the
brain. It was Newton's mantle trimmed and flounced by Maradan.

February 17th, 1834 {p.058}

In the House of Commons the Sheil committee came to a sudden
termination. It was a silly and discreditable business, and
people were glad it ended. The course adopted was this: they took
the 'Examiner' newspaper, containing the paragraph inculpatory of
Sheil, and they called on Hill to prove his case. Hill called
witnesses, one of whom, Macaulay, refused to speak. He said he
would not repeat what had passed in private conversation. The
committee approved, and Hill threw up his case, held out his hand
'with strong emotion' to Sheil, made ample apologies, and Sheil
was acquitted. Then came the apologies in the House of Commons.
Peel told me that he was convinced Sheil really had never said
what was imputed to him; but that he said something tantamount,
though very loosely, is probable, and the people who had told
Althorp would not come forward to bear him out, so that he was
forced to apologise too, but he did it very reluctantly. The
Irishmen, however, had not done, and O'Dwyer (formerly a
reporter) attacked Pease, asked for explanations, his card and
address. Pease, who is a Quaker, said 'he gave no explanations
but on his legs in the House of Commons, had no card and no


But there was a more serious matter than Sheil and Hill's
trash--O'Connell's attack upon Baron Smith, the circumstances of
which exemplify the way the House of Commons is managed under
Althorp's auspices, and the general mode of proceeding of the
Government there. O'Connell gave notice of a motion for an address
to the Crown to remove the Baron. Government resolved to oppose it.
Littleton authorised Shaw to write to him and say so, and that he
would say nothing in the debate offensive to him, though he could
not but disapprove of his charge. Nobody thought of any support the
motion would receive beyond that of the tail. The Ministers came
down to the House in this mind. Stanley and Graham went away for
some purpose or other, and when they came back they found that
O'Connell had altered the terms of his motion, and that Althorp,
Littleton, and the Solicitor-General had agreed to support it; in
short, that O'Connell had laid a trap for them, and they had gone
ding-dong into it. Stanley was very angry and much annoyed, but the
thing being done he knocked under, and tried to bolster up the
business. Graham would not, and in a maudlin, stupid sort of speech
declared his opposition, which was honest enough. All this annoyed
the Government very much, and now O'Connell is said to be quite
satisfied with what he has done, and does not want to have a
committee, but (having thrown a slur on the Judge by the vote of
Parliament) to let the matter drop. Spring Rice also voted against
the Government, and said that he had never known a worse case since
he sat in Parliament, and that nothing could be more mischievous
than the effect such a vote would produce in Ireland. Scarlett,
Peel, and Spankie made very good speeches; Stanley, John Russell,
and Campbell as bad.


The same night Althorp made his financial statement, exhibiting a
surplus revenue and reduction of taxation, all very flourishing
and promising; but in announcing his intended reduction of the
House Tax, he said without any disguise that he did not think it
an objectionable tax, but that he took it off on account of the
clamour against it. Here are three exhibitions in one week, and
this is the Minister of our finances and organ of Government in
the House of Commons. No matter how he blunders in word or deed,
he smiles in dogged good-humour at ridicule or abuse; his
intentions are good, his mind is straightforward, and his
conscious rectitude, his personal popularity, enable him to
commit his blunders with impunity; but the authority of
Government suffers in his hands; maxims get into vogue which are
incompatible with good and strong government, and the effects of
his weakness and facility may be felt long after the cessation of
their immediate operation.

February 19th, 1834 {p.060}

Last night Whittle Harvey's motion on the Pension List. He made
admirable speeches; but had a majority of nine against him. This
division is not a bad exemplification of the state of parties and
of the House of Commons. Some of the Tories voted (in the
majority of course), many others would not. I asked one of them
(Henry Hope, a man of no consequence, certainly) if he was not
going to vote. 'No,' he said, 'I shall not vote, the Government
must manage their own business as they can.' He would not vote
against a proposition he must regard with the greatest aversion,
because he would thereby be supporting the Government and prefers
the chance of giving a victory to the Radicals, establishing a
dangerous principle, and doing a great injury to a host of
individuals, the greater part of whom are of his own party or
among his own friends, because he thinks that the result may be
productive of some embarrassment to Ministers. This is one of the
cases in which the conduct of Government has been such as their
bitterest enemies must applaud, when they risk their popularity
to support a very unsightly list of pensions, not granted by
themselves, or to their friends, from a sense of justice; and yet
these high Tories will not support them even in fighting such a
battle as this. On the other hand, the Government reject their
support when they might avail themselves of it against the
Radicals and ultra-Whigs, in such a case as that of Baron Smith
the other night; and so ill blood is constantly increasing
between them, while O'Connell and his tail and the Radical
blackguards sit by and chuckle at the evils these mutual
jealousies and antipathies produce. Richmond told me yesterday
that Stanley was greatly annoyed at Baron Smith's affair; but
finding the mischief done, and feeling the embarrassment that
would arise from his opposing Althorp, he threw himself into the
breach; said he had advised him never to do so again. The conduct
of Althorp, Littleton, and Campbell is inconceivable, unless it
were to give a fresh triumph to O'Connell (he has just carried
Dungarvan, Jacob _v._ Barron; 'it is the voice of _Jacob_ but the
hand of _Esau_'), who has had his own way hitherto in this
Parliament. In this business and in Sheil's he has done just what
he pleased, and made the Government appear in as pitiful a light
as he could possibly desire. O'Dwyer told the Speaker that
O'Connell had never expected _or even wished_ that Ministers
should give way to him to the extent they did.


Knatchbull has given notice of a motion to reverse the decision
for a committee on the case of Baron Smith, and in conjunction
with Peel. It must embarrass the Government, but it is not, I
think, judicious, because it is not the same question, and affords
them the opportunity of treating it on different grounds. In the
division last night the three Lennox's all voted with the
minority, brothers of a Cabinet Minister, and all their sisters
being on the Pension List. Molyneux was going out, and was
forcibly retained by Stanley. It looks as if the whipping in was
very unskilfully managed. Notwithstanding the present prosperity
and tranquillity, it is impossible not to be disturbed at the mode
in which business is conducted in the House of Commons, and at the
state and animus of parties, and above all at Althorp being the
leader there. His character is peculiarly fitted to do mischief in
these times, and his virtues are unfortunate, for they serve to
bolster him up, and to keep him where he is in spite of his
blunders. His temper is so admirable, his personal popularity so
great, that there is an impression that the House will be led by
him more easily than by Stanley, who alone, of the present
Government, could aspire to that post. Nobody imputes to Althorp a
spark of ambition, and ample credit is given him for the most
disinterested motives, and for making a great personal sacrifice
in retaining his present situation. The consciousness of this
makes him comparatively indifferent to victory or defeat, and
careless of that nice management which formerly was indispensable
in a leader. He seems totally blind to the consequences of his
errors, and the advantage that is taken of them by those who not
only meditate mischief to the Administration, but to the great
interests they are bound to protect. Occurrences and circumstances
that would have filled former leaders with vexation, and their
followers with dismay, seem to pass over him without ruffling his
serenity or alarming his mind. He acts as if in utter unconsciousness
of a restless spirit of popular aggrandisement, as if the House of
Commons was an innoxious and manageable machine, as if it was
sufficient to mean well, and he lets matters take their chance,
without any of that vigilant and systematic direction which, if
guided by a nice discrimination, might regulate the movements and
check the eccentricities of this vast and unruly body. Since the
opening of this session, all that he has said and done has proved
his utter unfitness for the place he occupies. First, his
imprudent answers to O'Connell, and the turn he gave to that
affair. Then, in bringing forward his financial statement, the
naïveté with which he admitted that he had submitted to the
clamour against the House Tax, and withdrawn it contrary to his
own judgment; then the facility with which he gave in to
O'Connell's motion about the Irish Judge, and threw over his
colleagues and his party without an apparent reason or motive. It
produces a feeling allied to despair, all security is at an end,
for that which would be produced by his good intentions is
destroyed by reflecting on his miserable judgment; half republican
in his principles, and incredulous of any danger to be apprehended
from the continual increase of popular influences in the House of
Commons, he does not perceive how much the authority of a leader
is diminished in his hands, and how difficult it will be for any
successor of his to gain that sort of ascendency which is
indispensable for the effective conduct of public business, and
the moral character of the Government. To effect this, besides
great talents, great tact, discretion, sagacity, and temper will
be required; more, I fear, than fall to the share of Stanley, who
is better qualified to be a debater than a leader. Moderate men,
who do not approve of this Government, but who do not desire to
turn them out, if they would only act upon tolerably conservative
principles, are thrown into despair by the behaviour of Althorp,
and regard with consternation the inevitable increase of anarchy
in the House of Commons, and consequent prevalence of Radical
principles, from the sluggish, inert, vacillating, unforeseeing
character he displays.[10]

     [10] [These remarks made at the time are not altogether just
          to Lord Althorp, and it is now well known from other
          sources, equally authentic, that he was more conscious
          than anyone else was of his own shortcomings, and
          passionately desirous to be released from office. But
          it was notorious that the retirement of Lord Althorp
          from the leadership of the House of Commons would be
          the signal for the dissolution of Earl Grey's
          Government, and so within a few months the result

February 22nd, 1834 {p.063}


Went to the House of Commons last night, where I have not been
for many years. A great change, and hardly a human being whose
face I knew. I heard the end of the debate on Chandos' motion,
when Peel gave O'Connell a severe dressing, and I heard the
debate on rescinding the order for a committee on Baron Smith.
Shaw, who held the Baron's brief, made a very fine speech, but
afforded a memorable example of the danger of saying too much,
and of the importance of knowing when to stop. Not contented with
a very powerful and eloquent appeal, which he wound up with an
energetic peroration, he suffered himself to be led away into a
tirade about O'Connell's enmity to religion, and instead of
ending as he might have done with shouts of applause, was coughed
and 'questioned' to the close. Stanley made a wretched speech;
O'Connell very bad, affecting to be moderate, he was only dull.
Peel spoke very shortly, but very well indeed. Peel's is an
enviable position; in the prime of life, with an immense fortune,
_facile princeps_ in the House of Commons, unshackled by party
connections and prejudices, universally regarded as the ablest
man, and with (on the whole) a very high character, free from the
cares of office, able to devote himself to literature, to
politics, or idleness, as the fancy takes him. No matter how
unruly the House, how impatient or fatigued, the moment he rises
all is silence, and he is sure of being heard with profound
attention and respect. This is the enjoyable period of his life,
and he must make the most of it, for when time and the hour shall
bring about his return to power, his cares and anxieties will
begin, and with whatever success his ambition may hereafter be
crowned, he will hardly fail to look back with regret to this
holiday time of his political career. How free and light he must
feel at being liberated from the shackles of his old connections,
and at being able to take any part that his sense of his own
interests or of the public exigencies may point out! And then the
satisfactory consciousness of being by far the most eminent man
in the House of Commons, to see and feel the respect he inspires
and the consideration he enjoys. It is a melancholy proof of the
decadence of ability and eloquence in that House, when Peel is
the first, and, except Stanley, almost the only real orator in
it. He speaks with great energy, great dexterity--his language is
powerful and easy; he reasons well, hits hard, and replies with
remarkable promptitude and effect; but he is at an immense
distance below the great models of eloquence, Pitt, Fox, and
Canning; his voice is not melodious, and it is a little
monotonous; his action is very ungraceful, his person and manner
are vulgar, and he has certain tricks in his motions which
exhibit that vulgarity in a manner almost offensive, and which is
only redeemed by the real power of his speeches. His great merit
consists in his judgment, tact and discretion, his facility,
promptitude, thorough knowledge of the assembly he addresses,
familiarity with the details of every sort of Parliamentary
business, and the great command he has over himself. He never was
a great favourite of mine, but I am satisfied that he is the
fittest man to be Minister, and I therefore wish to see him
return to power. Stanley told me yesterday how very glad they
were at having been defeated on Baron Smith's case, and that they
were thereby relieved from a great embarrassment. Times are
mightily altered, when such defeats and such scrapes produce no
effect upon Government, and when they can go on upon two
majorities of 4 and 8 and one defeat.

February 25th, 1834 {p.065}

There has been a meeting at Althorp's to-day, numerously
attended, in which he talked with some effect as it is said, the
audience having gone away in a humour to support Government. He
took occasion, on somebody hinting at the disunion among
themselves, to say that though there might exist differences of
opinion on some minor points, he believed there never had existed
a Cabinet of which the members were more firmly knit together by
private friendship and political concurrence.

It was Methuen who harangued, and who said that the meeting was
very unsatisfactory. Althorp began by saying that unless
gentlemen would more regularly and consistently support the
Government it could not be carried on, when Paul[11] rejoined
that the Government did not support itself, and that they seemed
divided. Moreover, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer
himself talked with so much doubt and uncertainty about reducing
particular taxes, he must not be surprised if everybody tried to
get what they could for themselves in the general scramble.

     [11] [Paul Methuen, Esq., M.P. for Wiltshire. It was to him
          that O'Connell made the memorable but somewhat profane
          retort, 'Paul, Paul, why persecutest thou me?']

There are letters from George Villiers to-day (not to me, but to
his mother), in which he gives a deplorable account of Spain,
that Carlos has a large party in the north, where the Queen's
person is odious, the monks have persuaded the people that she is
atheistical and republican, that she has not force enough to
crush the rebellion, and what she has is scattered on different
points, without being able to make any combined or vigorous
efforts, that she has no money. The Cortes is to be assembled,
but they (I suppose the Ministers) have rejected all good advice
on this subject, and nobody can anticipate the effect that will
be produced by 300 or 400 individuals meeting in a legislative
capacity. If Miguel had resolved to give effectual aid to Carlos,
and dashed into Spain, he might certainly have placed him on the
throne, and then secured him as a powerful ally to himself in his
own contest. Miguel's own case he (George Villiers) by no means
considers hopeless, thinks him much better off than Pedro was
when at Oporto. The stories of the Queen's[12] gallantries are
true. He does not say so _totidem verbis_, because he does not
dare, but he manages to convey as much in answer to a question
his mother asked him. He thinks that the great probability is
that universal anarchy will convulse that country with civil war
of the most destructive character, and that the provinces,
kingdoms, and districts will be arrayed against each other. The
Carlists of Spain being in the north, and those of France in the
south, it is very likely they will endeavour to make common
cause, in which case it will be difficult for France not to
interfere, so he thinks; so do not I, and am more disposed to
believe that Louis Philippe is too prudent to run his head into
such a hornet's nest, and that he will content himself with
keeping matters quiet in France, without meddling with the
Spanish disputes. He had not yet received any letters from

     [12] [Queen Christina the Regent is here meant. Queen
          Isabella II. was a young child.]

     [13] [Within a few days of the date of this note the
          Ministry of March 1st was formed in France, with M.
          Thiers (for the first time) at the head of it. The
          avowed object of that Minister was to induce the King
          to interfere more actively in Spain in conjunction with
          England, 'Nous entraînerons le Roi' was a boast he was
          heard to utter. But he utterly failed. Mr. Greville's
          prediction turned out to be correct, and in a few
          months Thiers was again out of office.]

February 26th, 1834 {p.067}


Horne, the late Attorney-General, seems likely to fall between
the stools. When Brougham proposed to him to take a puisne
judgeship, he said he had been an equity lawyer all his life, and
had no mind to enter on a course of common law, for which he was
not qualified, and proposed that he should not go the circuits,
and be Deputy-Speaker of the House of Lords. Brougham told him
there would be no difficulty, and then told Lord Grey he had
settled it with Horne, but did not tell him what Horne required.
The general movement was made, and when Horne desired to see Lord
Grey he told him that his terms could not be complied with, so he
became a victim to the trickery and shuffling of the Chancellor,
who wanted to get him out, and did not care how. I hear that his
colleagues are quite aware of all his tricks and his intrigues,
and have not the slightest confidence in him. He thinks of
nothing but the establishment of political power on the basis of
patronage, and accordingly he grasps at all he can. All the
commissions of enquiry which are set on foot afford him the means
of patronage, but I doubt all will not do. He is emasculated by
being in the House of Lords, and he will hardly get anybody to do
his business for him in the House of Commons.

                          CHAPTER XXIII.

Spain--Russia and Turkey--Sir R. Peel's Pictures--Peel and
  Stanley--Lord Brougham's Judicial Changes--Lord Brougham's
  Defence--Admission of Dissenters to the Universities--Lord
  Denman's Peerage--Growing Ascendency of Peel--An Apology for
  Lord Brougham--Personal Reflections--Crime in Dorsetshire--
  Spain and Portugal--Procession of the Trades' Unions--Lady
  Hertford's Funeral--Petition of the London University for a
  Charter--Repeal of the Union--Excitement of the King--Brougham
  and Eldon at the Privy Council--Duke of Wellington's Aversion
  to the Whigs--Lord Brougham and Lord Wynford--Fête at
  Petworth--Lord Brougham's Conduct on the Pluralities Bill--
  Crisis in the Cabinet--Prince Lieven recalled--Stanley, Graham,
  and the Duke of Richmond resign on the Irish Church Bill--
  History of the Crisis--Ward's Motion defeated by moving the
  previous question--Affairs of Portugal--Effects of the late
  Change--Oxford Commemoration--Peel's Declaration--Festival in
  Westminster Abbey--Don Carlos on his way to Spain--Stanley's
  'Thimble-rig' Speech--Resignation of Lord Grey--Mr. Greville's
  account of the Causes of his Retirement--The Government
  reconstituted by Lord Melbourne--Lord Duncannon Secretary of

March 12th, 1834 {p.068}

I have been laid up with the gout for the greater part of a
fortnight, but went to Newmarket for two days to get well, and
succeeded. Weather like summer, nothing particularly new, a long
debate on the Corn Laws, which being called an open question, the
Ministers voted different ways--that is, all the Cabinet voted
one way, but the underlings took their own course. Half the
Ruralists are furious with Government for their indecision and
way of acting on this question, but I am so totally ignorant upon
it that I cannot enter into their indignation, or exactly
understand from what it proceeds. It was pretty to see Graham and
Poulett Thomson, like two game-cocks got loose from one pen,
pecking at and spurring one another. Everybody agrees that the
debate was very dull, and that is all they do agree upon.

George Villiers writes to his family from Spain, that nothing can
be worse and more unpromising than the state of that country.
Notwithstanding his Liberal opinions and desire to see a system of
constitutional freedom established in the Peninsula, he is obliged
to confess that Spain is not fit for such a boon, and that the
materials do not exist out of which such a social edifice can be
constructed. He regards with dismay and sorrow the tendency
towards irremediable confusion and political convulsions, and sees
no daylight through the dark prospect. He appears to regret Zea,
to whose removal he contributed, and finds more difficulties in
dealing with the present Ministers than he had with him.

March 14th, 1834


There is a fresh _démêlé_ with Russia on account of a new treaty
concluded by Achmet Pacha at St. Petersburg. By this Russia
agrees to remit six millions of the ten which Turkey owes her,
and to give up the Principalities, but she keeps the fortress of
Silistria and the military road, which gives her complete command
over them. The Sultan, 'not to be outdone in generosity,' in
return for so much, kindly cedes to Russia a slip of sea-coast on
the Black Sea, adjoining another portion already ceded by the
Treaty of Adrianople as far south as Poti. This territorial
acquisition is not considerable in itself, but it embraces the
line of communication with Persia, by which we have a vast
traffic, and which Russia will be able at any time to interrupt.
This new transaction, so quietly and plausibly effected, has
thrown our Government into a great rage, and especially his
Majesty King William, who insisted upon a dozen ships being sent
off forthwith to the Mediterranean. Nothing vigorous, however,
has been done, and Palmerston has contented himself with writing
to Lord Ponsonby, desiring him to exhort the Sultan not to ratify
this treaty, and rather to pay (or more properly, continue to
owe) the whole ten millions than accede to the wily proposal.
This advice will probably seem more friendly than disinterested,
and I have not the slightest idea of the Sultan's listening to
it. He has, in fact, become the vassal of Russia, and his lot is
settled in this respect, for from Russia he has most to fear and
most to hope. The conduct of our Government in this question, has
been marked by nothing but negligence and indecision, vainly
blustering and threatening at one moment and tamely submitting
and acquiescing at another, 'willing to wound and yet afraid to
strike,' treating Russia as if she was the formidable foe of
Turkey, and allowing her so to act as to make Turkey think her an
ally and protectress, and finally to throw herself into Russia's

I went yesterday morning to Peel's house, to see his pictures;
since we met at Buckenham we have got rather intimate. The fact
is that, though I have never been a great admirer of his
character, and probably he is not improved in high-mindedness, I
am so sensible of his capacity, and of the need in which we stand
of him, that I wish to see him again in power, and he is a very
agreeable man into the bargain. His collection is excellent, and
does honour to his taste. We talked of various matters, but the
thing that struck me most was what he said had passed between him
and Stanley the night before indicative of such good feeling
between them. It was about the job of Lord Plunket's with regard
to the Deanery of Down (concerning which they say there is a very
good case; not that it will do, be it ever so good, for Plunket
has a bad name, and public opinion will not pause or retract in
any concern of his). He and Stanley met at Madame de Lieven's
ball, and Peel said to him, 'Why did you let that appointment
take place?' Stanley replied, 'The fact is, I could not give the
true and only excuse for Plunket, viz., that he had signed the
report, but had never read it.' Peel said, 'You had better give
him some other deanery and cancel this appointment.' They talked
for a long time, but this tone and this advice exhibit a state of
sentiment by no means incompatible with a future union, when
matters are ripe for it. I found Peel full of curiosity to know
for what purpose Brougham and Denman had been hunting each other
about the County of Beds. The Chief Justice was on the circuit at
Bedford, and the Chancellor sent to him by special messenger to
appoint a meeting. The Chancellor went to Ampthill, and then to
Bedford. The Chief Justice had left Bedford in the morning, and
went towards London. Brougham had left his carriage at Ampthill
and hired a job one, that he might enter Bedford incognito.
Somewhere between Barnet and St. Albans they met, and returned to
town together in the Chancellor's job coach. They went to Lord
Grey's, and the next day Denman returned to the circuit, which he
had left without notice to his brother judge or to anybody--a

March 16th, 1834 {p.071}


Heard last night the explanation of the above. Brougham found
that Williams would not do in the Exchequer, so he shuffled up
the judges and redealt them. Williams was shoved up to the Common
Pleas, Bosanquet sent to the King's Bench, and James Parke put
into the Exchequer. I thought this was odd, because the Exchequer
is an inferior court; but I was told that Parke likes to be with
Lord Lyndhurst, who has now made the Court of Exchequer of
primary importance. 48,000 writs were issued from the Exchequer
last year, and only 39,000 from the King's Bench. I forget what
the proportions used to be, but enormously the other way. It is
quite ludicrous to talk to any lawyer about the Chancellor; the
ridicule and aversion he has excited are universal. They think he
has degraded the profession, and his tricks are so palpable,
numerous, and mean, that political partiality can neither screen
nor defend them. As to the separation of the judicial from the
ministerial duties of his office, it is in great measure
accomplished without any legislative act, for nobody ever thinks
of bringing an original cause into his Court. He has nothing to
hear but appeals, which _must_ come before him, and lunacy and
other matters, over which he has sole jurisdiction.

March 19th, 1834 {p.071}

The night before last Sheil brought on a debate on the Turkish
question, when Palmerston made a wretched speech, and Peel
attacked him very smartly, as it is his delight to do, for he
dislikes Palmerston. Talleyrand said to me last night, 'Palmerston
a très-bien parlé.' I told him everybody thought it pitiable. He
certainly took care to flatter France and not to offend Russia. In
the Lords Brougham took occasion, in replying to some question of
Ellenborough's, to defend himself from the charges which have been
brought against him of negligence and incapacity in his judicial
office, and he made out a good case for himself as far as industry
and despatch are concerned. Nobody ever denied him the merit of
the former quality. The virulent attacks of the Tory press (that
is, of the 'Morning Post,' by Praed, for the 'Standard' rather
defends him) have overshot their mark, and, though the general
opinion of the Bar seems to condemn him as a bad Chancellor, he is
probably not near so bad as they endeavour to make him out. A mind
so vigorous as his will master difficulties in a short time at
which an inferior capacity would in vain hammer away for years;
but his life, habits, and turn of mind seem all incompatible with
profound law-learning. He said to Sefton, after he had spoken,
'They had better leave me alone. I was afraid that when
Londonderry was gone nobody would attack me, and I did not think
Ellenborough would have been damned fool enough.' They certainly
can't get the best of him at the _gab_.

George Villiers continues to give a deplorable account of Spanish
affairs--of the imbecility of the Government, and of the conduct
of the Queen, about whom the stories of gallantry are quite true,
and he says it has done irreparable injury to her cause. An
embassy had arrived from Pedro, with a proposition that they
should concert a combined operation for crushing the Miguelites
and the Carlists both, beginning with the former. George Villiers
seems to think it feasible, but doubts if the Spanish Government
has sufficient energy and courage to undertake such an operation.

March 25th, 1834 {p.072}


Dined with Peel on Saturday; a great dinner with the Duke of
Gloucester and the Ambassadors. The day before, in the House of
Lords, Lord Grey presented a petition from certain members of the
University of Cambridge, praying for the admission of Dissenters
to take degrees, which he introduced with a very good speech. The
Duke of Gloucester, who, as Chancellor of the University, ought
properly to have said whatever there was to say, was not there (in
which Silly Billy did a wise thing), so the Duke of Wellington
rose to speak in his stead. It may have been that considering
himself to stand in the Duke of Gloucester's shoes, he could not
make too foolish a speech, and accordingly he delivered one of
those harangues which make men shrug their shoulders with pity or
astonishment. It is always a matter of great regret to me when he
exposes himself in this manner. After dinner at Peel's I talked to
Lyndhurst about it, who said, 'Unlucky thing that Chancellorship
of Oxford; it will make him commit himself in a very inconvenient
manner. The Duke is so very obstinate; if he thought that it was
possible to act any longer upon those High Church principles it
would be all very well, but you have transferred power to a class
of a lower description, and particularly to the great body of
Dissenters, and it is obvious that those principles are now out of
date; the question is, under the circumstances, What is best to be
done?' Lord Ellenborough entirely threw the Duke over, and made a
very good speech, agreeing to the prayer of the petitioners, with
the reservation only of certain securities which Lord Grey himself
approves of. I dined with him the day following, and he said so,
adding at the same time, 'though I dare say they will consider
them as an insult, and make great complaints at their imposition.
However, I don't care for that, and if they don't choose to accept
what is offered them on such conditions, they may go without it.'
There are two things which strike one (at least strike me) in the
discussion--that of the two principal actors the Duke of
Wellington is incomparably a man of a more vigorous understanding,
and of greater firmness, energy, and decision than Lord Grey, but
that Lord Grey appears like an accomplished orator, and prudent,
sagacious, liberal statesman, while the other exhibits bigoted,
narrow-minded views, ignorance almost discreditable, and nothing
but a blind zeal in deference to the obstinate prejudices of the
academical body with which he has connected himself. Who would
imagine (who heard the two men and knew nothing more of them) that
the latter is in reality immensely superior to the former in mind
and understanding? Nor must it be supposed that the Duke of
Wellington, if he came into power, would act in a manner
corresponding with his declared opinions. Very far from it; he
would do just as he did with regard to the Test Act and the
Catholic question, and if he was at the head of the Government, he
would calculate what sort and amount of concession it was
necessary to make, and would make it, without caring a farthing
about the University of Oxford or his own former speeches. The
'Times' in its remarks on his speech was very insolent, but
excessively droll.

Denman's peerage is much abused; it is entirely the Chancellor's
doing. Denman has no fortune and a feeble son to succeed him, and
it was hoped that the practice of making all the Chief Justices
Peers would have been discontinued in his person. Brougham wrote
to Lyndhurst, ostensibly to inform him of this event, but really
to apologise for the misstatements he had made in his speech
about the business he (Lyndhurst) had done in the House of Lords
and in the Court of Chancery. Lyndhurst said (to me), 'What
nonsense it is. He has done all he could do, and so did his
predecessors before him; he has sat as long as he could, and if
he has not got through as much business it is because counsel
have made longer speeches, for I am told his practice is never to
interrupt them, to take away his papers, and come down a few days
after and deliver a written judgment.'

On Sunday at dinner at Lord Grey's I sat next to Charles Grey,
who talked of the House of Commons, and said that there could be
no question of Peel's superiority over everybody there, that
Stanley had not done so well this session, had displayed so much
want of judgment now, as well as formerly, that he was evidently
not fit to be leader. He owned that Peel's conduct was very fair
as well as prudent, and said that if his father was to resign, he
himself, and he believed many others, would be willing to support
a Government headed by Peel. It is remarkable how men's minds are
gradually turning to Peel. I was amused yesterday with Poulett
Thomson, who told me that Peel had been very courteous to him,
and that they had some important points of coincidence of
opinion; that Peel did not like Graham, Palmerston, or Grant, but
to the rest of the Government he was remarkably civil. I think he
reckons without his host if he calculates upon Peel's politeness
extending to the offer of a place to our Vice-President in the
event of his coming in.

March 29th, 1834 {p.075}


At the beginning of the week there was a discussion in the House
of Commons which lasted for three mornings on the Cambridge
petition. Spring Rice, O'Connell, Stanley, and Palmerston spoke
for it; Goulburn, Inglis, and Peel against it. Old Cobbett made as
mischievous a speech as he could to blow the coals between the
parties. Peel spoke last, and as usual very well; but several
people expected he would have supported it, and have abstained
(from prudential motives) from saying anything likely to offend
the Dissenters. I expected no such thing; he was not violent, and
addressed his argument to the weak parts of his adversaries'
speeches rather than against the general principles of toleration;
and I still think that when the great question of concessions to
the Dissenters comes to be argued he will not be found in the
ranks of their virulent and uncompromising opponents. It would
have been an extraordinary thing indeed if he had all of a sudden
stood forth in the character of an anti-Churchman, for such he
especially would have been considered if he had united himself
with the petitioners, and he would have disgusted and alienated
all the High Churchmen and High Tories to a degree which must have
made a fresh and irreconcilable breach between them. This would
not have been judicious in his position, and I am satisfied that
he took the most prudent course. I am the more satisfied of it
from the circumstance that his speech by no means gave unalloyed
pleasure to the 'Standard,' which is the organ of the High Church
party. I feel it a strange thing to find myself the advocate and
admirer of Peel; but there is such a dearth of talent, his
superiority is so obvious, and it is so very desirable that
something like strength should be infused into the Government,
that I am compelled to overlook his faults without being the least
blind to them. I ascribe to him no more elevation of character
than I did before; but we must take what we can get and make use
of the existing materials, and for this reason I watch with
anxiety his conduct, because I am persuaded that he is under
present circumstances our best and only refuge.

The Vice-Chancellor[1] called on me the other day, and talking
over the business that had been done by Brougham, and the recent
discussion about it, he said that he had taken the trouble to
examine the returns of hearings, decrees, and orders, and he found
that there was scarcely a shade of difference between what had
been done severally by Eldon, Lyndhurst, and Brougham in equal
spaces of time. (Eldon and Lyndhurst had the Bankruptcy business
besides.) This is a clear case for the Chancellor, and it is only
fair that it should be known. His friends think him much altered
in spirits and appearance; he has never shaken off his unhappiness
at his brother's death, to whom he seems to have been tenderly
attached. It is only justice to acknowledge his virtues in private
life, which are unquestionably conspicuous. I am conscious of
having often spoken of him with asperity, and it is some
satisfaction to my conscience to do him this justice. When the
greatest (I will not say the best) men are often influenced by
pique or passion, by a hundred petty feelings which their
philosophy cannot silence or their temperament obeys, it is no
wonder that we poor wretches who are cast in less perfect moulds
should be still more liable to these pernicious influences; and it
is only by keeping an habitual watch over our own minds and
thoughts, and steadily resolving never to be turned from
considerations of justice and truth, that we can hope to walk
through life with integrity and impartiality. I believe what I
have said of Brougham to be correct in the main--that he is false,
tricking, ambitious, and unprincipled, and as such I will show him
up when I can--but though I do not like him and he has offended
me--that is, has wounded my vanity (the greatest of all
offences)--I only feel it the more necessary on that account to be
on my guard against my own impressions and prejudices, and to take
every opportunity of exhibiting the favourable side of the
picture, and render justice to the talents and virtues which
cannot be denied him.

      [1] [Sir Lancelot Shadwell, Vice-Chancellor of England.]

April 3rd, 1834 {p.077}


Yesterday I was forty years old, an anniversary much too
melancholy to think of; and when I reflect how intolerably these
forty years have been wasted, how unprofitably spent, how little
store laid up for the future, how few the pleasurable recollections
of the past, a feeling of pain and humiliation comes across me
that makes my cheeks tingle and burn as I write. It is very seldom
that I indulge in moralising in this Journal of mine; if anybody
ever reads it, what will they care for my feelings and regrets? It
is no reason, they will think, that because I have wasted my time
they should waste theirs in reading the record of follies which
are nothing more than the great mass of the world are every day
committing; idleness, vanity, and selfishness are our besetting
sins, and we are perpetually whirled about by one or other of
them. It is certainly more amusing, both to other people and to
myself (when I look back at what I have written), to read the
anecdotes and events of the day than all this moral stuff (by
which I mean stuff as applied to me, not as being despicable in
itself), but every now and then the fancy takes me, and I think I
find relief by giving vent on paper to that which I cannot say to
anybody. 'Cela fait partie de cette doctrine intérieure qu'il ne
faut jamais communiquer' (Stendhal). _Jam satis est_, and I will
go to other things--the foreign or domestic scraps I have picked

Parliament being _en relâche_, there are few people in town.
William Ponsonby, whom I met the other evening, told me he had
just returned from the assizes at Dorchester, where some men had
been convicted of illegal association. On the event of this
trial, he said, the lower and labouring classes had their eyes
fixed, and the conviction was therefore of great consequence; any
relaxation of the sentence would have been impossible under the
circumstances, and though a great disposition was evinced, partly
by the press, by petitions, and by some speeches in Parliament,
to get them left off more easily, Melbourne very wisely did not
wait for more manifestations, but packed them off, and they are
gone. William Ponsonby told me that the demoralisation in that
part of the country is very great--the distress not severe, no
political disaffection, but a recklessness, a moral obtuseness,
exceedingly disgusting. There was a certain trial, or rather case
(for the grand jury could not find a bill), in which a woman had
murdered a child, got by her son out of a girl who lodged in her
cottage. The only evidence by which she could have been convicted
would have been that of the son himself, and he refused to speak.
The crime went unpunished; but I mention this to introduce what
grew out of it. One of the lawyers said that in the course of the
investigations which this case had occasioned it had been
discovered (though not in a way which admitted of any proofs
being adduced and any measures adopted upon it) that there was a
woman whose trade was to get rid of bastard children, either by
procuring abortions or destroying them when born, and that she
had a regular price for either operation.[2] I don't suppose that
the average state of morals is much worse in one county than in
another; but it is very remarkable that while education has been
more widely diffused than heretofore, and there is a strong
Puritanical spirit at work and vast talk about religious
observances, there should be such a brutish manifestation of the
moral condition of the lower classes, and that they should be
apparently so little humanised and reclaimed by either education
or religion. In this country all is contrast--contrast between
wealth the most enormous and poverty the most wretched, between
an excess of sanctity and an atrocity of crime.

      [2] [The same thing was proved more than thirty years
          later, on the trial of Charlotte Winsor, who eventually
          escaped the fate she deserved on the ground of some
          legal technicality which was taken up to the House of
          Lords, and though it was decided against the prisoner,
          the Government refused, after a considerable lapse of
          time, to have her executed.]

George Villiers and Howard write equally bad accounts from their
respective Courts, neither seeing any hope of the termination of
the Peninsular contests, and each of them alike disgusted with
the men they have to deal with. Howard says that we could put an
end to the Portuguese affair whenever we chose, and that they
would submit to British power without thinking it a degradation;
that Miguel is not popular in Portugal, but that the priests have
made a crusade against Pedro and Liberal principles, and that
they drive the peasantry into the Miguelite ranks by the terrors
of excommunication; that the only reason why Pedro's military
operations are successful is that he has got an English corps,
against which the Portuguese will not fight.

April 21st, 1834 {p.079}


At Buckenham and Newmarket for the last fortnight, and all things
forgotten but racing. Seymour Bathurst's sudden death called me
up to town on Tuesday night, to go to Court on Wednesday. Then I
saw the Duke of Wellington march up at the head of the Doctors to
present the Oxford petition, attired in his academical robes; and
as I looked at him thus bedight, and then turned my eyes to his
portraits in the pictures of his battles which adorn the walls, I
thought how many and various were the parts he had played. He
made a great boggling of reading his petition, for it was on a
long and broad parchment, and he required both hands to hold it
and one to hold his glasses. This is the day for the procession
of the Trade Unions, and all London is alive with troops,
artillery and police. I don't suppose anything will happen, and
so much has the general alarm of these Unions subsided that there
is very little apprehension, though some curiosity to see how it
goes off.

April 23rd, 1834 {p.079}

Nothing could go off more quietly than the procession on Monday.
There were about 25,000 men, mostly well dressed, no noise or
tumult, a vast crowd. It was a failure altogether; Melbourne's
answer was good. They say 250,000 men are enrolled in the Unions,
and the slang name for those who won't belong to them is 'dungs;'
the intimidation used is great. There was quite as great a crowd
assembled yesterday to see old Lady Hertford's funeral go by. The
King sent all the royal carriages, and every other carriage in
London was there, I believe--a pompous piece of folly, and the
King's compliment rather a queer one, as the only ground on which
she could claim such an honour was that of having been George
IV.'s mistress. Brougham made one of his exhibitions in the House
of Lords the other night about the Cambridge petition, quizzing
the Duke of Gloucester with mock gravity. It was very droll and
very witty, I fancy, but very unbecoming his station. Last night
O'Connell spoke for five hours on the repeal of the Union.

April 25th, 1834 {p.080}


Yesterday the Privy Council met to hear the London University
petition, praying for a charter, and the counter-petitions of
Oxford and Cambridge and the medical bodies. The assemblage was
rather curious, considering the relative political position of
some of the parties. All the Cabinet Ministers were summoned;
Lords Grey and Holland were there, the Chancellor, Denman,
Lyndhurst, Eldon, the two Archbishops, and the Bishop of London.
Old Eldon got a fall as he came into the house and hurt his head.
Brougham and the rest were full of civilities and tenderness, but
he said 'it was of no consequence, for the _brains_ had been
knocked out long ago.' Wetherell made an amusing speech, and did
not conclude. It is seldom that the sounds of merriment are heard
within those walls, but he made the Lords laugh and the gallery
too. There were Allen of Holland House and Phillpotts sitting
cheek by jowl to hear the discussion.

May 11th, 1834 {p.080}

More than three weeks, and _rebus Newmarketianis versatus_, I
have written nothing. The debate on the repeal of the Union was
more remarkable for the length than the excellence of the
speeches, except Spring Rice's, which was both long and good, and
Peel's, the latter supereminently so. O'Connell spoke for five
hours and a quarter, and Rice for six hours; each occupied a
night, after the manner of American orators. The minority was
much smaller than was expected. Since that the only question of
consequence in the House of Commons has been the Pension List, on
which Government got a larger majority than they had hoped for,
and such an one as to set the matter at rest for some time. Peel
again spoke very well, and old Byng made a very independent,
gentlemanlike speech. Independence now-a-days relates more to
constituents than to the governing power. Nobody is suspected of
being dependent on the Crown or the Minister, and the question is
if a man be independent of the popular cry or of his own

The King has been exhibiting some symptoms of a disordered mind,
not, however, amounting to anything like actual derangement, only
morbid irritability and activity--reviewing the Guards and
_blowing up_ people at Court. He made the Guards, both horse and
foot, perform their evolutions before him; he examined their
barracks, clothes, arms, and accoutrements, and had a musket
brought to him, that he might show them the way to use it in some
new sort of exercise he wanted to introduce; in short, he gave a
great deal of trouble and made a fool of himself. He was very
angry with Lord de Saumarez for not attending Keat's funeral, and
still more angry because he would begin explaining and apologizing,
first at the levee and then at the drawing-room; and he
reprehended him very sharply at both places. An explanation
afterwards took place through Lord Camden, to whom he said that he
was angry because de Saumarez would prate at the levee, when he
told him that it was not a proper place for discussing the

The debate at the Council Board terminated after two more days'
speaking. It was tiresome on the whole. Brougham is a bad
presiding judge, for he will talk so much to the counsel, and
being very anxious to abbreviate the business, he ought to have
avoided saying pungent things, which elicited rejoinders and
excited heat. The extreme gravity and patient attention of old
Eldon struck me forcibly as contrasted with the air of _ennui_,
the frequent and audible yawns, and the flippant and sarcastic
interruptions of the Chancellor. Wetherell made a very able
speech, which he afterwards published. The most striking incident
occurred in an answer of Bickersteth's to one of the Chancellor's
interruptions. He said, talking of degrees, 'Pray, Mr. Bickersteth,
what is to prevent the London University granting degrees _now_?'
to which, he replied, 'The universal scorn and contempt of
mankind.' Brougham said no more; the effect was really fine. There
was a little debate upon Portugal in the House of Commons on
Friday, in which Palmerston got roughly handled by Baring. A
report was believed that Don Carlos had sailed for England, and
that an agreement had been concluded between Miguel and Pedro, but
it turned out to be false. Nobody, however, doubts that the
quadruple alliance will settle the Portuguese business, if not the

May 12th, 1834 {p.082}

There was a report yesterday that Palmerston was out and Durham
in his place. The latter was under the gallery when Palmerston
made that woful exhibition the other night, and must have been
well satisfied. I met Peel at dinner yesterday, and after it he
talked to me of this report, which he concluded was not true; but
he said that Palmerston had seemed bereft of his senses, and that
in his speech he had attempted a new line quite unusual with
him--that of humour--and anything so miserable he had never
heard. He then talked of Stanley; expressed his indignation at
hearing O'Connell bepraised by the men he is always vilifying,
especially by Stanley himself, of whom he had spoken in the early
part of the same night in such terms as these: 'The honourable
gentleman, with his usual disregard of veracity, ...' and again
'he attacked him, but took care how he attacked others, who he
knew were not restrained by obligations such as he was under to
bear with his language;' in other words, calling him a liar and a
coward; and after this Stanley condescended to flatter him and
applaud his speech. He said that he had expected better things of
Stanley, and was really distressed to hear it.


I dined with the Duke of Wellington on Saturday. Arbuthnot was
there, and he said the Duke is in a state of unutterable disgust
with the present Government and their proceedings, particularly
with their foreign policy, which he fancies they shape in
systematic and wilful opposition to his own. This, of course, is
merely his imagination, and rather a preposterous notion. He says
the Duke does not think well of the state of the country, but
that he grasps with eagerness at any symptoms of returning or
increasing prosperity, and (what is rather inconsistent with his
bad opinion of affairs) he is always telling the foreigners (i.e.
the Ambassadors) who talk to him that they will fall into a great
error if they think the power or resources of England in any way
impaired. His antipathy to the Whigs, is, however, invincible,
and of very ancient date, as this proves. Arbuthnot said that he
was looking over a box of papers the other day, and hit upon the
copy of a letter he had written to Lord Liverpool, by desire of
some of his principal colleagues, to dissuade him from quitting
office, which, he thought of doing at the time of the first Lady
Liverpool's death. With it there was a scrap on which was
written, 'Taken down from the Duke of Wellington's own lips;' and
this was an argument that, in the event of his refusing, he (the
Duke) should think himself at liberty to join any other party or
set of men, but that his great object was to keep the Whigs out
of power, as he was convinced that whenever they got in they
would ruin the country. Lord Liverpool said that they (The
Tories) had been too long in possession of the Government.

May 23rd, 1834 {p.083}

Newmarket, Epsom, and so forth. Nothing remarkably new. In the
House of Commons the Poor Law Bill has been going on smoothly; in
the House of Lords little of note but one of Brougham's
exhibitions. Old Wynford brought in a very absurd Bill for the
better observance of the Sabbath (an old sinner he, who never
cared three straws for the Sabbath), which Brougham attacked with
excessive virulence and all his powers of ridicule and sarcasm.
His speech made everybody laugh, very heartily, but on a
division, the Bishops all voting with Wynford, the latter carried
the second reading by three in a very thin House. The next day
the Chancellor came down with a protest, written in his most
pungent style, very smart, but more like a bit of an article in
the 'Edinburgh Review' than a Parliamentary protest. Wynford was
in the House when he entered his protest, and he called out to
him, 'Holloa, _Best_, look at my protest!'

There is a very strong impression abroad that the King is
cracked, and I dare say there is some truth in it. He gets so
very choleric, and is so indecent in his wrath. Besides his
squabble with old Lord de Saumarez, he broke out the other day at
the Exhibition (Somerset House). They were showing him the
pictures, and Sir Martin Shee (I believe, but am not sure),
pointing out Admiral Napier's, said, 'That is one of our naval
heroes; to which his Majesty was pleased to reply that if he
served him right he should kick him downstairs for so terming
him. But the maddest thing of all is what appeared in the
'Gazette' of Tuesday--the peerage conferred on ----. She is a
disreputable, half-mad woman! he, perhaps, thought it fair to
give her this compensation for not being Queen, for he wanted to
marry her, and would have done so if the late king would have


On Monday last I went to Petworth, and saw the finest _fête_ that
could be given. Lord Egremont has been accustomed some time in
the winter to feast the poor of the adjoining parishes (women and
children, not men) in the riding-house and tennis court, where
they were admitted by relays. His illness prevented the dinner
taking place; but when he recovered he was bent upon having it,
and, as it was put off till the summer, he had it arranged in the
open air, and a fine sight it was; fifty-four tables, each fifty
feet long, were placed in a vast semicircle on the lawn before
the house. Nothing could be more amusing than to look at the
preparations. The tables were all spread with cloths, and plates,
and dishes; two great tents were erected in the middle to receive
the provisions, which were conveyed in carts, like ammunition.
Plum puddings and loaves were piled like cannon balls, and
innumerable joints of boiled and roast beef were spread out,
while hot joints were prepared in the kitchen, and sent forth as
soon as the firing of guns announced the hour of the feast.
Tickets were given to the inhabitants of a certain district, and
the number was about 4,000; but, as many more came, the old Peer
could not endure that there should be anybody hungering outside
his gates, and he went out himself and ordered the barriers to be
taken down and admittance given to all. They think 6,000 were
fed. Gentlemen from the neighbourhood carved for them, and
waiters were provided from among the peasantry. The food was
distributed from the tents and carried off upon hurdles to all
parts of the semicircle. A band of music paraded round, playing
gay airs. The day was glorious--an unclouded sky and soft
southern breeze. Nothing could exceed the pleasure of that fine
old fellow; he was in and out of the windows of his room twenty
times, enjoying the sight of these poor wretches, all attired in
their best, cramming themselves and their brats with as much as
they could devour, and snatching a day of relaxation and
happiness. After a certain time the women departed, but the park
gates were thrown open: all who chose came in, and walked about
the shrubbery and up to the windows of the house. At night there
was a great display of fireworks, and I should think, at the time
they began, not less than 10,000 people were assembled. It was
altogether one of the gayest and most beautiful spectacles I ever
saw, and there was something affecting in the contemplation of
that old man--on the verge of the grave, from which he had only
lately been reprieved, with his mind as strong and his heart as
warm as ever--rejoicing in the diffusion of happiness and finding
keen gratification in relieving the distresses and contributing
to the pleasures of the poor. I thought how applicable to him,
_mutatis mutandis_, was that panegyric of Burke's on the Indian
kings: 'delighting to reign in the dispensation of happiness
during the contracted space of human life, strained with all the
reachings and graspings of a vivacious mind to extend the
dominion of his bounty ... and to perpetuate himself from
generation to generation as the guardian, the protector, the
nourisher of mankind.'

May 24th, 1834 {p.085}

The Chancellor, who loves to unbosom himself to Sefton because he
knows the latter thinks him the finest fellow breathing, tells
him that it is nuts to him to be attacked by noble Lords in the
Upper House, and that they had better leave him alone if they
care for their own hides. Since he loves these assaults, last
night he got his bellyful, for he was baited by a dozen at least,
and he did not come out of the _mêlée_ so chuckling and happy as
usual. The matter related to the Pluralities Bill, which he had
introduced some nights before, in an empty House, without giving
notice, and after having told many people (the Archbishop of York
among others) that there was nothing more to be done that night.
In short, he was at his tricks again, lying and shuffling, false
and then insolent, and all for no discernible end. The debate
exhibits a detail of his misstatements, and of all his wriggling
and plunging to get out of the scrape he had got himself into. It
is because scarcely any or rather no motive was apparent that it
is with difficulty believed that he meant to deceive anybody. But
it is in the nature of the man; he cannot go straightforward;
some object, no matter how trivial, presents itself to his busy
and distempered mind, and he immediately begins to think by what
artifice and what underhand work he can bring it about; and thus
he exposes himself to the charges of dishonourable conduct
without any adequate consideration or cause. He reminds me of the
man in 'Jonathan Wild' who was a rogue by force of habit, who
could not keep his hand out of his neighbour's pocket though he
knew there was nothing in it, nor help cheating at cards though
he was aware he should not be paid if he won. It is thought that
the exhibition of last night will not be without its influence
upon the fate of this Administration.

May 27th, 1834 {p.086}


The Government is on the very brink of dissolution. The Irish
Church Bill is the immediate cause, Stanley and Graham standing
out against the majority of the Cabinet with regard to the
Appropriation clause. Stanley, _they think_, would have knocked
under if Graham had not been very fierce and urged him on to
resistance. They attribute all the present bother to Graham, who
pleads conscience and religious feelings. It is impossible to
guess how it will end, and there is a terrible turmoil. Stanley
was with the King for two hours yesterday. The violent party
evidently wish Lord Grey to let Stanley go out, and those who
choose to go with him, and to reinforce the Cabinet with Durham,
Mulgrave, and that sort of thing, and what they call 'throw
themselves on the House of Commons and the country.' On the other
hand the half-Tories and moderates wish the Government to adopt a
moderate tone and course, and seek support from the House of
Lords. As to the House of Commons, it is a curious body,
supporting the Ministers through thick and thin one day and
buffeting them the next. On the Bank question the night before
last Althorp was beaten, after imploring everybody to come and
support him and making the strangest declarations. I am very
sorry that there should be a chance of a split on such a question
as the Irish Church, which really is not tenable. His colleagues
(or their friends at least) suspect that Graham kicks up this
dust with ulterior views, and they think he aims at a junction
with Peel--Stanley of course included--and coming into office
with a moderate mixed party. It will be a great evil if the
Government is broken up just now, but it is quite clear that they
cannot go on long; it is a question of months. The Duke of
Wellington told me yesterday that he could do nothing, and he
will be rather shy of giving to the world a second volume of that
old business in which he got so bedevilled two years ago.

The Lievens are recalled, which is a great misfortune to society.
She is inconsolable. The pill is gilded well, for he is made
governor to the Imperial Prince, the Emperor's eldest son; but
the old story of Stratford Canning, and Palmerston's obstinate
refusal to appoint anybody else, has probably contributed to this
change. His colleagues have endeavoured to persuade him to cancel
the appointment and name Mulgrave, whom they wish to provide for,
but he will not hear of it. I can't conceive why they don't let
him go out upon it; they would be the gainers in every way. We
are now in what is called a mess; the Whigs have put matters in
such a condition that they cannot govern the country themselves
and that nobody else can govern it either. 'Time and the hour run
through the roughest day.'

May 28th, 1834 {p.088}

On returning from Epsom I heard that Stanley, Graham, and
Richmond had resigned, and it was supposed Ripon would follow
their example.[3] Althorp adjourned the debate till Monday next.
Sefton 'never was so happy in his life.' It is a bad sign when he
is happy--not meaning to be wicked, only very foolish and
violent. I have rarely seen the effects of a neglected education
and a vivacious temperament manifested in a more remarkable way
than in Sefton, who has naturally a great deal of cleverness, but
who, from the above causes and the absence of the habit of moral
discipline and of calm and patient reflection, is a fool, and a
very mischievous one. They will be forced to put Peers in the
vacant places, because nobody can get re-elected. The rotten
boroughs now seem not quite such abominations, or at all events
they had some compensating advantages.

      [3] [The members of the Grey Administration who seceded on
          the Appropriation Resolution (as it was termed), moved
          by Mr. Ward, were the Duke of Richmond, Postmaster-General;
          the Earl of Ripon, Privy Seal; Mr. Stanley, Cabinet
          Secretary; and Sir James Graham, First Lord of the
          Admiralty. The Marquis of Conyngham became Postmaster-General,
          the Earl of Carlisle Privy Seal, Lord Auckland first Lord
          of the Admiralty, and Mr. Spring Rice Colonial Secretary.]

June 1st, 1834 {p.088}

The arrangements rendered necessary by the recent resignations
were pretty quickly made, but they have given universal
dissatisfaction. Whigs, Tories, and Radicals join in full cry
against them, and the 'Times,' in a succession of bitter,
vituperative articles, very well done, fires off its contempt and
disgust at the paltry patching up of the Cabinet. The most
unpopular appears to be Lord Auckland's appointment, and, though
I like him personally, it certainly does appear strange and
objectionable. He has neither reputation nor political calibre to
entitle him to such an elevation, and his want of urbanity and
forbidding manner seem to render him peculiarly unfit for the
post they have conferred on him. [Auckland turned out a very
popular and, I believe, very good First Lord of the Admiralty. I
have heard many praises and not one complaint of him.--December
7th, 1834.] The general opinion is that this Cabinet, so amended,
cannot go on long; but as they clearly mean to throw themselves
upon the House of Commons, and as the House will at all events
support them for the present, they will probably last some time
longer; they will at any rate, scramble through this session, and
during the recess it will be seen whether they can acquire public
confidence and what chance they have of carrying on the


After much conversation with Duncannon, Sefton, Mulgrave, and
others, I have acquired a tolerably correct understanding of the
history of these inconvenient proceedings. The speech of Lord John
Russell, to which all this hubbub is attributed, may have somewhat
accelerated, but did not produce, the crisis. The difference has
long existed in the Cabinet on the subject of the Irish Church,
and was well known, for Althorp stated as much last year. Stanley
and Graham were both vehemently opposed to any Parliamentary
appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish Church, but not
exactly on the same grounds. Stanley denies the right of
Parliament to interfere at all; that is, he asserts that
Parliament has no more right to deal with the revenues of the
Church than it would have to deal with his estate. Graham does not
deny the right, but contends that it is not expedient, that the
connexion between the two countries is mainly held together by the
Protestant Church, and that any meddling with the Establishment
will inevitably lead to its downfall. He stands upon religious
grounds. I confess myself to be lost in astonishment at the views
they take on this subject; that after swallowing the camel of the
Reform Bill, they should strain at the gnats which were perched
upon the camel's back, that they should not have perceived from
the first that such reforms as these must inevitably be consequent
upon the great measure, and, above all, that the prevalence of
public opinion, abstract justice, and the condition of Ireland all
loudly call for their adoption. However, such are their opinions,
and doubtless very conscientiously entertained. Upon Ward's motion
being announced, it was proposed in the Cabinet that the
difficulty should be waived for the present by moving the previous
question, and to this the dissentients agreed; but on further
investigation they discerned that if this was moved, in all
probability it would not be carried, and under these circumstances
Stanley proposed at once to resign. In the Cabinet some were for
accepting and others for refusing his resignation, and matters
remained unsettled when Althorp went down to the House of Commons
on the night of Ward's motion. It was strictly true (as he said)
that he was informed while Ward was speaking that they had
resigned. The King accepted their resignations at once, and
appears to have expressed his opinion that they adopted the proper
course, but he told the Duke of Richmond that the four members of
the Cabinet who had quitted it were the four whom he liked best of
them all. When they were gone it was to be settled how their
places were to be supplied. Ellice and Spring Rice were
indispensable; the Radicals wanted Durham; the Whigs wanted
Radnor, Abercromby, and Hobhouse; Lord Lansdowne was wavering, for
he is likewise opposed to any meddling with the Church, though not
perhaps to the extent that the seceders are, or to such a degree
as to make his resignation imperative. However, he haggled, and
they appear to have thought him of consequence enough to bribe him
high to remain. He made Durham's exclusion a _sine quâ non_, but I
believe all the others were equally opposed to his re-admission.
Spring Rice and Auckland are Lansdowne's personal friends and
firmest adherents, and their promotion is very agreeable to him
(if he did not insist upon it). Mulgrave so entirely expected to
come in that he told me on Epsom racecourse on Thursday last that
he was to be one of the new Ministers, though he did not know
which place he was to have. Great, therefore, was his disgust when
they only offered him the Post Office without the Cabinet. He
refused it with some indignation, and thinks himself very ill
used. I do not yet know what are the reasons which induced them to
make the arrangements they have done, and deterred them from
applying to any of the above-mentioned men. It certainly has given
great disgust, and will not serve to make the Administration more
popular than before. Durham is of course furious, and if
Abercromby and the others did not expect or desire to come in,
they will nevertheless resent being passed over, and in favour of
such people.

June 2nd, 1834 {p.091}


Yesterday I dined with Stanley; there was a vast deal of fine
company, outs and ins, Richmond, who would not _stay_ in the Post
Office, and Mulgrave who would not _come_ into it, Auckland,
Palmerston, &c. After dinner Stanley talked to Mulgrave and me
about the whole business; he said that above three weeks ago, in
consequence of the difference in the Cabinet, which everybody
knew, he had pressed his resignation on his colleagues, who
refused to take it, that he had agreed to vote for the previous
question on Ward's motion, but they were informed it would not be
carried. He then said, 'Why don't you take my resignation?' Still
they demurred, and on that day nothing was settled. He then saw
the King, who agreed to accept his resignation conditionally,
provided Lord Grey could make other arrangements, and desired
Stanley to go down to his colleagues and talk it over. He replied
that it was too late, that he ought then to be in his place in
the House of Commons, as the debate was going on. He went down,
saw Lord Grey, settled with him that he should resign, and then
sent into the House of Commons to Althorp to let him know that it
was so settled. In such hurry, uncertainty, and confusion was
this business done. Stanley talked not with acrimony, but with
something like contempt of the strange situation in which the
Government, and particularly Lord Grey, is placed, and he 'hoped'
they might be able to go on in a tone which, implied great doubt
if they would. He said 'that Lord Grey continues to preside over
a Cabinet which is to a certain degree committed to the principle
of a measure of which he disapproves, and he accepts the
resignation of the colleagues with whom he agrees; that if in the
House of Commons to-night no concession is made to the principle
of the measure under discussion, it will appear strange and
unaccountable why the seceders have been suffered to go. If any
be made, it will be inconsistent with the letter which Lord Grey
has just written to Ebrington, in a strain as conservative as the
King's speech to the bishops.' Thus Lord Grey appears to be
tossed on the horns of a very inconvenient dilemma. This speech
of the King's, which Stanley alluded to, has made a great noise,
and is matter of considerable triumph to the Conservatives. It is
reported in the papers as it was really delivered, except some
absurdities with which it was mixed. It is by no means a bad
speech, and very decided in its tone; but what matters decision
and a peremptory tone from a man so easily led or misled as the
King? Lord Grey's letter was addressed to Ebrington in reply to
an address signed by many supporters of Government, and has been
lying on the table at Brookes' for public inspection.

June 3rd, 1834 {p.092}


Lord Althorp summoned a meeting yesterday in Downing Street,
which was numerously attended, though some of the usual
supporters of Government stayed away as followers of Stanley. He
invited them to support the previous question, when there was a
good deal of speaking for and against, chiefly among county
members, and a good deal of cheering at his saying he hoped he
had their confidence; but the meeting broke up without any
satisfactory conclusion, and at five o'clock the general
impression was that Government would be beaten, and this in spite
of a conviction that they would resign if they were. In the
morning I met Graham, who said that he did not know whether he
and Stanley would speak or not, that they could not support the
previous question without repudiating the declaration with which
it was to be accompanied, that he considered the question to
involve the fate of the Irish Church, and with it the connexion
between the two countries. I told him we differed entirely, but
that I would not enter upon any argument on the subject; that it
was very unfortunate, and I thought the Government would not
stand. He said a tremendous contest must ensue upon the great
question, and so we parted.

In the evening a very full House. Lord Althorp stated that the
King had issued a Commission, or rather extended the powers of one
that already existed, for the purpose of effecting the objects
contemplated by the resolution, and begged Ward to withdraw his
motion. He would not, and then Althorp moved the previous
question, which, to the astonishment of everybody, was carried by
a very great majority, all the Tories voting with Government.
Stanley spoke, and spoke very well, but with considerable acrimony
and in a tone which demonstrates the breach between him and his
old colleagues to be irreparable. He was vociferously cheered by
the Tories, especially at one passage of his speech about a
Chancellor of the Exchequer and his clerical budget which, however
pungent and smart, appears to me imprudent and worth nothing as
argument. I am very sorry he has taken such a line upon this
question. His scruples have come too late to be serviceable to the
cause he espouses, and all he can do is to fan the flame of
religious discord and throw innumerable embarrassments in the way
of settling a very difficult question, the ultimate solution of
which is no longer doubtful.

June 5th, 1834 {p.093}

The Portuguese business is over--that is, for the present--but
Lord William Russell (whom I met at dinner at Richmond the day
before yesterday) told me he did not think Pedro would be able to
keep possession of the country, and that another revolution would
probably take place whenever the foreign troops in his pay were
disbanded; the party against him is too strong; he said that
nothing but an inconceivable succession of blunders and great
want of spirit and enterprise on the part of Miguel could have
prevented his success, as at one time he had 70,000 men, while
the other had not above 8,000 or 10,000 cooped up in Oporto,
which is not a defensible place; that Miguel might at any moment
during the contest have put an end to it. The country is in a
dreadfully ruined state from frequent exactions and the
depression of commerce and cultivation, but Carvalho, Pedro's
Minister of Finance, told Lord William he should have no
difficulty with his budget, and could find money to discharge all
the claims upon Government. The source from which he expects to
derive his assets is the confiscated Church property, which is
very great. Money, however, is so plentiful here, that the
Portuguese Government have been offered a loan of a million at
eighty, which they have declined[4].

      [4] [The Quadruple Treaty for the pacification of the
          Peninsular kingdoms was signed in London on the 22nd of
          April; and on the 9th of May a decisive battle had been
          gained by the troops of Don Pedro over those of Don
          Miguel. Don Carlos and Don Miguel soon afterwards
          withdrew from the Peninsula.]

June 7th, 1834 {p.094}

I was in the House of Lords last night to hear a long debate on
the Commission, when Goderich made a very good speech, defending
himself for his resignation and attacking the instrument; like
other people, as soon as he got out of office he spoke with
greater energy and force. I thought Lord Grey was rather feeble,
though energetic enough in declaration and expression. Phillpotts
I did not hear, but he was wretchedly bad, they told me. The
Chancellor, to the surprise of everyone, made the strongest
declaration of his resolution not to permit a fraction of the
revenues of the Irish Church to be diverted to Catholic
purposes--the purposes, in my mind, to which they ought to be
diverted, and to which they in the end must and will be. The
Government is now reformed, and will scramble and totter on for
some time. Things are not ripe for a change, but people will
continue more and more to look for a junction between Peel and
Stanley. God forbid, however, that we should have two parties
established upon the principles of a religious opposition to each
other; it would be the worst of evils, and yet the times appear
to threaten something of the sort. There is the gabble of 'the
Church in danger,' the menacing and sullen disposition of the
Dissenters, all armed with new power, and the restless and
increasing turbulence of the Catholics, all hating one another,
and the elements of discord stirred up first by one and then

June 9th, 1834 {p.094}

Melbourne said to me on Saturday night, 'You know why Brougham
made that violent declaration against the Catholics in his speech
the other night, don't you?' I said, 'No.' Then he added, 'That
was for Spring Rice's election, to please the Dissenters.'
However, Duncannon says he does not believe it was for that
object, but certainly thrown out as a sop to the Dissenters
generally, who are violently opposed to any provision being made
for the Catholic Clergy. Duncannon added that 'those were his
(Brougham's) opinions as far as he had any, as they were not very
strong on any subject.'

June 15th, 1834 {p.095}


Ascot races last week; many people kept away at Oxford, which
seems to have been a complete Tory affair, and on the whole a
very disgraceful exhibition of bigotry and party spirit; plenty
of shouting and that sort of enthusiasm, which is of no value
except to the foolish people who were the object of it, and who
were quite enraptured.[5] The reception of the Duke, however
vociferous, can hardly on reflection have given him much pleasure
when he saw Newcastle, Winchelsea, Wetherell, and _hoc genus
omne_ as much the objects of idolatry as himself. Peel very
wisely would have nothing to do with the concern, and they are
probably very angry with him for absenting himself. The
resentment he must feel towards the University on account of
their conduct to him must afford full scope to all the contempt
these proceedings are calculated to excite. There was a vast mob
of fine people, Mrs. Arbuthnot among the rest. The Duke made
rather indifferent work of his Latin speeches. As usual he seemed
quite unconcerned at the applause with which he was greeted; no
man ever courted that sort of distinction less.

      [5] [The Duke of Wellington was installed as Chancellor of
          the University of Oxford on the 10th of June.]

June 18th, 1834 {p.095}

Lord Conyngham and George Byng are to be Postmaster and a Lord of
Treasury, Abercromby is to be Master of the Mint, and Cutler
Fergusson Judge Advocate, appointments sneered and laughed at.
When Althorp announced the first in the House of Commons Hume
said, 'God bless us! is it possible?' Some think Abercromby will
be of use to them--that he is grave, practical, industrious, and
carries weight in the House. I am unable to discover anything in
him, except his consistency, to entitle him to any praise. An odd
thing happened to Brougham the other day. He got a note from
Althorp while he was sitting in his Court about the insolence and
violence of the 'Times,' and that its lies and abuse of the
Government ought to be put a stop to by some means. The
Chancellor tore the note up, and after finishing his business
departed. Two hours after Lemarchant got a note from the editor
to say that the note had been picked up, put together, and was in
his possession. Brougham was furious, and sent to ask the name of
the person who gave it, promising to forgive him if it was given
up, and threatening if it was not to dismiss every officer in his
Court, and not to replace any of them till the culprit was

June 20th, 1834 {p.096}

[Page Head: TORY WARFARE.]

The Tories are in arms and eager for the fray. There was a dinner
of fifty at the Conservative Club on the 18th (Waterloo day), with
healths and speeches, when Peel delivered himself of a speech half
an hour long, to which vast importance is attached. People,
however, hear things, as they see things, differently. Theodore
Hook, who was present, told me 'it was very satisfactory, a
declaration of war; that he announced his having supported the
Government while he could from a sense of duty, but that seeing
they were resolved to attack the Church, he was prepared to act
with, or lead (I forget which), any party which might be formed
upon the principle of supporting the Establishment; that the
Tories were few in numbers, but strong in character,' and so on.
Vesey Fitzgerald, who was likewise there, said it was no
declaration of war whatever--a strong Conservative speech, but not
violent in any way, nor indicative of any intended deviation from
the course Peel has heretofore pursued. So his acts must show
which report is the more correct. When we hear that his speech
pleased Chandos and Falmouth, one can't help believing it must
have been somewhat fierce. I have great confidence in Peel's
watchful sagacity, but his game is a very difficult one, and with
all his prudence he may make a false step. It is so much his
interest to ascertain the real disposition of the country that I
am disposed to defer very much to his views and notions of
probabilities, otherwise I can with difficulty believe that it is
wise in him to encourage and head a High Church party and promote
the senseless cry of the Church in danger. It is the contest
itself as much as the triumph of any party that is to be
deprecated, for nothing is like the exasperation of religious
quarrels, and victory is always abused and moderation forgotten,
whichever side has the ascendant. Every day, however, it becomes
more apparent that this Government cannot last; living as I do
with men of all parties, I collect a variety of opinions, some of
them intrinsically worth little, except as straws show which way
the wind blows, but which satisfy me that the present House of
Commons has no great affection for them, and would not have much
difficulty in supporting any other Administration that presented a
respectable appearance, and would act upon principles at once
liberal and moderate. The majority of the members dread a
dissolution, knowing that the next elections must be fiercely
contested, and be expensive and embarrassing in all ways.
Altogether it is difficult to conceive a more unsettled and
unsatisfactory state of things, nor one from which it appears more
hopeless to emerge. In the state of parties and of the country the
one thing needful--a strong Government--appears the one thing that
it is impossible to obtain.

June 24th, 1834 {p.097}

Lord Auckland told me the other night that Government are
prepared for the Dissenters Bill being thrown out in the House of
Lords, and that they don't care. He thinks it never will be
carried, and will be a standing grievance of no great weight. The
Chancellor made an admirable speech on secondary punishments,
connecting with it the question of education. He told me he was
called on to pronounce an essay without any preparation, and he
did the best he could. I did not hear it, but was told it was
excellent. He shines in this sort of thing; his views are so
enlarged and philosophical, and they are expressed in such
becoming and beautiful language.

June 26th, 1834 {p.097}

There was a good debate on Monday in the House of Commons on the
Irish Tithes Bill. Peel made a very clever speech, attacking the
Commission with great felicity, and John Russell made an
excellent speech in reply, failing to excuse the Commission,
which is inexcusable, but very good upon the question. Both he
and Ellice _spoke out_. I was at the Abbey on Tuesday and
yesterday for a performance and a rehearsal of the 'Messiah.' The
spectacle is very fine, and it is all admirably managed--no crowd
or inconvenience, and easy egress and ingress--but the 'Messiah'
is not so effective as I expected, not so fine as in York
Minster; the choruses are admirably performed, but the single
voices are miserable--singers of extreme mediocrity, or whose
powers are gone; old Bellamy, who was at Handel's commemoration
as a singing boy, Miss Stephens, &c.

June 27th, 1832 {p.098}

Lord William Russell told me last night that his brother John has
frequently offered to resign, and they never would let him; at
last he said he must speak out on this Church appropriation
question, or positively he would not stay in, so that his speech
was not _blurted_ out, as I supposed, but was the result of a
fixed resolution. This alters the case as far as he is concerned,
and it can't be denied that he was right in thinking it better
that Government should make itself clearly understood, and that a
break-up was preferable to going on without any real cordiality
or concurrence amongst each other and the Administration an
object of suspicion to all parties. William Russell said that
Government were quite aware that Peel and the Duke could turn
them out when they would, but that they would not know what to do


Don Carlos is coming to town to Gloucester Lodge. When they told
him the Spanish Ambassador (Miraflores) was come to wait upon
him, he replied, 'I have no Ambassador at the Court of London.'
He will not take any money, and he will neither relinquish his
claims to the Spanish throne nor move hand or foot in prosecuting
them. 'If chance will have me king, why let chance crown me,
without my stir.' (He was meditating evasion at this time, and
got away undiscovered soon after.) They say he can get all the
money he wants from his partisans in Spain, and that there is no
lack of wealth in the country. Strange infatuation when men will
spend their blood and their money for such a miserable object. If
he had anything like spirit, enterprise, and courage, he would
make a fine confusion in Spain, and probably succeed; his
departure from the Peninsula and taking refuge here has not
caused the war to languish in the north. Admiral Napier is
arrived, and has taken a lodging close to him in Portsmouth.
Miraflores paid a droll compliment to Madame de Lieven the other
night. She was pointing out the various beauties at some ball,
and among others Lady Seymour, and asked him if he did not admire
her. He said, 'Elle est trop jeune, trop fraîche,' and then, with
a tender look and squeezing her hand, 'J'aime les femmes un peu

July 4th, 1834 {p.099}

The other night Stanley made a fierce speech on Irish tithes, and
plainly showed that no reconciliation between him and the
Government is feasible. Last night Littleton made a melancholy
exhibition with O'Connell. Formerly a Minister must have resigned
who cut such a figure; now it is very different, for no matter
how unfit a man may be, it is ten to one nobody better can be
found to replace him. A more disgraceful affair never was seen;
the Tories chuckled, the Government and their friends were
disgusted, ashamed, and vexed; Durham sat under the gallery and
enjoyed the fun.

I was at Woolwich yesterday to see the yacht in which the Queen
is to sail to the Continent. Such luxury and splendour, and such
gorgeous preparations. She will sail like Cleopatra down the
Cydnus, and though she will have no beautiful boys like Cupids to
fan her, she will be attended by Emily Bagot, who is as beautiful
as the Mater Cupidinum. She will return to her beggarly country
in somewhat different trim from that in which she left it, with
all her earls and countesses, equipages, pages, valets, dressers,
&c. The Duke of Wellington gave a great ball the other night, and
invited all the Ministers. The Chancellor was there till three or
four o'clock in the morning, and they say it was very amusing to
see the Duke doing the honours to him. The Tories have had a
great disappointment in the Finsbury election, which they fancied
Pownall was sure of carrying the first day, but Tommy Duncombe
beat him hollow the second. It is certainly a great exhibition of
Radical strength in that metropolitan district, and may serve to
sober the Tories a little, and bring some of them down from their
high horses.

July 6th, 1834 {p.100}


When I wrote the above I had not read Stanley's speech, and had
only heard he had used very strong language. I was greatly
astonished when I did read it, and fully concur in the nearly
universal opinion that, however clever and laughable it may have
been, it was a most injudicious and unfortunate exhibition, and
is calculated to do him a serious and lasting injury. (This was
the famous 'thimblerig' speech.) I do not know when I have read
or heard so virulent and coarse an invective, and it is rather
disgusting than anything else to see such an one fired off at the
men with whom he has been acting for some years (up to three
weeks ago), with whom he declared his entire concurrence on every
other question, from whom he expressed the liveliest regret at
separating, and to whom he was individually bound by the
strongest ties of friendship and regard. (It will be seen that he
made similar professions when he separated from Peel's Government
in '46, and instantly rushed into a similar opposition.) The
Tories cheered him lustily; and what must he on reflection think
of such cheers, and of his position in the House--to be halloa'd
on by the party which he has hitherto treated with the greatest
contempt, and which he thinks the very essence of bigotry and
prejudice, at least on all secular matters, against his old
friends and colleagues, to whom he is still allied in opinion
upon almost every great question of foreign or domestic policy?
He availed himself of his knowledge that there was nobody on the
Treasury Bench who could answer him to fling out this spiteful
and intemperate invective. If Brougham could have been thrown for
half an hour into the House, 'like an eagle into a dovecot,' what
a grand opportunity there would have been for his tremendous
sarcasm to vent itself. As it was, Stanley went away unscathed,
for though Althorp was not bad in the few words he said with
great good-humour, and Littleton made a very tolerable speech,
the former twaddled, and the latter has been too much damaged to
allow of his saying anything with effect; besides, he quoted a
speech of Stanley's against him (at all times a poor argument)
and did not quote the whole of it. I dare say Peel was not very
sorry to hear Stanley's speech, and justly estimated the value of
the cheers with which it was hailed. It places him at an
immeasurable distance below Peel, and puts an end to any
pretensions of rivalship, if he ever entertained any. If a
junction is to take place between them, Stanley must be content
with a subordinate part; and, act with whomsoever he may, he will
never inspire real confidence or conciliate real esteem. I
entertain this opinion with regret, and could have wished he had
cut a better figure. I dined with a Tory at the 'Travellers'
yesterday, and he said, 'Of course we cheered him as loudly as we
could; we want to get him, but I must own that it was a very
injudicious speech and very unbecoming.' These are the sort of
events in a man's life which influence his destiny ever after; it
is not that his political career will be marred, or that anything
can prevent his talents rendering it on the whole important, and
probably successful, but there is a revulsion in men's minds
about him, which cannot fail to produce a silent, but in the end
a sensible effect upon his fortunes. It is remarkable that Lord
Derby, who is a very shrewd and sagacious old man, never would
hear of his grandson's superlative merits, and always in the
midst of his triumphs questioned his ultimate success.

July 10th, 1834 {p.101}

Came to town last night from Newmarket, and found things in a
fine state. Althorp had resigned three days ago; his resignation
was accepted, on which Lord Grey resigned too. Both of them
explained in Parliament last night, Lord Grey, as they tell me,
in a very moving and gentlemanlike speech, admirably delivered.
The Duke of Wellington made a violent attack upon him in reply,
which it is thought he might as well have omitted. (The Duke's
speech gave great disgust to many even of his own party, and was
afterwards assigned as a reason by Stanley and his friends for
not taking office with the Duke.) Nobody knows what is to happen.
The King sent for Melbourne, and his nephew, John Ponsonby, told
me last night he believed he would endeavour to carry on the
Government; but whether he does or not it can't last; the Whig
Government is virtually at an end. The Tories, who were shouting
the night before last, are considerably disappointed that the
King did not instantly avail himself of Lord Grey's resignation
to send for them, or at least for Peel. I don't suppose, however,
that it is from any predilection for the Whigs that he tries to
bolster up this Government, but he is said to have an exceeding
horror of a dissolution, and it is just possible he may be acting
under some good advice surreptitiously conveyed to him, for under
all circumstances I think he is taking the most prudent part he
can. It is very essential that he should have no hand in the
dissolution of this Cabinet, and if he does his best to
reconstruct it, and gives the remaining Ministers a fair trial,
he will have a good right to call upon the House of Commons and
the country to support him in any ulterior measures that
circumstances may compel him to adopt.


Thus Littleton has been the instrument of breaking up this
Government; a man powerless to serve his party has contrived to
destroy it. It is curious to trace this matter from the outset.
When Hobhouse threw up his office and his seat, it was extremely
difficult to find a successor to him in the Irish Office,
principally because not one man in fifty could procure a seat in
Parliament, or his re-election if already there. In this
emergency Littleton volunteered his services; he was sure of his
seat, and he wanted eventually a peerage, so he wrote to Lord
Grey, and said that if he thought him capable of filling the
place he would undertake it.[6] Nothing better suggested itself;
it was a way out of the difficulty, and they closed with his
offer. No man could be less fit for such a situation; his talents
are slender, his manners unpopular, and his vanity considerable.
When warned against O'Connell he said, 'Oh, leave me to manage
Dan,' and manage him he did with a vengeance, and a pretty Tartar
he caught. His first attempts at management were exhibited in the
business of Baron Smith. When the Coercion question came to be
agitated, he thought himself very cunning in beginning a little
intrigue without the knowledge of his colleagues, and he wrote to
Lord Wellesley for the purpose of prevailing upon him to
recommend to the Cabinet that the Bill should pass without the
strong clauses, and most unaccountably Lord Wellesley did so.[7]
He stated that this omission was desirable on account of
circumstances connected with the Government in England, and Lord
Wellesley replied that if it was necessary on that account he
would contrive to manage matters without the clauses. Upon this
he put himself in communication with O'Connell, and never
doubting that his and Lord Wellesley's advice (in accordance as
it was with the opinions of certain members of this Cabinet)
would prevail, he gave O'Connell those expectations the
disappointment of which produced the scene between them in the
House of Commons. Lord Grey, however, was equally astonished and
dissatisfied with this last recommendation of Lord Wellesley's,
which was directly at variance with the opinion he had given some
time before, and he accordingly asked him to explain why he had
changed his mind, and requested him to reconsider his latter
opinion. He still replied that if it was necessary, he would do
without the clauses. Upon this there was a discussion in the
Cabinet, and Althorp, Grant, Ellice, Abercromby, and Rice were in
a minority, who, however, ultimately gave in to the majority. All
this time Littleton went on negotiating with O'Connell,[8] having
told Althorp alone that he was doing so, though not telling him
all that passed, and neither of them telling Lord Grey. Upon the
_blow-up_ which O'Connell made, Althorp very unnecessarily
resolved to resign, and when he did Lord Grey followed his

      [6] [This statement, though doubtless current at the time,
          is to my certain knowledge entirely inaccurate. Mr.
          Littleton was confined to his sofa at the time by an
          accident, and knew little of what was going on. Nobody
          was more surprised than himself to receive from Lord
          Grey a spontaneous and unexpected offer of the Chief
          Secretaryship of Ireland. He was fully aware of the
          extreme difficulties of the office, which was at that
          moment perhaps the most important in the Government.
          With equal modesty and candour he distrusted his own
          ability to fill it, and he still more distrusted his
          own want of caution and prudence, which was his weak
          point. He accepted it, however, to relieve the
          Government from embarrassment, but he accompanied his
          acceptance with a declaration to Lord Grey that he
          would gladly resign his office whenever a better man
          could be found to fill it. It had previously been
          offered to Mr. Abercromby, who refused to accept it
          without a seat in the Cabinet.]

      [7] [These details are also far from accurate, as has now
          been demonstrated by the publication (1872) of Lord
          Hatherton's own memoir on the subject, and of the
          original correspondence, which proves that the letter
          to Lord Wellesley was written at the instigation of the
          Lord Chancellor, and that it expressed the deliberate
          opinions of several members of the Cabinet. It must,
          however, be acknowledged that it was written without
          the knowledge of Lord Grey and in opposition to his
          views. The subsequent communication made by Mr.
          Littleton to O'Connell was made with the knowledge and
          concurrence of Lord Althorp, though Mr. Littleton said
          more to O'Connell than Lord Althorp had intended--an
          indiscretion which Mr. Littleton himself admitted: but
          O'Connell made a very base and ungenerous use of the
          confidence which had been extended to him.]

      [8] [Mr. Littleton had but one conversation with


The Tories have been mighty cock-a-hoop, but their joy is a good
deal damped within the last twelve hours, for it is now
universally believed that Althorp will be prevailed upon to
remain, and will himself be at the head of the Government. His
popularity is so great in the House of Commons, and there is such
a dread of a dissolution, that if this arrangement takes place
they will scramble on some time longer, and at this advanced
period of the session it may be doubted whether the House of
Lords will throw out any of their essential measures. I met
Duncannon, Ellice, and John Russell this evening riding, and they
seemed in very good spirits. I have no doubt Ellice and Duncannon
have had a main hand in all this business, and that they urged on
Littleton to do what he did. The House was adjourned till Monday,
to afford time for the new arrangement. Brougham spoke like a
maniac last night, and his statements were at direct variance
with Althorp's, the latter declaring that they were all out and
the former that they were all still in office, and that Grey and
Althorp had alone resigned.

July 12th, 1834 {p.105}

I went out of town yesterday morning, and did not return till
seven o'clock; in the meantime affairs were materially altered. I
met Duncannon riding with a face as long as the pictures of
Hudibras, which at once told the tale of baffled hopes.
Melbourne's negotiation had failed entirely. 'Jack,'[9] who was
backed at even against the field the night before in the House of
Commons, would have nothing to say to it. I have not yet heard in
detail the circumstances of this failure, but it will probably
turn out that the King insisted upon some Conservative conditions,
or an attempt at coalition, which is a favourite plan of his.
Yesterday it was generally expected that Peel would be sent for,
or the Duke of Wellington. Peel called at Apsley House and was
with the Duke a long time yesterday, and afterwards, as the Duke
rode through the Park, Ellice, who was sitting on his horse
talking to Sir Edward Kerrison, said, 'There goes a man who knows
more than he did an hour ago.' It is expected that Peel, if called
upon, will endeavour to form and carry on a Government; but
opinions are greatly divided as to the support he would get in the
House of Commons, and as to the effect of a dissolution, should he
be driven to adopt that hazardous alternative. I think that almost
everything depends upon the course which Althorp takes, as far as
the rest of this session is concerned. His popularity in the House
of Commons is very great, and even surprising; it is a proof of
the influence which personal character may obtain when unadorned
with great abilities and shining parts; his remarkable _bonhommie_,
unalterable good nature and good temper, the conviction of his
honesty and sincerity, and of his want of ambition, his
single-mindedness, his unfeigned desire to get out of the trammels
and cares of office, have all combined to procure for him greater
personal regard, and to a certain degree greater influence, than
any Minister ever possessed in my recollection. There is no such
feeling as animosity against Althorp. Some detest his principles,
some despise his talents, but none detest or despise the man; and
he is said by those who are judges of such matters to have one
talent, and that is a thorough knowledge of the House of Commons
and great quickness and tact in discovering the bias and
disposition of the House. If Althorp abstains from any rough
opposition, and endeavours to restrain others, upon the principle
of giving a fair trial to those who may have taken his place
because he would not continue to hold it, it is probable that the
majority will avail themselves of such an opportunity for avoiding
a dissolution, and give a sulky and suspicious assent to the
measures of the new Ministry, for a cordial support cannot be
expected. This, however, must depend upon circumstances which are
still _in nubibus_. To-day must, in all probability, decide who is
to attempt the task of forming a Government. Stanley, it is
supposed, if invited, will not join Peel, at least not at present;
all, however, is speculation, curiosity, and excitement.

      [9] [The cant name given at the time to John, Lord

July 13th, 1834 {p.106}


All yesterday nothing was done; the King remains very quietly at
Windsor, still in communication with Melbourne, and I believe with
the Chancellor. He declines talking upon the present state of
affairs to anybody. What he wanted was, that some attempt should
be made towards a coalition, but this the remaining Ministers
would not consent to. Poulett Thomson called on me at my office in
the afternoon, and told me that it was by no means true that
Althorp would not on any terms take the Government; but that he
would not unless he had _carte blanche_, in which case he could
not refuse it; if he did refuse, Thomson added, that everybody
ought to support Peel or _any Tory_ Government. He is convinced
that if Peel took the Government he would be driven out by the
House of Commons _instanter_, unless he could show that he had
done so in consequence of the King being deserted by the present
men. I afterwards met Mulgrave, who had been riding with Althorp,
who told him that though it would be very disagreeable to him on
every account, and especially as regards Lord Grey, he might have
it put to him in a way that left him no option. Lord Grey and his
friends and family think that he has been extremely ill-used, and
they are indignant with all the actors in the Littleton affair,
and only burning with desire to expose those who are still
concealed. Charles Grey talked to me for half an hour in the lobby
of the Opera House last night, and said that Lord Wellesley ought
to disclose all that was still secret in the transaction, and
produce the private letters he had received from England, and by
which his opinions and advice had been influenced. Such letters
they know were written, and they believe by the Chancellor; this
belief, whether it turns out to be true or false, is, I perceive,
very general. It is inconceivable what a reputation that man has,
and how universally he is distrusted, and despised as much as
anybody with such great abilities can be. His political character
is about on a par with Whittle Harvey's moral character; his
insolence and swaggering, bullying tone in the House of Lords have
excited as much disgust out of the House as they have given
offence in it, and the only excuse for him is--what many people
believe--that there is a taint of madness about him. The other
night, in his reply to the Duke of Wellington's violent and
foolish speech, he chose to turn upon Lord Rolle, a very old man
and a choleric, hard-bitten old Tory. Rolle was greatly
exasperated, and after he sat down went up to him on the Woolsack
and said, 'My Lord, I wish you to know that I have the greatest
contempt for you both in this House and out of it.'

While Lord Grey has been very indignant against the plotters in
his Cabinet he has been sorely wounded by the seceders, or rather
by the chief of them, Stanley; but this has been all made up in a
way soothing enough to his feelings, but not advantageous, though
not discreditable, to Stanley. The latter wrote a letter to Lord
Grey expressing his deep regret at having said anything to offend
him, disclaiming the slightest intention of the kind, pouring
forth the warmest protestations of gratitude, veneration, and
attachment to him, and finishing by an assurance that he would
take office under nobody else. After the gross attack he made it
is honourable in him to make such an apology, but it only enhances
the folly of his former conduct to find himself placed under the
necessity of writing a penitential letter. Lord Grey replied in
corresponding terms, and he says they shall be as good friends
again as ever, and that Stanley's speech shall henceforward be
forgotten; but it will be very long before the effect produced by
it will be forgotten, or that the recollection of it will cease to
have an influence on Stanley's reputation and prospects. His
especial friends, the other seceders, were as much annoyed at it
as anybody; and the Duchess of Richmond told me that her husband
regretted it very bitterly. It is but justice to Richmond to own
that he has acted a fair, open, and manly part in this business,
and has satisfied all parties. Lord Grey was not annoyed at what
passed between them in the House of Lords, and their friendship
has never suffered any interruption.

July 15th, 1834 {p.108}

This interval of feverish anxiety has ended by the formation of
the Administration being entrusted to Lord Melbourne. He refused
to undertake it unless Althorp could stay with him. The King
wanted Lord Grey to come back, and spoke to Taylor about it, but
he told him it was out of the question, and therefore the King
did not propose it, but he has constantly written to him in the
most flattering terms, and desired he might be consulted in every
step of these proceedings. Lord Grey has acted very cordially
towards Melbourne, and pressed Althorp so earnestly to stay that
he has consented, and last night the announcements were made to
the two Houses. The Tories (the High and foolish) are down in the
mouth, but Peel is himself well content not to have been mixed up
in the concern. The present conjecture is that Abercromby will go
to the Home Office and Durham to Ireland. Nobody thinks the
Government will last long, and everybody 'wonders' how Melbourne
will do it. He is certainly a queer fellow to be Prime Minister,
and he and Brougham are two wild chaps to have the destinies of
this country in their hands. I should not be surprised if
Melbourne was to rouse his dormant energies and be excited by the
greatness of his position to display the vigour and decision in
which he is not deficient. Unfortunately his reputation is not
particularly good; he is considered lax in morals, indifferent in
religion, and very loose and pliant in politics. He is supposed
to have consented to measures of which he disapproved because it
suited his ease and convenience to do so, and because he was
actuated by no strong political principles or opinions.

July 17th, 1834 {p.109}


Yesterday it was announced that Duncannon is to be Secretary of
State and called to the House of Peers; Hobhouse in his place and
in the Cabinet, and to stand for Nottingham. This completes the
concern; Duncannon Secretary of State! Who could ever have
thought of him in such a station? His proper element seemed to be
the House of Commons, where he was a bustling, zealous partisan
and a very good whipper-in; but he cannot speak at all, and
though a tolerably candid talker, his capacity is slender; he has
no pretensions of any sort to a high office, and nothing but
peculiar circumstances could put him in one; but the difficulty
has been how to deal with Durham, for the majority of the Cabinet
were decided upon having nothing to do with him, although there
were some few who wanted to take him in. By I know not what
process of reasoning they arrived at the conclusion that
Duncannon's elevation was the only solution of this difficulty,
but so it is, for I believe he would have preferred to stay in
his old place. They are all in raptures with the King, and with
his straightforward dealing on this occasion. In the first
instance he desired Melbourne to write to the Duke, Peel, and
Stanley, stating his wish that an Administration should be formed
upon a wide and comprehensive plan. He wrote accordingly to each,
and with his letters he sent copies of his own letter to the
King, in which he gave his opinion that the formation of such a
Government was impossible. The Duke and Peel each replied, with
expressions of duty, to his Majesty, that they agreed with Lord
Melbourne, but did not see any necessity for giving reasons for
their opinions. The King, however, desired to have their reasons,
which have since been sent to him by them. Stanley wrote a long
letter, with a peremptory refusal to form part of any such
Government. He appears anxious to pacify the Whigs by disclaiming
any intention of connecting himself with the Tories. Though all
the Grey family are very indignant, and by no means silent, at
the way the Earl has been treated, he has behaved with great
temper and forbearance, and has lent his old colleagues his
cordial assistance in patching up the broken concern.

July 19th, 1834 {p.110}


Two angry debates in the Lords last night and the night before; I
was present at the last, but not at the first. On Thursday Lord
Wicklow made a virulent attack on the Government; the Duke of
Buckingham was coarse, the Chancellor rabid, and a disgraceful
scene of confusion and disorder arose. Melbourne made his first
speech, declaration, and explanation, and is thought to have done
it very well--a good beginning. Last night Wharncliffe moved for
the production of Lord Wellesley's letter, by which the opinion
of the Cabinet had been shaken about the Coercion Bill. Lord Grey
made a very handsome speech indeed, throwing his shield over his
old colleagues, declaring he neither complained nor had he been
ill-used, and entreated that the new Government might be fairly
tried, and not embarrassed without cause in the outset. It was
certainly the speech of a thorough gentleman, but the case is
after all a bad one. The dates show what must have happened. It
was on the 20th of June that Mr. Littleton told O'Connell there
was a discussion going on in the Cabinet, and that the Coercion
Bill was not yet settled. Now on the 20th of June it _was_
settled, but on the 23rd of June came Lord Wellesley's letter,
which unsettled it.[10] It is clear, then, that a communication
was made to Lord Wellesley which it was confidently expected
would elicit from him such a letter as would enable the authors
of the communication to revive the discussion, and Littleton, not
being able to wait for its arrival, anticipated it, and told
O'Connell that the discussion was begun before the cause of it
was in operation. There certainly never was a more complete
underhand intrigue perpetrated than this, and although no
official document, or demi-official will now be produced to
reveal the name of the prime mover, everybody's finger is pointed
at Brougham, and the young Greys make no secret of their
conviction that he is the man. But undoubtedly the greatest evil
resulting from the proceedings and the termination of them (in
the reconstruction of this Government, with its additions, and
the alteration of the Bill) is the vast increase which must be
made to the power and authority of O'Connell. He has long been
able to make the Irish believe anything he pleases, and he will
certainly have no difficulty in persuading them that he himself
has brought about this state of things, that he has ousted Lord
Grey, introduced Duncannon (who of all the Whigs has been his
greatest friend), and expunged the obnoxious clauses from the
Coercion Bill, and the fact is that all this is not very far from
the truth. Between his dexterity in availing himself of
circumstances and his betrayal of Littleton, between the folly of
some men and the baseness of others, he has appeared the most
prominent character in the drama. Even now I cannot make out
_why_ everybody wished the Bill to be thus emasculated, for there
would have been no difficulty in passing it through both Houses.
To the surprise of everybody Littleton is suffered to keep his
place, probably by the protection of Althorp, who may have been
as dogged about him on this occasion as he was about the
Speakership, and as he is considered (on account of his
character) so indispensable in the House of Commons, of course he
can make his own terms.[11]

     [10] [This again is not accurate. It was on the 23rd of
          June, _after_ the arrival of Lord Wellesley's letter,
          that Mr. Littleton saw O'Connell. The question was
          still under discussion on that day, and the opinions of
          different members of the Cabinet were much divided.
          Those Ministers (including the Chancellor) who were
          opposed to the renewal of the Coercion Bill in its
          integrity wished to secure the assent of Lord Wellesley
          to their views. After the receipt of Lord Wellesley's
          letter of the 21st of June both Lord Melbourne and Lord
          Althorp declared that 'it was impossible to ask
          Parliament for an unconstitutional power which the
          Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had been led to disclaim.'
          (See Hatherton's Memoir, p. 13.) The question was not
          finally settled till the Cabinet of the 20th of June.
          Mr. Littleton had been distinctly informed by Lord
          Althorp, on the same day that he saw O'Connell, that
          the matter was not settled, and that he (Lord Althorp)
          would resign rather than allow the disputed clauses to
          form part of the new Bill.]

     [11] [This was so. Lord Althorp positively refused to hold
          office in the Melbourne Government, unless Mr.
          Littleton could be prevailed upon to resume and retain
          his office as Irish Secretary. Nothing could be more
          honourable to both parties than this conduct of Lord
          Althorp; but it was due to the fact that he had himself
          been a party to the communication made by Mr. Littleton
          to O'Connell, and that he knew Mr. Littleton had been
          exposed to more censure than he deserved.]

July 20th, 1834 {p.112}

At Court yesterday to swear in Duncannon Secretary of State. He
told me he had made Stanley[12] (the man they call Sir Benjamin
Backbite, and familiarly Ben) his under-secretary, telling him he
must speak, for that he (Duncannon) could not. Auckland and
Duncannon will not certainly add much to the oratorical splendour
of the Government. Ellice was there, and told me about a grand
case the Tories have got hold of against him, growing out of Lord
Western's evidence in Whittle Harvey's Committee. It there came
out that Western had applied to Ellice, then Secretary of the
Treasury (at the time of the great Reform election), for money to
assist at the Colchester election, and he sent £500. They want to
make out that this was public money, but they won't catch him. He
says several individuals subscribed large sums, which were placed
at his disposal to be employed to the best advantage for the
cause. He will get out of it. He talked of the Government, said
it was a great error to suppose it was inclined to _movement_
principles, and that in point of fact there was very little
difference, except on Church matters, between Sir Robert Peel and
himself, that there never was so good a House of Commons for the
Government, that in all this mess--for mess it was--the Tories
could not succeed in getting up a feeling or a prejudice against
the Government, and it was clear they were utterly powerless
there, that the House only required to be a little cajoled, and
was easily led; the word Reform was still potent there, and had
only to be uttered on occasions to bring the majority round when
they began to show a refractory disposition.

     [12] [Afterwards Lord Stanley of Alderney.]

July 21st, 1834 {p.112}


The Chancellor and the Hollands urged Lord Grey to take the Privy
Seal. This Sefton told me as a great secret yesterday, but the
indignation of the Greys burst through all restraint, and they
told it 'à qui voulait les entendre,' with every expression of
rage and disgust, 'adding insult to injury.' Lord Grey was more
philosophical, and rather smiled at the proposition, but he did
not repress the pious resentment of his children. The Grey women
would murder the Chancellor if they could. It certainly was a
curious suggestion. The Hollands think of nothing on earth but
how they may best keep the Duchy of Lancaster, and they fancied
Lord Grey's holding the Privy Seal might be of service to the
Government, and if they could make him commit such a _bassesse_
so much the better. It is not always easy to discover the
Chancellor's motives, but as he is as vindictive as he is false
and tricking, he perhaps took this opportunity of revenging
himself for the old offer of the Attorney-Generalship, which he
has never forgiven.[13]

     [13] [This view of the case is certainly unjust to Lord
          Brougham, who had more respect and regard for Lord Grey
          than for any other statesman of the time, as his
          correspondence with the Earl, now recently published in
          Brougham's 'Posthumous Memoirs' sufficiently proves.]
              [The first Administration of Lord Melbourne was
          thus constituted:
           First Lord of the Treasury   Viscount Melbourne.
           Lord Chancellor              Lord Brougham.
           Lord President               Marquis of Lansdowne.
           Home Secretary               Viscount Duncannon.
           Foreign Secretary            Viscount Palmerston.
           Colonial Secretary           Mr. Spring Rice.
           Chancellor of the Exchequer  Viscount Althorp.
           Admiralty                    Lord Auckland.
           Board of Control             Mr. Charles Grant.
           Board of Trade               Mr. Poulett Thomson.
           Duchy of Lancaster           Lord Holland.
           Paymaster of the Forces      Lord John Russell.
           Secretary-at-War             Mr. Edward Ellice.
           Lord Privy Seal              Earl of Mulgrave.
           Postmaster-General           Marquis of Conyngham.
           Irish Secretary              Mr. Littleton.]

                          CHAPTER XXIV.

Taylor's 'Philip van Artevelde'--Goodwood--Earl Bathurst's
  Death--Death of Mrs. Arbuthnot--Overtures to O'Connell--Irish
  Tithe Bill--Theodore Hook's Improvisation--Lord Westmeath's
  Case in the Privy Council--First Council of Lord Melbourne's
  Government and Prorogation--Brougham's Vagaries--Lord Durham's
  Exclusion--The Edinburgh Dinner--Windsor and Meiningen--Spencer
  Perceval--Lord Grey's Retirement--The Westmeath Case again--The
  Queen's Return--Melbourne and Tom Young--Holland House--
  Reflections--Conversation on the Poets--Miscellaneous Chat--
  Lord Melbourne's Literary Attainments--Lord Holland's Anecdotes
  of Great Orators--Execution of Charles I.--Lord Melbourne's
  Opinion of Henry VIII.--The 'Times' attacks Lord Brougham--His
  Tour in Scotland--His Unpopularity--Cowper's Secret--Canning on
  Reform--Lord Melbourne on Palmerston and Brougham--Canning and
  Brougham in 1827--Senior--Lord Melbourne and the Benthamites--
  His Theology--Spanish Eloquence--The Harley Papers--The Turf--
  Death of Lord Spencer--The Westmeath Case heard--Law
  Appointments--Bickersteth--Louis Philippe's Position.

July 23rd, 1834 {p.114}

Brougham spoke for four hours on the Poor Law Bill on Monday, and
made a luminous speech; Alvanley, to people's amusement, spoke,
and against the Bill; he spoke tolerably well--a grave speech and
got compliments.

July 24th, 1834 {p.114}

Read Reeves' 'History of English Law,' finished Henry Taylor's
'Van Artevelde,' and read 250 lines of Virgil. 'Philip van
Artevelde' is a poem of extraordinary merit, and the offspring of
a vigorous and independent mind. The author, who is my particular
friend, and for whom I have a sincere regard and a great
admiration, took his work to Murray, who gave it to Lockhart to
read. Lockhart advised Murray not to publish it, at least at his
own risk, but he bestowed great encomiums on the work, and urged
Taylor to publish it himself. He did so, without much expectation
that it would be popular, and has been agreeably surprised to
find that in a short space of time a second edition is called
for. With the vivacity of a sanguine disposition, and a
confidence in the sterling merits of his poem, he now believes
that edition will follow edition like wave upon wave, in which I
fear he will be disappointed. [When the first edition was all
sold, and a second called for, he made up his account with his
publisher, and the balance was £37 _against_ him.--November

August 5th, 1834 {p.115}

At Goodwood for the races, so read nothing except half of
Jacquemont's Letters and a little book I picked up, the 'History
of the Grand Vizier Coprogli;' called to town on Wednesday last
for a Council, to swear in Mulgrave Privy Seal; went to Petworth
on my way for one night. Stanley was at Goodwood, absorbed in
racing, billiards, and what not; nobody would have guessed that
all this rough and rustic gaiety covered ambition, eloquence, and
powers which must make him one of the most eminent men, though
his reputation is not what it was.


While I was there news came of Lord Bathurst's death. He was a
very amiable man and with a good understanding, though his
talents were far from brilliant, a High Churchman and a High
Tory, but a cool politician, a bad speaker, a good writer,
greatly averse to changes, but unwillingly acquiescing in many.
He was nervous and reserved, with a good deal of humour, and
habitually a jester. His conversation was generally a series of
jokes, and he rarely discussed any subject but in a ludicrous
vein. His conduct to Napoleon justly incurred odium, for although
he was only one of many, he was the Minister through whom the
orders of Government passed, and he suffered the principal share
of the reproach which was thrown upon the Cabinet for their rude
and barbarous treatment of the Emperor at St. Helena. He had not
a lively imagination, and his feelings were not excited by the
contemplation of such a striking example of fallen greatness. I
was Lord Bathurst's private secretary for several years, but so
far from feeling any obligation to him, I always consider his
mistaken kindness in giving me that post as the source of all my
misfortunes and the cause of my present condition. He never
thought fit to employ me, never associated me with the interests
and the business of his office, and consequently abandoned me at
the age of eighteen to that life of idleness and dissipation from
which I might have been saved had he felt that my future
prospects in life, my character and talents, depended in great
measure upon the direction which was at that moment given to my
mind. He would probably have made me a Tory (which I should
hardly have remained), but I should have become a man of
business, and of the antagonist tastes which divided my mind that
for literature and employment would have got the better of that
for amusement and idleness, instead, as unfortunately happened,
of the latter prevailing over the former. Though I knew Lord
Bathurst so long, and was his private secretary for some years,
and his family and mine have always been so intimate, I had no
real intimacy with him. From what I have learnt from others I am
disposed to rate his abilities more highly than the world has
done. He was the friend and devoted admirer of Pitt, and a
regular Tory of the old school, who felt that evil days had come
upon him in his old age. When he left office with the Duke of
Wellington he resolved upon finally quitting public life, and let
what might happen, never to take office again. On coming to town
yesterday I heard of another death--Mrs. Arbuthnot, after a short
illness. The Duke of Wellington, with whom she had lived in the
most intimate relations for many years, evinced a good deal of
feeling, but he is accused of insensibility because he had the
good taste and sense to smooth his brow and go to the House of
Lords with a cheerful aspect. She was not a clever woman, but she
was neither dull nor deficient, and very prudent and silent.

August 6th, 1834 {p.116}

To my office, then to the House of Lords and heard a discussion
on foreign politics; not very amusing; Melbourne not so good as
Grey would have been. The Duke spoke, but he looked very ill.
Walked from the House with Lord Carnarvon, who is an intelligent
man, but a great alarmist and very desponding; he thinks we are
going on step by step to an utter subversion of all interests and

August 7th, 1834 {p.117}


Yesterday I met the Duke of Wellington, who talked to me of Mrs.
Arbuthnot; I walked away from my office with Duncannon, who told
me that O'Connell's amendment in the Tithe Bill met with his
concurrence (and in fact, though he did not exactly say as much,
his connivance). He said he was sure this Bill was the only
chance for the Irish Church, which he was very anxious to save
and support; expressed great anxiety to make it up with O'Connell
by giving him a great judicial situation, is convinced he is
sincere (at the moment) in all he says, but that he is so vain
and excitable and ambitious that when he returns to Ireland he
forgets all he has promised or professed; the demon of agitation
regains the ascendant, and he bursts into all those excesses
which have made him so odious and formidable; but there is no
chance of any arrangement with him, for the majority of the
Government would not hear of it. I dined at the 'Travellers;'
walked to a fire in Edward Street, where I amused myself with the
strange figures and groups, the glare, bustle, and noise. There
was Duncannon again, a Secretary of State jostling and jostled in
the mob.

August 12th, 1834 {p.117}

On Saturday to Hillingdon, and back yesterday; passed the night
at the House of Lords, to hear the debate on the Irish Tithe
Bill.[1] At a meeting at Apsley House the Tory Lords came to an
unanimous resolution to throw out the Bill, and at one or two
meetings at Lambeth the bishops agreed to do the same. The debate
was heavy; Melbourne very unlike Lord Grey, whose forte was
leading the House of Lords and making speeches on such occasions.
Ellenborough spoke the best, I think. I hardly ever heard such
unbroken fluency, and a good deal of _stuff_, too, in his speech.
Ellice and Spring Rice both told me that this decision was the
most fatal and most important that had occurred for years; the
latter said that no tithe would be paid, but that there would be
no _active_ resistance. Such tithe property as could be seized
would not be sold, because there would be no purchasers for it.
One thing is clear to me, that those Tories who are always
bellowing 'revolution' and 'spoliation,' and who talk of the
gradual subversion of every institution and the imminent peril in
which all our establishments are placed, do not really believe
one word of what they say, and, instead of being oppressed with
fear, they are buoyed up with delusive confidence and courage;
for if they did indeed believe that the Church--the Church of
Ireland especially--was in danger, and that its preservation was
the one paramount desideratum, they would gladly avert, as far as
they might, that danger by a compromise involving a very small
(if any) sacrifice of principle, and which would secure to the
Irish clergy, as far as human prudence, legislative sanction, and
the authority of law can secure it, a permanent and a competent
provision, free from the danger and the odium which have for a
long time past embittered the existence of every clergyman in the
country. It is a curious speculation to see what the effect will
be of this vote practically in Ireland on the condition of the
clergy, and upon public opinion here.

      [1] [The Irish Tithe Bill was thrown out by the House of
          Lords by 189 to 122.]

It is difficult to understand why the Lords did not alter the
Bill in Committee and restore it to its original state, that
which Ellenborough said he would not have opposed, and which had
been already sanctioned by a great majority of the House of
Commons upon the report of a Committee. If they had done this,
either the Bill must have passed in this less obnoxious shape or
the odium of its rejection would have been thrown upon the
Commons, and the Lords would undoubtedly have had an excellent
case to present to the country. But if there is a wall they are
sure to run their heads against it, and if there is none they
build one up for the purpose. What puzzles me most is the
opposition of the clergy; they are the parties most immediately
and most deeply interested in this Bill, and yet the great
majority of them appear to be opposed _totis viribus_ to it.

August 13th, 1834 {p.118}


Dined at Roehampton yesterday with Farquhar. Mrs. Norton and Mrs.
Blackwood and Theodore Hook dined there among others. After
dinner he displayed his extraordinary talent of improvisation,
which I had never heard but once before, and then he happened not
to be in the vein. Last night he was very brilliant. Each lady
gave him a subject, such as the 'Goodwood Cup,' the 'Tithe Bill;'
one 'could not think of anything,' when he dashed off and sang
stanzas innumerable, very droll, with ingenious rhymes and
excellent hits, 'his eye begetting occasion for his excellent
wit,' for at every word of interruption or admiration, every look
or motion, he indulged in a digression, always coming back to one
of the themes imposed upon him. It is a _tour de force_, in which
I believe he stands alone, and it is certainly wonderfully well
worth hearing and uncommonly amusing.

August 14th, 1834 {p.119}

Yesterday there was a bother with the Chancellor about Lord
Westmeath's case pending before the Privy Council.[2] He took it
into his head (probably having been got at by Lady Westmeath or
some of her friends) to have it decided forthwith, and sent to
desire a Committee might be convened. Westmeath's counsel was out
of town; Follett, whom he relies on, is on the Northern Circuit,
but his other counsel is to be had, being at Chislehurst.
Accordingly the Chancellor desired that the case might stand over
from Thursday, the day he first appointed it (giving only two
days' notice), to Monday, and that it should be notified to the
parties that if they did not then appear the case should go on
without them. Westmeath came to me in a frenzy of rage, and said
the Chancellor was the greatest of villains, and so he would tell
him in the House of Lords or in the Privy Council. I begged him
to hold his tongue, and I would speak to the Chancellor. So I
went to the House of Lords where he was sitting, and told
Lemarchant what had passed, and that the case ought not to be
thus hurried on. He thanked me very much, and said he would go to
Brougham; but he soon returned, and said that the Chancellor
would hear nothing, and would have the case brought on, and he
therefore advised me not to give myself any further concern in
it, and to leave him and Westmeath to settle it as they might. In
the meantime Westmeath went down to the House of Lords, and after
speaking to Wynford, whom the Chancellor had asked to attend (as
he learnt from me), was going to get up in the House of Lords and
attack him, and was only prevented by Wynford dragging him down
by the tail of his coat. I had already spoken to Wynford, and I
afterwards spoke to Lord Lansdowne, telling them that the case
ought not to be hurried on in this peremptory way, and I
persuaded Lord Lansdowne to set his face against it. However, in
the meantime Wynford had urged the Chancellor to put it off, and
not exasperate that madman, who would say or do something
violent; and, whether from reason or fear, he prevailed on him.
Wynford told me that Brougham is undoubtedly mad, and so I really
believe he is. While I was in the House of Lords Horne came in
from the Commons, and said they had succeeded in stifling there
all discussion on the rejection of the Tithe Bill by the House of
Lords. Grattan was going to introduce the subject, but was
prevailed on to say nothing, and to some questions put by Major
Beauclerck Althorp refused to reply.

      [2] [The appellate jurisdiction in causes matrimonial was
          vested at this time in the King in Council. The case of
          Westmeath _v._ Westmeath, which was a suit for a
          separation and a question of alimony, came up on appeal
          from the Court of Arches.]

August 16th, 1834 {p.120}


At a Council for the prorogation; the first time I have seen all
these new Ministers in a bunch--a queer set, all things
considered, to be in possession of the Palace. Great change of
decoration. Duncannon, Ellice, Hobhouse, Abercromby, Mulgrave,
Auckland. The King, who is fond of meddling in the Council
business instead of repeating like a parrot what is put in his
mouth, made a bother and confusion about a fancy matter, and I was
forced to go to Taylor and beg to explain it to him, which I did
after the House of Lords. The King was quite knocked up and easily
satisfied, for he neither desired nor could have understood any
explanations. There were not much more than half a dozen Peers in
the House, but many ladies. The Chancellor went down, and, in
presence of the ladies, attired in his golden robes (and
especially before Mrs. P., to whom he makes love), gave a judgment
in some case in which a picture of Nell Gwynne was concerned, and
he was very proud of the _delicacy_ of his judgment. There never
was anything like his exhilaration of spirits and good-humour. I
don't know what has come to him, except it be that he has
scrambled through the session and got Lord Grey out. He wound up
in the House of Lords by the introduction of his Bill for a
Judicial Committee there, which he prefaced by a speech exhibiting
his own judicial acts, and undoubtedly making a capital case for
himself as to diligence and despatch if it be all true (which I
see no reason to doubt), and passing a great eulogium upon the
House of Lords as an institution, and drawing comparisons between
that House and the House of Commons (much to the disadvantage of
the latter), expressing many things which are very true and just
and of a highly conservative tendency. He is a strange being whom,
with all his inconsistencies, one cannot but admire; so varied and
prodigious are his powers. Much more are these lines applicable to
him than to his predecessor on the Woolsack:--

           Great wits are sure to madness near allied,
           And thin partitions do their bounds divide.

In a speech the other night, by way of putting his audience on a
wrong scent with regard to his correspondence with Lord
Wellesley, he assured them that that correspondence was on any
subject but politics, and in every language except English; and
Lemarchant told somebody that his most difficult employment was
to correct and copy out the Chancellor's Greek epigrams to Lord
Wellesley, his Greek characters being worse than his English;
while Lord Wellesley sent him very neatly written and prettily
composed epigrams in return. I should think Lemarchant's
occupation very amusing, and that no study could be more curious
than that of the mind and actions of this strange specimen of

August 19th, 1834 {p.121}

At Stoke from Saturday, the 16th, till yesterday; had much talk
with old Creevey about the Chancellor. Sefton, his great ally, so
resented his conduct to Lord Grey that he was on the point of
quarrelling with him, and Brougham miscalculated so far as to
chuckle to Sefton himself over the improvement of his own
position in the new order of things, telling him that he could
more easily _manage_ Melbourne than he could Lord Grey. They are
a precious set with their squabbles and _tracasseries_. It
appears that they very well knew what Brougham was from the
beginning, especially Grey's womankind, who warned their father
against him, but they all flattered themselves they had taken the
sting out of him by getting him into the House of Lords. Creevey
says that Brougham is devoured with ambition, and what he wants
is to be Prime Minister, but that it is quite impossible he
should for ever escape detection and not be regularly _blown up_
sooner or later. He now wants to appear on good terms with Lord
Grey, and there is a dinner at Edinburgh in contemplation (at
which Brougham is to preside) to be given to Lord Grey. His
friends want him not to go, but he has a notion that the Scotch
have behaved so well to him that he ought not to refuse the
invitation. The Chancellor had intended to go junketting on the
Rhine with Mrs. P., and this project was only marred by his
discovering that he could not leave the country without putting
the Great Seal in commission at a cost (to himself) of £1,400.
This was a larger price than he was disposed to pay for his trip,
so he went off to Brougham instead.

On Sunday I went all over the private apartments of Windsor
Castle, and walked through what they call the slopes to the
Queen's cottage; all very splendid and luxurious. In the gallery
there is a model of a wretched-looking dog-hole of a building,
with a ruined tower beside it. I asked what this was, and the
housekeeper said, 'The Château of Meiningen;' put there, I
suppose, to enhance by comparison the pleasure of all the
grandeur which surrounds the Queen, for it would hardly have been
exhibited as a philosophical or moral memento of her humble
origin and the low fortune from which she has been raised.


As I rode into London yesterday morning I fell in with Spencer
Perceval, and got off my horse to walk into town with him. He
talks rationally enough till he gets on religious topics; he
asked me what I thought of the state of affairs, and, after
telling him my opinion of the condition and prospects of the
Church, I asked him what he thought of them. He said he agreed
with me as to the _status_, but his notion was 'that it all
proceeded from a departure from God,' that ours was a backsliding
Church, and that God had forsaken it, and that we had only to put
our trust in Him, and rely entirely on Him, and He would work out
the salvation of His own. We parted in the midst of the
discussion, and before I had any time to get from him any
explanation of the course he would recommend to those who govern
in furtherance of his own theocratical principles.

There has been what is called 'a great Protestant meeting' at
Dublin, at which Winchilsea was introduced to the Irish Orangemen
and made one of them. It was great in one way, for there were a
great many fools, who talked a great deal of nonsense and evinced
a disposition to do a great deal of mischief if they can.
Winchilsea's description of himself was undoubtedly true, only it
is true always and of all of them, 'that his feelings were so
excited that he was deprived of what little intellect he

August 26th, 1834 {p.123}

On Friday to Hillingdon, Saturday to Stoke; Lord John Russell,
Medem, Dedel, Tommy Duncombe, D'Orsay. Lord John and I walked to
Bulstrode on Sunday; talked about the Chancellor and the
Government. He said that Lord Holland was struck with Brougham's
want of tact at hearing him press Lord Grey to go to a public
dinner at Edinburgh _because_ he was to be in the chair; that
Lord Grey did not think Brougham had been engaged _ab initio_ in
a plot to get him out. Lord John talked of the House of Lords,
and how it and the House of Commons were to be re-united. He
thinks that the obstinacy of the House of Lords and its Tory
spirit are attributable solely to the numerous creations of the
last thirty or forty years.

Tommy Duncombe is the greatest political comedy going, he is
engaged in a mediation between the master builders and the
operatives, who have quarrelled about the unions, and an express
came to him from Cubitt after dinner.

Sefton told me that Lord Grey, when he was at Windsor, had a long
conversation with the King, in which his Majesty expressed no
little dissatisfaction at what had recently occurred and at the
present posture of his affairs. He told me that Lord Grey
certainly would not have continued in office under any circumstances
till Parliament met again, and that, in fact, his continual
propositions to retire and expressions of consciousness of
inability and unfitness had been very embarrassing and annoying
both to his colleagues and the King, and that the latter had
evidently been tired out by them, as was proved by his not making
the slightest effort to induce Lord Grey to remain when he
tendered his resignation. Grey acted very handsomely in giving his
proxy to Melbourne, and the reason he stayed away from the House
of Lords during the latter days of the session was that he was
afraid of being compelled to say something indicative of the real
state of his mind and feelings with regard to past occurrences.


When I got to town yesterday, to my great astonishment I found
that the Vice-Chancellor had been at the office with a peremptory
mandate from the Chancellor to bring on the Westmeath case on
Friday next, sent up from Brougham Hall. In my absence the
summonses had been issued, but I desired them all to be recalled,
and the Vice-Chancellor soon after happening to call on me, I told
him what had occurred before, and that the Lord President was
opposed to the cause being thus hurried on. He acquiesced, and
wrote to the Chancellor to say he had heard from me that it could
not be; and so it ended, but I dare say the Chancellor will be in
a violent rage, which I rather enjoy than not.[3] It is very clear
that he intends to exercise paramount authority over the Judicial
Committee, and to consider everything connected with it at his
disposal. When first he had the Privy Council Bill drawn up by one
of his devils, he intended to create a new tribunal, of which he
should be the head, and though he was obliged to give up his
original design, he still considers himself entitled to deal with
the Judicial Committee as he pleases. If the Lord President had
more of the spirit that is due to the office over which he
presides, he would not suffer him to interfere, and I am resolved
if I can to get Lord Lansdowne to assert his own authority. The
Chancellor has promised Sefton that when Mr. Blackburn, now a
judge at the Mauritius, comes home, he shall be made a Privy
Councillor; that Sir Alexander Johnston, who now attends the
sittings of the Council, shall be dismissed, and Blackburn invited
to attend instead of him, and that he shall have £400 a year
(which by the Act he may). This, if it takes place, will be one of
the grossest and most barefaced jobs that ever were perpetrated;
but I think it can never be. What makes it worse is that Brougham
introduced this clause for the express purpose of meeting
Blackburn's case; so he told Sefton, but I suppose it means that
he made the stipend receivable by an ex-judge in _any colony_,
when the pretext for it was the power of obtaining the assistance
of Indian judges.[4]

      [3] [In addition to other reasons, which are obvious,
          against this proceeding, it would have been an
          unprecedented thing to call on an important appeal for
          hearing at the end of August, in the midst of the long

      [4] [No colonial judge has ever been appointed to one of
          the assessorships of the Judicial Committee, except Sir
          Alexander Johnston, who had been Chief Justice of
          Ceylon; but Sir Alexander refused to accept the stipend
          (£400 a year) attached to the office, and never did
          receive it.]

September 4th, 1834 {p.125}

At Court yesterday. The King came to town to receive the address of
the City on the Queen's return--the most ridiculous address I ever
heard. The Queen was too ill to appear. Her visit to Germany knocked
her up, and well it might, considering the life she led--always up
at six and never in bed till twelve, continual receptions and
ceremonies. Errol told me she showed them her old bedroom in the
palace (as they call it) at Meiningen--a hole that an English
housemaid would think it a hardship to sleep in.

Stanley (not the ex-Secretary, but the Under-Secretary) told me
last night an anecdote of Melbourne which I can very easily
believe. When the King sent for him he told Young 'he thought it a
damned bore, and that he was in many minds what he should do--be
Minister or no.' Young said, 'Why, damn it, such a position never
was occupied by any Greek or Roman, and, if it only lasts two
months, it is well worth while to have been Prime Minister of
England.' 'By God that's true,' said Melbourne; 'I'll go.' Young
is his private secretary--a vulgar, familiar, impudent fellow, but
of indefatigable industry and a man who suits Melbourne. His taste
is not delicate enough to be shocked at the coarseness, while his
indolence is accommodated by the industry, of his secretary. Then
Young[5] knows many people, many places, and many things; nobody
knows whence he comes or what is his origin, but he was a purser
in the navy, and made himself useful to the Duke of Devonshire
when he went to Russia, who recommended him to Melbourne. He was a
writer and runner for the newspapers, and has always been an
active citizen, struggling and striving to get on in the world,
and probably with no inconsiderable dexterity. I know nothing of
his honesty, for or against it; he seems good-humoured, but vulgar
and familiar. Ben Stanley and I were talking about public men, and
agreed that by far the ablest, and at the same time the most
unscrupulous, of them are Brougham and O'Connell, and that the
latter is probably on the whole the most devoid of principle.
Their characters and adventures would be worthy of a Plutarch.

      [5] [Tom Young was commonly known as 'Ubiquity Young,'
          because you saw him in every place you might happen to
          go to.]

September 5th, 1834 {p.126}


At Holland House yesterday, where I had not been these two years.
Met Lord Holland at Court, who made me go. The last time I was
with my Lady she was so mighty uncivil that I left off my visits,
and then we met again as if there had been no interruption, and
as if we had been living together constantly. Spring Rice and his
son, Melbourne, and Palmerston dined there; Allen was at Dulwich,
but came in the evening, and so did Bobus Smith. There was a
great deal of very good talk, anecdotes, literary criticism, and
what not, some of which would be worth remembering, though hardly
sufficiently striking to be put down, unless as forming a portion
of a whole course of conversations of this description. A vast
depression came over my spirits, though I was amused, and I don't
suppose I uttered a dozen words. It is certainly true that the
atmosphere of Holland House is often oppressive, but that was not
it; it was a painful consciousness of my own deficiencies and of
my incapacity to take a fair share in conversation of this
description. I felt as if a language was spoken before me which I
understood, but not enough to talk in it myself. There was
nothing discussed of which I was altogether ignorant, and when
the merits of Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Crabbe were brought into
comparison, and Lord Holland cut jokes upon Allen for his
enthusiastic admiration of the 'De Moribus Germanorum,' it was
not that I had not read the poets or the historian, but that I
felt I had not read them with profit. I have not that familiarity
with either which enables me to discuss their merits, and a
painful sense came over me of the difference between one who has
superficially read and one who has studied, one who has laid a
solid foundation in early youth, gathering knowledge as he
advances in years, all the stores of his mind being so orderly
disposed that they are at all times available, and one who (as I
have done) has huddled together a quantity of loose reading, as
vanity, curiosity, and not seldom shame impelled; reading thus
without system, more to cover the deficiencies of ignorance than
to augment the stores of knowledge, loads the mind with an
undigested mass of matter, which proves when wanted to be of
small practical utility--in short, one must pay for the follies
of one's youth. He who wastes his early years in horse-racing and
all sorts of idleness, figuring away among the dissolute and the
foolish, must be content to play an inferior part among the
learned and the wise. Some instances there are of men who have
united both characters, but it will be found that these have had
frequent laborious intervals, that though they may have been
vicious, they have never been indolent, and that their minds have
never slumbered and lost by disuse the power of exertion.
Reflections of this sort make me very uncomfortable, and I am
ready to cry with vexation when I think on my misspent life. If I
was insensible to a higher order of merit, and indifferent to a
nobler kind of praise, I should be happier far; but to be
tormented with the sentiment of an honourable ambition and with
aspirations after better things, and at the same time so sunk in
sloth and bad habits as to be incapable of those exertions
without which their objects are unattainable, is of all
conditions the worst. I sometimes think that it would be better
for me, as I am not what I might have been (if my education had
been less neglected, and my mind had undergone a better system of
moral discipline), if I was still lower than I am in the scale,
and belonged entirely to a more degraded caste; and then again,
when I look forward to that period which is fast approaching--

         When ... a sprightlier age--
         Comes tittering on to drive one from the stage--

I am thankful that I have still something in store, that though
far below the wise and the learned, I am still something raised
above the ignorant mob, that though much of my mental substance
has been wasted, I have enough left to appear respectably in the
world, and that I have at least preserved that taste for literary
pursuits which I cling to as the greatest of blessings and the
best security against the tedium and vacuity which are the
indispensable concomitants of an idle youth and an ignorant old


As a slight but imperfect sketch of the talk of Holland House I
will put down this:--

They talked of Taylor's new poem, 'Philip van Artevelde.'
Melbourne had read and admired it. The preface, he said, was
affected and foolish, the poem very superior to anything in
Milman. There was one fine idea in the 'Fall of Jerusalem'--that
of Titus, who felt himself propelled by an irresistible impulse
like that of the Greek dramatists, whose fate is the great agent
always pervading their dramas. They held Wordsworth cheap, except
Spring Rice, who was enthusiastic about him. Holland thought
Crabbe the greatest genius of modern poets. Melbourne said he
degraded every subject. None of them had known Coleridge; his
lectures were very tiresome, but he is a poet of great merit.
Then they spoke of Spencer Perceval and Irving preaching in the
streets. Irving had called on Melbourne, and eloquently
remonstrated that 'they only asked the same licence that was
given to puppet-shows and other sights not to be prevented; that
the command was express, "Go into the highways," and that they
must obey God rather than man.' Melbourne said this was all very
true and unanswerable. 'What _did_ you answer?' I asked. 'I said,
"You must not preach there."' Then of Cambridge and Goulburn, who
is a saint and gave lectures in his room, by which he has caught
several young men. Lord Holland spoke of George III.'s letters to
Lord North; the King liked Lord North, hated the Duke of
Richmond. Amongst the few people he liked were Lord Loughborough
and Lord Thurlow. Thurlow was always 'endeavouring to undermine
the Minister with whom he was acting, and intriguing underhand
with his enemies.' Loughborough used to say, 'Do what you think
right, and never think of what you are to say to excuse it
beforehand'--a good maxim. The Duke of Richmond in 1763 or 1764,
after an audience of the King in his closet, told him that 'he
had said that to him which if he was a subject he should not
scruple to call an untruth.' The King never forgave it, and the
Duke had had the imprudence to make a young king his enemy for
life. This Duke of Richmond, when Lord-Lieutenant of Sussex,
during the American war, sailed in a yacht through the fleet,
when the King was there, with American colours at his mast-head.
He never forgave Fox for putting the Duke of Portland instead of
himself at the head of the Government in 1782. During the riots
in 1780 on account of Admiral Keppel, Tom Grenville burst open
the door of the Admiralty, and assisted at the pillage and
destruction of papers. Lord Grey a little while ago attacked him
about it, and he did not deny it. Such things could not be done
now. During the Windsor election they hired a mob to go down and
throw Lord Mornington (Lord Wellesley) over Windsor Bridge, and
Fitzpatrick said it would be so fine to see St. Patrick's blue
riband floating down the stream. They first sent to Piper to know
if Lord Mornington could swim. The plan was defeated by his
having a still stronger mob. After dinner they discussed women's
works: few _chefs-d'oeuvres_; Madame de Sévigné the best; the
only three of a high class are Madame de Sévigné, Madame de
Stael, and (Bobus Smith said) Sappho, but of her not above forty
lines are extant: these, however, are unrivalled; Mrs Somerville
is very great in the exact sciences. Lady Holland would not hear
of Madame de Stael. They agreed as to Miss Austen that her novels
are excellent. Quintus Curtius is confirmed by Burnes' travels in
Bokhara, but was reckoned no authority by the greatest scholars;
Lord Melbourne said Mitford had expressed his confidence in him.
Of the early English kings there is no reason to believe that any
king before Edward III. understood the English language; the
quarrel between Beckett and King Henry II. was attributed (by
some writers) to the hostile feeling between Normans and Saxons,
and this was the principal motive of the quarrel and the murder
of the Archbishop. Klopstock had a _sect_ of admirers in Germany;
some young students made a pilgrimage from Gottingen to Hamburg,
where Klopstock lived in his old age, to ask him the meaning of a
passage in one of his works which they could not understand. He
looked at it, and then said that he could not then recollect what
it was that he meant when he wrote it, but that he knew it was
the finest thing he ever wrote, and they could not do better than
devote their lives to the discovery of its meaning.

September 7th, 1834 {p.130}


At Holland House again; only Bobus Smith and Melbourne; these
two, with Allen, and Lord Holland agreeable enough. Melbourne's
excellent scholarship and universal information remarkably
display themselves in society, and he delivers himself with an
energy which shows how deeply his mind is impressed with literary

After dinner there was much talk of the Church, and Allen spoke of
the early reformers, the Catharists, and how the early Christians
persecuted each other; Melbourne quoted Vigilantius's letter to
Jerome, and then asked Allen about the 11th of Henry IV., an Act
passed by the Commons against the Church, and referred to the
dialogue between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of
Ely at the beginning of Shakespeare's 'Henry V.,' which Lord
Holland sent for and read, Melbourne knowing it all by heart and
prompting all the time. Lingard says of this statute that the
Commons proposed to the King to commit an act of spoliation on the
clergy, but that the King sharply rebuked them and desired to hear
no more of the matter. About etymologies Melbourne quoted Tooke's
'Diversions of Purley,' which he seemed to have at his fingers'
ends. I forget what other topics were discussed, but after Lady
Holland and Melbourne and Allen went to bed, Lord Holland, Bobus,
and I sat down, and Lord Holland told us many anecdotes about the
great orators of his early days. Fox used to say Grey was the most
prudent man he knew, and this perhaps owing to his having got into
a scrape early in his Parliamentary life, by attacking Pitt, who
gave him a severe castigation; it was about his letter to the
Prince being sent by a servant during the Regency discussions. Fox
thought his own speech in 1804 on going to war with France the
best he ever made. Lord Holland believed that Pitt (the younger)
was not so eloquent as Chatham. Grattan said, 'He takes longer
flights, does not soar so high.' No power was ever equal to
Chatham's over a public assembly, much greater in the Commons than
it was afterwards in the Lords. When Sir Thomas Robinson had been
boring the House on some commercial question, and introduced the
word 'sugar' so often that there was at last a laugh as often as
he did so, Chatham, then Mr. Pitt, who had put him up, grew very
angry, and at last his wrath boiled over. When Robinson sat down
Pitt rose, and with a tone and manner of the utmost indignation
began, 'Mr. Speaker, sir--sugar--I say sugar. Who laughs now?' and
nobody did laugh. Once in the House of Lords, on a debate during
the American war, he said he hoped the King might be awakened from
his slumbers. There was a cry of 'Order! order!' 'Order, my
Lords?' burst out Chatham, 'Order? I have not been disorderly, but
I _will_ be disorderly. I repeat again, I hope that his Majesty
may be awakened from his slumbers, but that he may be awakened by
such an awful apparition as that which drew King Priam's curtains
in the dead of the night and told him of the conflagration of his
empire.' Holland regretted much that he had never heard Lord
North, whom he fancied he should have liked as much as any of his
great opponents; his temper, shrewdness, humour, and power of
argument were very great. Tommy Townshend, a violent, foolish
fellow, who was always talking strong language, said in some
debate, 'Nothing will satisfy me but to have the noble Lord's
head; I will have his head.' Lord North said, 'The honourable
gentleman says he will have my head. I bear him no malice in
return, for though the honourable gentleman says he will have my
head, I can assure him that I would on no account have his.'

September 13th, 1834 {p.132}

Dined again at Holland House the day before yesterday; Melbourne,
Rice, Lord and Lady Albemarle, and Lord Gosford; rather dull. A
discussion about _who_ was the man in a mask who cut Charles I.'s
head off; Mackintosh believed he knew. What a literary puerility!
The man in a mask was Jack Ketch (whatever his name was); who can
doubt it? Where was the man, Roundhead or Puritan, who as an
amateur would have mounted the scaffold to perform this office?
But the executioner, though only discharging the duties of his
office, probably thought in those excited times that he would not
be safe from the vengeance of some enthusiastic cavalier, and
that it was more prudent to conceal the features of the man by
whom the deed was done. Melbourne swore that Henry VIII. was the
greatest man who ever lived, and Allen declared if he had not
married Ann Boleyn we should have continued Catholics to this
day, both of which assertions I ventured to dispute. Allen with
all his learning is fond of a paradox, and his prejudices shine
forth in every question in which Church and religion are
implicated. Melbourne loves dashing opinions.

September 18th, 1834 {p.133}


For some weeks past a fierce war has been waged by the 'Times'
against the Chancellor. It was declared in some menacing articles
which soon swelled into a tone of rebuke, and have since been
sharpened into attacks of a constancy, violence, and vigour quite
unexampled; all the power of writing which the paper can
command--argument, abuse, and ridicule--have been heaped day
after day upon him, and when it took a little breathing time it
filled up the interval by quotations from other papers, which
have been abundantly supplied both by the London and the country
press. I do not yet know what are the secret causes which have
stirred the wrath of the 'Times.' The 'Examiner' has once a week
thrown into the general contribution of rancour an article
perhaps wittier and more pungent than any which have appeared in
the 'Times,' but between them they have flagellated him till he
is raw, and it is very clear that he feels it quite as acutely as
they can desire. While they have thus been administering
castigation in this unsparing style, he has afforded them the
best opportunities by his extraordinary progress in Scotland, and
the astonishing speeches which he made at Aberdeen and Dundee,
making more mountebank exhibitions than he did in the House of
Lords, and exciting the unquenchable laughter of his enemies and
the continual terror of his friends. Lord Holland told me that he
was trembling for the account of the Edinburgh dinner. That great
affair appears, however (by the first half of the proceedings),
to have gone off very well. Lord Grey in his speech confined
himself to general topics, and he and Brougham steered extremely
clear of one another, but Brougham made some allusions which
Durham took to himself, and replied to with considerable asperity
of tone, avoiding, however, any personalities and anything like a
direct collision. Everybody asks, How long will Brougham be
permitted to go on playing these ape's tricks and scattering his
flummery and his lies? and then they say, But you can't get rid of
him, and the Government (dangerous as he is to them) could not get
on without him. There would probably be no difficulty; experience
has demonstrated to me the extreme fallacy of the notion that
_anybody_ under _any_ circumstances is indispensable. Althorp
appeared the most indispensable man the other day, but that was only
because his friends and the fools in the House of Commons kept
bawling out that he was so till they persuaded him, themselves, and
everybody else that it really was the case. Who would have dared to
say that this Government could have gone on without either Stanley
in one House or Lord Grey in the other? But anybody would have been
scouted as mad who had argued that it would go on just as well when
deprived of both of them. The Chancellor's amazing talents--his
eloquence, sarcasm, and varied powers--can never fail to produce
considerable effect; but in the House of Lords the field is narrow
for the display of these qualities, the audience is cold and
unfriendly, and he has excited such a general feeling of personal
animosity against himself, and has done such irreparable injury to
his character--having convinced all the world that he is desperately
ambitious, false, capricious, intriguing, and governed by no
principle, and under the influence of no sentiment of honour--that
his influence is exceedingly diminished. Those who are charitably
disposed express their humane conviction that he is mad, and it
probably is not very remote from the truth.[6]

      [6] [It is with pain and reluctance that I print these
          remarks on Lord Brougham, and several passages in the
          preceding pages of these Memoirs which are equally
          severe, and in some respects, I think, exaggerated. But
          I certainly do not feel myself justified in withholding
          them. They were all revised and corrected by the author
          himself with great care; and nothing but a true and
          full account of the sentiments which Lord Brougham's
          conduct had excited amongst his colleagues and
          contemporaries at that time can account for the
          catastrophe which awaited him, and which excluded him
          for the rest of his life from official life and

Henry Taylor brought me a parcel of letters to frank to Southey
the other day; they are from Newton, Cowper's nephew (I think to
W. Thornton), and they are to supply Southey with materials for
Cowper's Life, which he is writing. There is one curious fact
revealed in these letters, which accounts for much of Cowper's
morbid state of mind and fits of depression, as well as for the
circumstance of his running away from his place in the House of
Lords. It relates to some defect in his physical conformation;
some body found out his secret, and probably threatened its

September 19th, 1834 {p.135}


Yesterday at Holland House; nobody there but Melbourne. We were
talking of Reform, and Lord Holland said, 'I don't know if we were
right about Reform, but this I know, that if we were to propose it
at all, we were right in going the lengths we did, and this was
Canning's opinion.' Melbourne said, 'Yes, I know it was, and that
was mine, and that was the reason why I was against Reform.' Holland
then resumed that he had formerly been one of Canning's most
intimate friends at college; that at that time--the beginning of the
French Revolution--when a general excitement prevailed, Canning was
a great Jacobin, much more so than he was himself; that Canning had
always hated the aristocracy (a hatred which they certainly returned
with interest); that in after life he had been separated from
Canning, and they had seen but little of each other. Just before he
was going to India, however, Holland called on him, and Canning
dined at Holland House. On one of these occasions they had a
conversation upon the subject of Reform, when Canning said that he
saw it was inevitable, and he was not sorry to be away while the
measure was accomplished, but that if he had been here while it was
mooted, he could have _let those gentlemen_ (the Whig aristocracy)
_know that they should gain nothing by it_. After dinner we had much
talk about religion, when Allen got into a fury; he thundered out
his invectives against the _charlatanerie_ of the Apostles and
Fathers and the brutal ignorance of the early Christian converts,
when Holland said, laughing, 'Well, but you need not abuse them so
violently.' They were in high delight at Holland House at the way
the Edinburgh dinner went off. It was a very ludicrous incident that
the Scotchmen could not be kept from falling to before Lord Grey and
the grandees arrived, and when they did come most of the dinner was
already eaten up. The Chancellor is said to have made an admirable
speech at the meeting of _savans_, full of dignity, propriety, and
eloquence, and the _savans_ spoke one more absurdly than another.

September 23rd, 1834 {p.136}


On Saturday at Stoke; came up yesterday with Melbourne. We had a
great deal of talk. As soon as we got into the carriage he asked
me if I thought it was true that Talleyrand had taken such
offence at Palmerston that he would not return here on that
account, and if I knew what it was that had affronted him,
whether any deficiency in diplomatic punctilio or general
offensiveness of manner. I told him I had no doubt it was true,
and that the complaints against Palmerston were so general that
there must be some cause for them, and though Madame de Lieven
might be prejudiced against him, _all_ the foreign Ambassadors
could not be so. He said it was very extraordinary if it was so,
tried to argue that it might not be the case, and put it in all
sorts of different ways; he said that Palmerston exhibited no
signs of temper or arrogance with his colleagues, but quite the
reverse; he owned, however, he was very obstinate. We then talked
over the Stratford Canning business; he admitted that it was
unfortunate and might lead to serious consequences, both as to
our relations with the Emperor and to the question of diplomatic
expenses here. I expressed my astonishment that Palmerston's
obstinacy should have been permitted to have its own way in the
matter, and I should guess, from his own strong opinion on the
subject, that an Ambassador would be sent before long. He told
me--what I did not know before--that the King of Prussia had
desired to have Lord Clanwilliam recalled from Berlin.

He then talked of Brougham, and I found that he knows him
thoroughly, and is more on his guard than I thought he was with
regard to him. I told him of the change in Sefton's feelings
towards him on Lord Grey's account, and also of Brougham's strange
want of discrimination and his imprudence in congratulating
himself to Sefton on the recent changes, and of his expectations
of profiting by Melbourne's advancement to power. I touched
lightly on the latter part, because it is never prudent to dwell
upon topics which are injurious to a person's vanity, and a word
dropped upon so tender a part produces as much effect as the
strongest argument. He seemed not a little struck by it, and when
I said that I thought there was a taint of insanity in the
Chancellor, he said that he thought a great change in him was
manifest in the course of the last year, and admitted that he did
not think him of sound mind certainly. This he rather implied than
expressed, however. He talked of his conduct in Parliament, and
observed upon the strange forbearance of the Tories towards him;
he thought he had never given stronger evidence of talent than in
some of his speeches during the last session. I asked him if the
King and Brougham were well together. He shook his head: 'not at
all, and the King can't bear these exhibitions in Scotland.' He
said the King liked Palmerston, Auckland, Spring Rice, and
Mulgrave; had no fancy for any of the rest. (I suspect he likes
him (Melbourne), because he appears to talk openly to him, and to
express his feelings about the others, and I dare say Melbourne
puts him at his ease.) He can't bear John Russell, respects
Althorp (and particularly Lord Spencer), but hates Althorp's
politics; treats Lord Holland with the familiarity of a
connexion,[7] but doesn't like his politics either; he is
tenacious about having everything laid before him, often gives his
opinion, but is easily satisfied; liked Lord Grey, but was never
quite at his ease with him (this accounts for his taking Lord
Grey's resignation as quietly as he did); has a very John-Bullish
aversion to the French, and the junction of the English and French
fleets two years ago was a bitter pill for him to swallow.

      [7] [Colonel Fox, Lord Holland's eldest son, having married
          Lady Mary, the King's eldest daughter, both however
          born out of wedlock.]

We afterwards talked of Canning and the Duke of Wellington, and
the breaking up of the Tory Government. I told him that I
believed the Duke and the Tories were aware of Canning's
communications with Brougham. Brougham wrote to Canning and made
him an unqualified offer of support. When the King asked Canning
how he was to obtain support enough to carry on the Government,
he pulled this letter out of his pocket, gave it to him, and
said, 'Sir, your father broke the domination of the Whigs; I hope
your Majesty will not endure that of the Tories.' 'No,' said the
King; 'I'll be damned if I do;' and he made him Minister. This
Canning told Melbourne himself.

September 25th, 1834 {p.138}

Dined yesterday at Holland House; only Melbourne and Pahlen, and
in the evening Senior came. He is a very able man--a conveyancer,
great political economist, and author of various works on that
subject. He was employed by Government to draw up the Poor Law
Bill, and might have been one of the Poor Law Commissioners if he
would have accepted the office; his profits in his profession are
too great to be given up for this occupation. By a discussion
which arose about Bickersteth's merits it was clear that there is
a question of his being Solicitor-General. Melbourne said 'he was
a Benthamite, and they were all fools.' (He said a doctrinaire
was a fool, but an honest man.) I said 'the Austins were not
fools.' 'Austin? Oh, a damned fool. Did you ever read his book
on "Jurisprudence"?' I said I had read a great part of it, and
that it did not appear to be the work of a fool. He said he had
read it all, and that it was the dullest book he ever read, and
full of truisms elaborately set forth. Melbourne is very fond of
being slashing and paradoxical. It is astonishing how much he
reads even now that he is Prime Minister. He is greatly addicted
to theology, and loves conversing on the subject of religion.
----, who wanted him to marry her (which he won't do, though he
likes to talk to her), is the depositary of his thoughts and
notions on these subjects, and the other day she told me he sent
her a book (I forget what) on the Revelation stuffed with
marginal notes of his own. It was not long ago that he _studied_
Lardner's book on the 'Credibility of the Christian Religion,'
and compared it with the Bible as he went along. She fancies that
all this reading and reflection have turned him into the right
way. I can see no symptom of it at Holland House.

After dinner we talked of languages, and Lord Holland insisted
that Spanish was the finest of all and the best adapted to
eloquence. They said that George Villiers wrote word that nothing
could be better than the speaking in the Cortes--great readiness
and acuteness in reply--and that a more dexterous and skilful
debater than Martinez de la Rosa could not be found in any
assembly. '_That_ speaking so well is the worst thing about
them,' said Melbourne. 'Ah, that is one of your paradoxes,' Lord
Holland replied.

Allen talked to me about the Harley papers, which were left in a
box not to be opened for sixty years; the box was only opened a
few years ago at my cousin Titchfield's (the first) desire, and
the papers submitted to Mackintosh, with permission to publish
them in his 'History of England.' Mackintosh's death put an end
to this, and Allen wants me to ask my uncle the Duke of Portland
to put them in my hands and let me publish them. I never did so.
Macaulay had all Mackintosh's papers, and amongst them his notes
from these MSS.

London, November 13th, 1834


For two months nearly that I have been in this country I have not
written a line, having had nothing worth recording to put down. It
is not worth my while to write, nor anybody else's to read (should
anybody ever read these memoranda), the details of racing and all
that thereunto appertains, and though several disagreeable
occurrences have ruffled the stream of my life, I have no pleasure
in recording these; for if their consequences pass away, and I can
forget them, it is better not at any future time to awaken 'the
scorpion sting of griefs subdued.' Of public events I have known
nothing but what everybody else knows, and it would have been mere
waste of time to copy from the newspapers accounts of the
conflagration of the Houses of Parliament or the Durham dinner at
Glasgow. My campaign on the turf has been a successful one. Still
all this success has not prevented frequent disgusts, and I derive
anything but unmixed pleasure from this pursuit even when I win by
it. Besides the continual disappointments and difficulties
incident to it, which harass the mind, the life it compels me to
lead, the intimacies arising out of it, the associates and the war
against villany and trickery, being haunted by continual
suspicions, discovering the trust-_un_worthiness of one's most
intimate friends, the necessity of insincerity and concealment
sometimes where one feels that one ought and would desire to be
most open; then the degrading nature of the occupation, mixing
with the lowest of mankind, and absorbed in the business for the
sole purpose of getting money, the consciousness of a sort of
degradation of intellect, the conviction of the deteriorating
effects upon both the feelings and the understanding which are
produced, the sort of dram-drinking excitement of it--all these
things and these thoughts torment me, and often turn my pleasure
to pain. On arriving in town I went to Crockford's, where I found
all the usual set of people, and soon after Sefton came in. Lord
Spencer's death had taken place the day before; he knew nothing of
the probable arrangements, but he told me that he supposed Althorp
would go to the Admiralty and Auckland to India. But what he was
fullest of was that Mrs. Lane Fox's house was become the great
rendezvous of a considerable part of the Cabinet. The Chancellor,
Melbourne, Duncannon, and Mulgrave are there every day and all
day; they all dine with her, or meet her (the only woman) at each
other's houses, as often as they can. It certainly is a droll
connexion. The squabbles between Brougham and Durham seem to have
resolved themselves into a mere personal coldness, and there is no
question now of any hostilities between them. I never thought
there would be, though some people apparently did; but they both
would much rather rail than fight.

November 14th, 1834 {p.140}

Went down to the Council Office yesterday, and found them in the
middle of Lord Westmeath's case--Lord Lansdowne, the Vice-Chancellor,
Parke, Erskine, and Vaughan. Lushington was for Lady Westmeath,
and Follett (with a civilian) for him. After the argument there
was a discussion, and well did Westmeath do, for they reduced the
alimony from £700 to £315 a year, and the arrears in the same
proportion. Thus Westmeath succeeded in great measure in his
appeal, which he would not have done if the Chancellor had
contrived to lug on the case as he wished; for Erskine was all for
giving her more, the others did not seem averse, and but for
Parke, who hit off the right principle, as well as what best
accorded with the justice of the case, she would certainly have
got a much larger award.


The Vice-Chancellor afterwards told me the history of the recent
legal appointments. There never was any difference of opinion
between Brougham and Melbourne on the subject of either. Campbell
accepted the Attorney-Generalship on the express condition that
he should not expect to succeed as a matter of right to any
vacancy in the Courts, but on Leach's death he did instantly urge
his claims. Brougham wrote to Melbourne, and speedily followed
his letter to London, and they both agreed not to listen to this
claim, and to promote Pepys. I don't know how they disposed of
Horne's claim. Bickersteth[8] refused to be Solicitor-General on
account of his health, and not choosing to face the House of
Commons and its work. Shadwell told me that he wrote to Brougham
and suggested Rolfe when the vacancy occurred, that he had not
been in great practice, but was a good lawyer and excellent
speaker, and that the Chancellor and Melbourne had likewise
concurred in this appointment. Nothing is settled about the new
arrangements rendered necessary by Lord Spencer's death, but
Melbourne went to Brighton yesterday. Rice has worked hard to
master the Colonial business, and probably will not like to be
translated to the Exchequer; besides, it is supposed that his
seat at Cambridge would be in great peril. People talk of their
not going on; how can any others go on better?

      [8] [Mr. Bickersteth refused to be Solicitor-General
          because the offer was made to him by the Lord
          Chancellor, and not by the Prime Minister. At that time
          he was personally unacquainted with Lord Melbourne, but
          he consented to call on him at Lord Melbourne's
          request, and the offer was repeated, but not accepted.
          The real reason of his refusal was his profound
          distrust of Lord Brougham, which amounted to aversion,
          and he thought it unworthy of himself to accept the
          office of a law officer of the Crown under a Chancellor
          with whom he could not conscientiously act. I have read
          a MS. narrative of the whole transaction by Lord
          Langdale himself, in which these sentiments are very
          strongly expressed.]

Lord Lansdowne has just returned from Paris, where, he told me,
he had frequent conversations with the King. The new Ministry is
a wretched patched-up affair; but the Government of France is
centred in the King, and it is his great power and influence in
the Chambers, and not the ability of his Ministers (be they who
they may), that keeps the thing going. This influence appears to
be immense, and without enjoying any popularity, there is an
universal opinion that Louis Philippe is indispensable to France.
He told Lord Lansdowne that he had always been against the
appointment of Marshal Gérard as President of the Council,
although he had a high opinion of him, but that he was aware he
had not tact and judgment sufficient for that post, and he had
told his Ministers that he would consent to the appointment if
they insisted on it, but that he warned them that it would break
up the Government. Whatever may be the instability of this or any
other Administration, it is said that nothing can be more firm
and secure than the King's tenure of his crown. He appears, in
fact, to be the very man that France requires, and as he is in
the vigour of life and has a reasonable prospect of a long reign,
he will probably consolidate the interest of his family and
extinguish whatever lingering chance there might be of the
restoration of the old effete dynasty.

                           CHAPTER XXV.

Fall of Lord Melbourne's Government--History and Causes of this
  Event--An Intrigue--Effect of the _Coup_ at Holland House--The
  Change of Government--The two Camps--The King's Address to the
  New Ministers--The Duke's Account of the Transaction--And Lord
  Lyndhurst's--Difficult Position of the Tories--Their Policy--
  The Duke in all the Offices--Negotiation with Mr. Barnes--Power
  of the 'Times'--Another Address of the King--Brougham offers to
  be Lord Chief Baron--Mr. Barnes dines with Lord Lyndhurst--Whig
  View of the Recent Change--Liberal Views of the Tory
  Ministers--The King resolved to support them--Another Account
  of the Interview between the King and Lord Melbourne--Lord
  Stanley's Position--Sydney Smith's Preaching at St. Paul's--
  Lord Duncannon and Lord Melbourne--Relations of the four
  Seceders to Peel--Young Disraeli--Lord Melbourne's Speeches at
  Derby--Lord John Russell's Speech at Totness--The Duke of
  Wellington's Inconsistencies and Conduct.

November 16th, 1834 {p.143}


Yesterday morning the town was electrified by the news that
Melbourne's Government was at an end. Nobody had the slightest
suspicion of such an impending catastrophe; the Ministers
themselves reposed in perfect security. I never saw astonishment
so great on every side; nobody pretended to have prophesied or
expected such an event. Thus it befell:--On Thursday Melbourne
went to Brighton to make the arrangements necessary on Lord
Spencer's death. He had previously received a letter from the
King, which contained nothing indicative of the fate that awaited
him. He had his audience on Thursday afternoon, and offered his
Majesty the choice of Spring Rice, Lord John Russell, or
Abercromby to lead the House of Commons and fill the vacant
office. The King made some objections, and said he must take time
to consider it. Nothing more passed that night, and the next day,
when Melbourne saw the King, his Majesty placed in his hands a
letter containing his determination. It was couched in terms
personally complimentary to Melbourne, but he said that, having
lost the services of Lord Althorp as leader of the House of
Commons, he could feel no confidence in the stability of his
Government when led by any other member of it; that they were
already in a minority in the House of Peers, and he had every
reason to believe the removal of Lord Althorp would speedily put
them in the same situation in the other House; that under such
circumstances he felt other arrangements to be necessary, and
that it was his intention to send for the Duke of Wellington.
Nothing could be more peremptory and decisive, and not a loophole
was left for explanation or arrangements, or endeavour to patch
the thing up. The King wrote to the Duke, and, what is rather
droll, the letter was despatched by Melbourne's carriage, which
returned to town. It is very evident that the King has long
determined to seize the first plausible pretext he could find for
getting rid of these people, whom he dislikes and fears, and that
he thinks (justly or not remains to be proved) the translation of
Althorp affords him a good opportunity, and such a one perhaps as
may not speedily occur again. It is long since a Government has
been so summarily dismissed--regularly kicked out, in the
simplest sense of that phrase. Melbourne's colleagues expected
his return without a shadow of apprehension, or doubt. He got
back late, and wrote to none of them. The Chancellor, who had
dined at Holland House, called on him and heard the news; the
others (except Duncannon, who went to him, and I believe
Palmerston) remained in happy ignorance till yesterday morning,
when they were saluted at their rising with the astounding
intelligence. All the Ministers (except Brougham) read the
account of their dismissal in the 'Times' the next morning, and
this was the first they heard of it. Melbourne resolved to say
nothing that night, but summoned an early Cabinet, when he meant
to impart it. Brougham called on him on his way from Holland
House. Melbourne told him, but made him promise not to say a word
of it to anybody. He promised, and the moment he quitted the
house sent to the 'Times' office and told them what had occurred,
with the well-known addition that 'the Queen had done it all.'

They attribute their fall to the influence of the Queen, and fancy
that it is the result of a preconcerted scheme and intrigue with
the Tories, neither of which do I believe to be true. With regard
to the latter notion, the absence of Sir Robert Peel, who is
travelling in Italy, is a conclusive proof of its falseness. He
never would have been absent if he had foreseen the remotest
possibility of a crisis, and the death of Lord Spencer has been
imminent and expected for some time past. I am convinced that it
is the execution of a project which the King has long nourished of
delivering himself from the Whigs whenever he could. His original
dislike has been exasperated to a great pitch by the mountebank
exhibitions of Brougham, and he is so alarmed and disgusted at the
Radical propensities which the Durham dinner has manifested, that
he is resolved to try whether the Government cannot be conducted
upon principles which are called Conservative, but which shall
really be _bonâ fide_ opposed to the ultra doctrines and wild
schemes which he knows are not distasteful to at least one-half of
his late Cabinet.

His resentment against these people has been considerably
increased by the discovery (which he believes he has made) of his
having been grossly deceived at the period of Lord Grey's
retirement and the formation of Melbourne's Administration. The
circumstances of this part of the business I know only imperfectly,
so much so as to leave a good deal that requires explanation in
order to make it intelligible; but I was told on good authority
yesterday that at that time Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of
Wellington were quite prepared to undertake the formation of a
Government if it had been proposed to them, and that he had every
reason to believe they had been betrayed by 'that scoundrel
H----,' who had been employed by some of the other party to find
out what their intentions and dispositions were upon that point;
that H---- had gone to them and asked them the question, and
having at that time entire confidence in him, they had told him if
it was offered to them they certainly would undertake it; that he
had never told them or given them any reason to believe that he
was commissioned to find out their resolution, and they think he
returned to his employer and told him that they must take care how
such an offer was made to the Tories, as they would certainly
accept it if it was offered. Melbourne was no party to this
transaction, but the consequence of it was that the King was given
to understand that it would be useless to propose to them to form
a Government, for they were not prepared to do so, and he was
advised to make the proposal of a coalition, which was made, and
which they of course rejected. The King, it appears, subsequently
discovered what their disposition had been at the time, and that
he had been misled and deceived, and this made him very indignant.

I should like to know this story more in detail, for it would be
curious to learn who were the agents in the intrigue, and, above
all, what could induce H---- to sacrifice the interests of the
Duke of Wellington (with whom he had great influence and to whom
he had great obligations) and of the party from which alone he
could expect any solid advantages to those of the Whigs, from
whom he could derive no benefit sufficient to compensate him for
the danger as well as treachery of the transaction. I never liked
this fellow, and always thought him a low blackguard, and,
however shrewd and active, a bad confidant and 'fidus Achates'
for the Duke to have taken up; but the folly and shortsightedness
of this proceeding seem so obvious (to say nothing of its
villany) that I cannot without strong proofs yield my belief to
the story, though Peel is not a man to harbour such strong
suspicions on slight grounds.

This morning Lord Lansdowne wrote me word that the Duke had
accepted, but it is probable that nothing can be done till Peel
returns from Italy. He will accept no post but that of Prime
Minister, though the King would prefer to put the Duke there if
he would take it.

November 17th, 1834 {p.147}


It is only bit by bit that one ascertains the truth in affairs
like these. It is true that the King imparted his resolution to
Melbourne in a letter, but not true in the sense in which that
fact is intended to be taken. I went to Holland House yesterday,
but my Lord and my Lady were gone to town. I met the heavy
chariot slowly moving back through Kensington, and stopped to
talk to them. They seemed in tolerably good spirits, all things
considered; like the rest, they had not a suspicion of what was
going to happen. Melbourne was to have dined there on Friday, but
did not arrive. At eleven o'clock everybody went away, without
any tidings having come of Melbourne; the next morning Lord
Holland read in the 'Times' that the Government was at an end.
Allen swore that it must be a hoax, and it was only upon
receiving a summons to the Cabinet at twelve instead of two that
Holland began to think there was _something in it_. He told me
that the King had two long conversations with Melbourne, in which
he explained his opinions, motives, and intentions, and finally
gave him the letter, that he might show it to his colleagues. It
would now appear that no definite arrangements were proposed to
him at all; nothing, in fact, could be settled till it was
ascertained what Althorp would do--whether he would continue in
office, and what office he would take--but they intended that
Lord John Russell should be the leader in the House of Commons,
or what they call 'try it.' This must have been peculiarly
distasteful to the King, who dislikes Lord John, and thinks him a
dangerous little Radical, and Melbourne is well aware of this
antipathy. On _the_ Friday night Melbourne, with a party of his
colleagues--Mulgrave, Ben Stanley, Poulett Thompson, and one or
two more--were at the play just opposite to me; the piece was the
'Regent,' and it was full of jokes about dismissing Ministers and
other things very applicable, at which Melbourne at least (who
does not care a button about _office_, whatever he may do about
power) was heartily amused. To-day the King came to town to
receive the resignations, for he is resolved to finish off the
whole affair at once and make _maison nette_; they have been
ordered therefore to attend at St. James's and give up their


_Five o'clock._--Just returned from St. James's. In the outer room I
found assembled the Duke of Wellington, Lyndhurst, Rosslyn,
Goulburn, Hardinge, the Speaker, Jersey, Maryborough, Cowley, whom
the Duke had collected in order to form a Privy Council; in the
Throne Room the ex-Cabinet congregated, and it was amusing to watch
them as they passed through the camp of their enemies, and to see
their different greetings and bows; all interchanged some slight
civility except Brougham, who stalked through looking as black as
thunder and took no notice of anybody. The first question that arose
was, What was to be done about the prorogation? The Duke thought
they might as well finish that business to-day, and I went on an
embassy into the other room to propose it; but they declined to have
anything to say to it and evinced great anxiety to take no part in
any proceedings of this day. Accordingly Lord Lansdowne explained to
the King that the presence of a Lord President was not necessary,
and that there was a sufficiency of Tory Lords to form a Council, so
his Majesty consented to the late Ministers going away. As I thought
the company of those who were coming in would be more cheerful and
agreeable than that of those who were going out, I passed my time in
the outer room, and had a good deal of conversation with the Duke
and Lyndhurst, from whom I gathered everything that I did not know
before. After the Whigs had made their exit we went into the Throne
Room, and the King sent for Lyndhurst, who only stayed with him a
few minutes, and then the Duke and all the Privy Councillors were
summoned. After greeting them all, and desiring them to sit down, he
began a speech nearly as follows:--'Having thought proper to make a
change in my Government, at the present moment I have directed a new
commission to be issued for executing the office of Lord High
Treasurer, at the head of which I have placed the Duke of
Wellington, and his Grace has kissed hands accordingly upon that
appointment. As by the Constitution of this country the King can do
no wrong, but those persons are responsible for his acts in whom he
places his confidence--as I do in the Lords now present--it is
necessary to place the seals of the Secretary of State for the Home
Department in those hands in which I can best confide, and I have
therefore thought proper to confer that office likewise on his
Grace, who will be sworn in accordingly.' Here the Duke came round,
and, after much fumbling for his spectacles, took the oath of
Secretary of State. The King then resumed, 'It is likewise necessary
for me to dispose of the seals of the other two Secretaries of
State, and I therefore place them likewise for the present in the
same hands, as he is already First Lord of the Treasury and
Secretary of State for the Home Office.' Then, turning to me, he
asked if there was any business, and being told there was none,
desired me to retire. When I was gone he began another harangue, to
the effect that he had endeavoured, since he had been upon the
throne, to do for the best, and that he could not fill up any of the
other offices at present.

Now for what I learned from the Duke and Lyndhurst. The former
told me that he was just going out hunting when the messenger
arrived; that the letter merely said that the King wished to see
him, to consult with him as to the steps he should take with
regard to the formation of another Government. He went off
directly, and at once told the King that the best thing he could
do was to send for Sir Robert Peel, and that until he arrived he
would undertake to carry on the Government by a provisional
arrangement, and would do nothing more until Peel's return. So
the matter accordingly stands, and no other appointment will be
made except that the Great Seal will be transferred to Lyndhurst,
without, however (at present), his becoming Chancellor. He talked
a great deal about the state of the late Government, and what
passed between Melbourne and the King, but I heard this still
more in detail from Lyndhurst afterwards.


I asked the Duke if he had seen the 'Times' this morning. He said
'No,' and I told him there appeared in it a considerable
disposition to support the new Government, and I thought it would
be very advisable to obtain that support if it could be done. He
said he was aware that he had formerly too much neglected the
press, but he did not think the 'Times' could be influenced. I
urged him to avail himself of any opportunity to try, and he
seemed very well disposed to do so. Lyndhurst, whom I afterwards
talked to for a long time, went into the whole business. He said
that it was very desirable that the public should know the truth
of what had taken place between the King and Melbourne, both in
conversation and by letter, because it would be seen that the
former was in no way to blame. [This case, such as Lyndhurst
described it to me, was afterwards put hypothetically in the
'Times,' to which it was furnished probably by Scarlett, but the
Whigs emphatically declare that it is not correct, and that it
will be found, when Melbourne states the truth (as he will
require the King's permission to do), that his Majesty had no
case at all. In the midst of these conflicting assertions time
must show.--November 26th.] Melbourne told him that, as he had
only undertaken to carry on the Government in consideration of
having the assistance of Althorp in the House of Commons, his
removal made it necessary to adopt a new organisation altogether,
that some considerable concessions to the principle of Reform
were judged to be necessary, and the appointment of a successor
to Althorp, who should carry them into effect; that he was of
opinion that without these the Government could not go on, and at
the same time it was necessary to state that there were members
of the Cabinet who did not coincide with these views, and who
would retire when Parliament met if they were adopted. These were
Lord Lansdowne and Spring Rice; Lord John Russell was to lead in
the House of Commons, but the loss of Rice would be a severe blow
to them. The concessions related principally to Church reform.
The disunion of the Cabinet being thus exhibited, it was clear
the Government could not go on without some material alteration
in its composition. The King urged this and asked Melbourne from
what quarter the necessary accession of strength was to be
procured, and whether he could hope for it from the Conservative
interest. He owned that nothing was to be expected from that
quarter. It remained, then, that it was only from the more
extreme party that their ranks could be recruited. To this the
King would not consent, and he therefore imparted to him his
resolution of placing the Government in other hands.[1]

      [1] [This account of the transaction is confirmed in almost
          every particular by the statement drawn up by King
          William himself (or by his directions) for the
          information of Sir Robert Peel, and first published in
          Baron Stockmar's 'Memoirs' in 1872.]

Lyndhurst then went off upon the difficulties of their position. I
told him that the Duke had said to me, 'If the King had been a
very clever man, he would probably have played a more adroit game,
by letting them go on till Parliament met, and then taking the
opportunity which would soon present itself of breaking them up;'
that I disagreed with the Duke, and thought it infinitely more
convenient that this change should take place while Parliament was
not sitting, to which Lyndhurst fully agreed. He said that they
must dissolve as soon as Peel came home, that they had no
alternative; that it would not do to _try_ this Parliament, to run
the chance of a failure and dissolve after having experienced it,
that this would be too great a risk. He said that they had several
seats quite safe in consequence of their superior management about
the registration, such as Leeds and Ripon, where they were sure of
both members. He then talked of the tactics to be used, and said
they must direct their hostility against the Whigs rather than the
Radicals, and make it their principal object to diminish the
number of the former. I said I thought this a very perilous game
to play, and that if it was avowed and acted upon, it would
infallibly produce a reunion between the Whigs and Radicals, who
would coalesce to crush their Government; that the Radicals were
now very angry with the Whigs, who they thought had deserted the
principles they professed, and it should rather be their care to
keep Whigs and Radicals asunder than provoke a fresh alliance
between them. He said the Whigs were certain to join the Radicals.
I asked him if he had seen the 'Times,' said what had passed
between the Duke and me, and told him he would do well to
endeavour to obtain its support. He said he desired nothing so
much, but in his situation he did not like personally to
interfere, nor to place himself in their power. I told him I had
some acquaintance with Barnes, the editor of the paper, and would
find out what he was disposed to do, and would let him know, which
he entreated I would. The Duke had said, laughing, 'I hear they
call me a Reformer.' I said, 'They think you will make as good a
Reformer as the present men, if, as Brougham said in Scotland,
they would have done less this session than they did the last.' I
asked Lyndhurst if he had seen or heard of the Duke's letter to
the Oxford people, and told him that it was very desirable that
credit should be given them for intending to carry on their
government upon principles as liberal as that letter evinced, that
I hoped there would be no foolish declarations fulminated against
Reform, and that they would all be convinced now that matters had
been brought to such a state (no matter how and by whom) that the
old principle of hostility to all reforms must be abandoned. He
said that Peel would, he trusted, be _flexible_, that if such
declarations were made, and such principles announced, they must
be upset, but the Tories would be difficult to manage, and
discontented if there was not a sufficient infusion of their
party; and, on the other hand, the agricultural interest had
assembled a force under Lord Chandos, a sort of confederation of
several counties, and that Chandos had told him that he and the
representatives of their counties would not support any Ministry
that would not pledge itself to repeal the malt tax; that they
would agree to re-enact the beer tax, but the malt tax must cease.


Brougham had written to Lyndhurst saying he should be ready to
resign the Great Seal in a few days, and only wished first to
give some judgments, that he was rejoiced at retiring from office
and at the prospect of being able to do what was his great
delight--devote himself to State affairs without being trammelled
and having to fear the imputation of imprudence and indiscretion.
'He will be,' Lyndhurst said, 'the most troublesome fellow that
ever existed, and do all the mischief he can.' I said, 'What can
he do? he was emasculated when he left the House of Commons.'
'Yes,' he said, 'he knows that, but he will come down night after
night and produce plans of Reform upon any subject; he will make
speeches two or three hours long to very thin Houses, which will
be printed in all the newspapers or published by himself and
circulated--in fact, a series of pamphlets.' I said that he had
damaged himself so much that I did not think he could do a great
deal of harm, with all his speeches and pamphlets. He said he had
damaged himself in more ways than one. He then went off upon his
admirable social qualities and his generous conduct to his
family, both of which may most justly be praised, and said what a
melancholy thing it was to see a man with such fine talents mar
their effect by his enormous errors in judgment.

Lord Holland, who came out last of all his colleagues, upon his
crutches, stopped in great good-humour and said to the Duke, 'you
can't get me out, I can tell you, without going into Lancashire,
for my seal is there.'

The Duke told me that he did not mean to make the slightest
alteration in the transaction of the current business in the
different offices, which would go on as usual through the
under-secretaries, whom he should request to continue at their
posts for the purpose. As, however, a disposition was evinced on
the part of the late Cabinet not to afford him any facilities,
he began to think that this might not impossibly extend to the
subordinates, and he said that at all events he would have two
people ready to put into the Treasury to transact the business
there. I told him if he was in any difficulty he might make any
use he pleased of me. There can hardly be any difficulty,
however, when there are permanent under-secretaries in all the

Thus ended this eventful day; just four years ago I witnessed the
reverse of the picture. I think the Whigs upon this occasion were
much more angry and dejected than the Tories were upon that. They
had perhaps some reason, for their case is one of rare
occurrence--unceremoniously kicked out, not resignations following
ineffectual negotiations or baffled attempts at arrangement, but in
the plenitude of their fancied strength, and utterly unconscious of
danger, they were discarded in the most positive, summary, and
peremptory manner. Great, therefore, is their indignation,
mortification, and chagrin, and bitter will no doubt be their
opposition. They think that the new Government have no chance of
getting a House of Commons that will support them, and certainly if
they do not, and if the Tories are compelled after a fruitless
struggle to resign, miserable will be the condition of the King and
the House of Lords, and not very enviable that of any Government
that may succeed them.

To speculate upon probabilities is impossible; the new Government at
present consists of the Duke, Lyndhurst, and Peel, and till it shall
be seen of what materials the complete structure is composed, and
what principles they enunciate, it is idle to discuss the matter.
Lyndhurst and I agreed cordially that all the evils of the last four
years--the breaking up of their Government, and the Reform Bill that
was the consequence of that catastrophe--were attributable to the
High Tories. Whatever may be their wishes now, they can hardly play
the same game over again; they must support this Government, even
though it shall not act upon the highflying principles which they so
fondly and obstinately cherish. Their salvation and that of all the
institutions to which they cling require that they should support
the Duke and Peel in carrying on the government upon those
principles on which, from the circumstances of the times and the
events which have occurred, an Administration _must_ act in order to
have a shadow of a chance of being tolerated by the House of Commons
and the country. Lyndhurst is sensible of this; I wish Peel may be
so likewise. If they both are I have little fear for the Duke.

November 19th, 1834 {p.154}


Laid up these two days with the gout in my knee, so could not go
out to hear what is going on. The Duke, I find, after the Council
on Monday (losing no time), repaired to the Home Office and
ordered the Irish papers to be brought to him, then to the Foreign
Office, where he asked for the last despatches from Spain and
Portugal, and so on to the Colonial Office, where he required
information as to the state of their department. I have no doubt
he liked this, to play the part of Richelieu for a brief period,
to exercise all the functions of administration. They complain,
however, and not without reason, of the unceremonious and somewhat
uncourteous mode in which without previous notice he entered into
the vacant offices, taking actual possession, without any of the
usual preliminary civilities to the old occupants. Duncannon, who
had been in the Home Office up to the time of the Council on
Monday, and whose papers were unremoved, if he had returned after
it, would have found the Duke seated in his still warm chair,
issuing directions to Phillips, the under-secretary, while
Macdonald, Duncannon's private secretary, was still at his
vocation in the adjoining room. Pretty much the same thing he did
in the other three offices. He has fixed his head-quarters at the
Home Office, and occasionally roves over the rest. All this is
unavoidable under existing circumstances, but it is enough to
excite merriment, or censure, or suspicion, according to different
tastes and tempers. The King offered to make Melbourne an earl and
to give him the Garter, but he declined, and begged it might be
given to the Duke of Grafton.

In consequence of what passed between Lyndhurst and me concerning
the 'Times' (at St. James's) I made Henry de Ros send for Barnes
(who had already at his suggestion adopted a conciliatory and
amicable tone towards the embryo Government), who came and put on
paper the terms on which he would support the Duke. These were:
no mutilation of the Reform Bill, and the adoption of those
measures of reform which had been already sanctioned by votes of
the House of Commons last session with regard to Church and
corporations, and no change in our foreign policy. I have sent
his note to Lyndhurst, and begged him to call here to talk the
matter over.

Powell, a Tory solicitor and _âme damnée_ of the Speaker's, has
just been here; he declares that the Tories will be 420 strong in
the new Parliament, which I mention for the purpose of recording
their expectations and being able to compare them hereafter with
the event. They have already put themselves in motion, despatched
messengers to Lord Hertford and Lowther, and probably if ever
these men could be induced to open their purse strings, and make
sacrifices and exertions, they will do it now.

_Six o'clock._--Lyndhurst has just been here; he had seen the
Duke, who had already opened a negotiation with Barnes through
Scarlett. I offered to get any statement inserted of the _causes_
of the late break-up, and he will again see the Duke and consider
the propriety of inserting one. He said, 'Why Barnes is the most
powerful man in the country.' The 'Standard' has sent to offer
its support; the Duke said he should be very happy, but they must
understand that the Government was not yet formed.

November 21st, 1834 {p.156}

To-day there was a Council at St. James's, at which Lyndhurst was
sworn in Chancellor. Brougham took leave of the Bar this morning,
and I hear did it well. The King speechified as usual, and gave
them a couple of harangues; he said it was just four years since
he had very unwillingly taken the Seal from Lord Lyndhurst, and
he now had great pleasure in restoring it to him. He was all King
to-day--talked of having 'commanded the ex-Ministers to retire;'
'desired Lord Brougham to give up the Seal,' which is true, for
the Duke wrote to him for it, and instead of surrendering it in
person Brougham sent it to Sir Henry Taylor. The King compared
this crisis with that which befell his father in 1784, when he
had placed the government in the hands of the Marquis of
Rockingham; he said that the present was only a provisional
arrangement, but that there was this difference, that the country
was now in a state of excitement and disquiet, which it was free
from then, but that he had full reliance on the great firmness of
the Duke (here the Duke bowed); that the Administration which was
then formed had lasted seventeen years (of course he meant that
of Pitt, which succeeded the coalition), and he hoped that this
which was about to be formed would last as long, although at his
time of life if it did he could not expect to see the end of it.

November 22nd, 1834 {p.157}

I read Brougham's speech on quitting the Court of Chancery this
morning, and admirable it is--not a syllable about himself, but
with reference to the appointment of Pepys, brief, dignified, and
appropriate. _Si sic omnia_, what a man he would be.

November 23rd, 1834 {p.157}

This morning I received a note from Henry de Ros enclosing one
from Barnes, who was evidently much nettled at not having received
any specific answer to his note stating the terms on which he
would support the Duke. Henry was disconcerted also, and entreated
me to have an explanation with Lyndhurst. I accordingly went to
the Court of Exchequer, where he was sitting, and waited till he
came out, when I gave him these notes to read. He took me away
with him, and stopped at the Home Office to see the Duke and talk
to him on the subject, for he was evidently a little alarmed, so
great and dangerous a potentate is the wielder of the thunders of
the press. After a long conference he came out and gave me a note
the Duke had written, saying he could not pledge himself nor Sir
Robert Peel (who was to be the Minister) before he arrived, and
eventually I agreed to draw up a paper explanatory of the position
of the Duke, and his expectations and views with regard to the
'Times' and its support. This I sent to him, and he is to return
it to me with such corrections as he may think it requires, and it
is to be shown to Barnes to-morrow.


On the way Lyndhurst told me an incredible thing--that Brougham
had written to him proposing that he should be made Chief Baron,
which would be a great saving to the country, as he was content
to take it with no higher salary than his retiring pension and
some provision for the expense of the circuit. He said he would
show me the letter, but that he had left it with the Duke, so
could not then. He knows well enough that, whatever may be the
fate of this Government, he has no chance of recovering the Great
Seal, but I own I do not comprehend what object he can have in
taking this appointment, or what there is of importance enough to
induce him to apply for it to his political opponents, and incur
all the odium that would be heaped upon him if the fact were
generally known. He would not consider himself tongue-tied in the
House of Lords any more than Lyndhurst was, for though the former
took the situation under a sort of condition, either positive or
implied, that he was to observe something like a neutrality, he
considered himself entirely emancipated from the engagement when
the great Reform battle began, and the consequence was that the
secret article in the treaty was also cancelled, and Denman got
the Chief Justiceship instead of him. I imagine that the King
would not agree to Brougham's being Chief Baron even though the
Duke and Lyndhurst should be disposed to place him on the bench.
There might be some convenience in it. He must cut fewer capers
in ermine than in plaid trousers. [As might have been expected,
this intended stroke of Brougham's was a total failure. Friends
and foes condemn him; Duncannon tried to dissuade him; the rest
of his colleagues only knew of it after it was done. Duncannon
told me he neither desired nor expected that his offer would be
accepted.--November 30th.]

November 24th, 1834 {p.158}

I sent Lyndhurst a paper to be read to Barnes, which he returned
to me with another he had written instead, which certainly was
much better. The Duke's note and this paper were read to him, and
he expressed himself quite satisfied, was much gratified by an
offer Lyndhurst made to see him, and proposed a meeting; so,
then, I leave the affair. I took a copy of Lyndhurst's paper, and
then returned it and the note to him.

At night I went to Holland House, where I found Brougham, Lord
John Russell, and Lord Lansdowne. Lady Holland told me that she
had been the channel of communication by which the arrangement of
giving the Chief Baronship to Lyndhurst had been carried on, and
she declared that there was no secret article in it. I believe,
however, that there was one concluded between Brougham and
Lyndhurst, when they met to settle it in Burlington street. Leach
brought the original message from Alexander, who offered to
resign in favour of Lyndhurst. I hear of nothing but the
indignation of the ex-Ministers at the uncourteousness of the
Duke's conduct towards them; but though there is too much truth,
there is also some exaggeration in the complaints. It is
necessary to be on one's guard against what one hears, as I
verified yesterday in a particular case.

November 26th, 1834 {p.159}


Barnes is to dine with Lord Lyndhurst, and a gastronomic
ratification will wind up the treaty between these high
contracting parties. I walked home with Duncannon last night; he
declared to me that though he could not tell me what did pass
between the King and Melbourne, what is stated to have passed is
not the truth. I heard elsewhere that the Whigs insist upon it
there was no disunion in the Cabinet, and that Lord Lansdowne and
Rice had seen the Irish Tithe Bill (the Irish Chancellor being the
supposed subject of disunion), and that they both agreed to its
provisions. Duncannon said that if the King had insisted upon the
dismissal of Brougham, and had consented to go on with the rest,
he would have put them in a grand dilemma, for that such a
requisition would have met the concurrence of many of their
friends and of the public. He thinks Brougham would not have
_resigned_ even then, and that it would have been very dangerous
to turn him out. All this speculation matters little now. He is
thoroughly convinced that the present appearances of indifference
and tranquillity in the country are delusive, and that the
elections will rouse a dormant spirit, and that the minor
differences of Reformers and Liberals of all denominations will be
sunk in a determined hostility to the Government of Peel and the
Duke. He says that the Irish Church must bring the question
between the two parties to an immediate and decisive test; that if
the new Government are beaten upon it, as he thinks inevitable,
out they must go; that the return of the Government just broken up
will be out of the question, and the King must submit to receive
one of still stronger measures. Duncannon does not conceal the
ultra-Liberal nature of his opinions, and he would not regret the
accomplishment of his predictions. It cannot be concealed that
there is nothing very improbable in them, although I am far from
regarding the event as so certain as he does; still less can I
partake of the blind confidence and sanguine hopes of the Tories.
One thing is, however, very clear, that the Whigs and the Radicals
will join (as Lyndhurst said they were sure to do), and that they
will both declare war to the knife against the Tory Government.
The best hope and chance is that a number of really independent
men, unpledged, may be returned, who will hold something like a
balance between the extreme parties, resist all violent
propositions, protect the King from insult and peremptory
dictation, and afford the new Government a fair trial, and on the
other hand declare at once and without reserve their determination
to continue without interruption the course of rational and
effectual reform, making a virtual abandonment of High Tory maxims
and acquiescence in the desires of the country with respect to the
correction of abuses the indispensable conditions of the present
Government's retention of office.

November 27th, 1834 {p.160}


Yesterday Lord Wharncliffe came to me. He had just been with the
Duke, who received him very cordially, and showed him the
correspondence and minutes of conversations between the King and
Melbourne. He says that it is evident that Melbourne despaired of
being able to carry on the Government, and that the gist of the
King's objection was the nomination of Lord John Russell to lead
the Government in the House of Commons, which His Majesty said he
could not agree to, because he had already declared his
sentiments with regard to the Church and his resolution of
supporting it to the bishops and on other occasions, and that
Lord John Russell had signalised himself in the House of Commons
by his destructive opinions with regard to the Establishment. I
should be glad to see this correspondence and judge for myself,
but I can't go to the Duke on purpose. Wharncliffe says that he
is quite satisfied from his conversation that the Duke is
thoroughly convinced of the necessity of adopting a line of
conduct in conformity with the state of public opinion and
determination in the country, and that he is prepared to abandon
(as far as he is concerned) the old Tory maxims. So far so good;
but there is no concealing that, however this may (if Peel
concurs) facilitate the formation and secure the duration of the
new Government, there is a revolting inconsistency in it all,
involving considerable loss of character. He gave no indication
of such a disposition during the last session; it is all reserved
for the period when he is possessed of power. It is, however, at
present all very vague, and we shall see what his notion is of a
Liberal course of policy. I fear that he and Peel are both too
deeply committed on the Irish Church question to suffer them to
propose any compromise likely to be satisfactory with regard to
it, and then the difficulties of the question are so enormous
that it seems next to impossible to compose them. The respective
parties drive at different objects; one wants to appropriate the
surplus revenue, the other wants to secure to the parsons their
tithes, and while they are quarrelling with unmitigable
fierceness upon these points, the Irish settle the question by
refusing to pay any tithe, and by evading every attempt that is
made to procure the payment in some other shape or under some
other denomination.

The Duke told Wharncliffe that both he and the King were fully aware
of the importance of the step that his Majesty had taken--that this
is, in fact, the Conservatives' last cast--and that he (the King) is
resolved neither to flinch nor falter, but having embarked with
them, to nail his flag to the mast and put forth all the
constitutional authority of the Crown in support of the Government
he is about to form. I am strongly inclined to think that this
determination, when properly ascertained, will have considerable
influence, and that, provided a respectable and presentable Cabinet
be formed and Liberal measures adopted, they will succeed. Though
the Crown is not so powerful as it was, there probably still remains
a great deal of attachment and respect to it, and if the King can
show a fair case to the country, there will be found both in
Parliament and out of it a vast number of persons who will reflect
deeply upon the consequences of coming to a serious collision with
the Throne, and consider whether the exigency is such as to justify
such extremities. It may be very desirable to purify the Irish
Church, to remodel corporations, and to relieve the Dissenters in
various ways, and nobody can entertain a shadow of doubt that all
these things must and will be done; but the several cases are not of
great and pressing urgency. The fate of the nation does not depend
upon their being all accomplished and arranged off-hand, and if the
Government which the King may form exhibits no spirit uncongenial to
the public feeling generally, and wars not with the genius of
Reform, which is dear to the people, it is my belief that a great
majority of the nation will shrink from the mere possibility of a
direct breach with the King, and from offering him an insult in the
shape of dictation and peremptory demand, which he would consider
himself bound in honour and in conscience to resist.

I walked home with Duncannon at night, and I told him this; he
seemed struck by it, but still maintained that Parliament would,
in his opinion, not accept the new Ministry on any terms. If Peel
makes a High Tory Government, and holds High Tory language, I
think so too, and I can scarcely hope that it should be
otherwise. My mind, I own, misgives me about Peel; I hope
everything from his capacity and dread everything from his

November 28th, 1834 {p.162}

This morning I got a letter from my uncle the Duke of Portland,
complaining of the Weights and Measures Bill, and begging that, if
possible, an Order in Council might be passed suspending the
operation of the Act. I availed myself of this opportunity to see
the Duke of Wellington, and went to the Home Office to consult him
on the contents of this letter. After settling this business I began
about the recent negotiation between Lyndhurst and Barnes, and this
led to a discussion of the circumstances and situation of affairs,
in the course of which he told me everything that had occurred. I
asked him if _he_ had sent the 'Statement' which appeared in the
'Times.' He said no, and that he was utterly at a loss to guess how
they had got it, but that by whatever means it was as near as
possible to the truth. I said that this was utterly and peremptorily
denied by the other side, on which he called Algy,[2] and desired
him to bring a letter which he had written to certain Peers of his
party--a circular--which he read to me. In this he explained in
general terms (without going into particulars) the causes of the
break-up of the late Government and the advice he had given the
King, and he told me that he had got papers and letters in
confirmation of every word that he had written (Melbourne's
correspondence with the King and the minute of the conversation),
all which he said he would show me then, but that it would take up
too much time. However, as we proceeded to talk it over he told me
all that these papers contained, or at least all that was material.
The substance as I gathered it and as I remember it was this:--Lord
Melbourne had written to the King and descanted on the great
difficulty in which the Government was placed in consequence of Lord
Spencer's death, and had intimated that the measures which he should
find it necessary to propose to him would produce a difference of
opinion in the Cabinet--in point of fact that it was, to say the
least, probable that Rice and Lansdowne would retire. When he went
down to Brighton, and they talked it over, Lord Melbourne put it to
his Majesty whether under existing circumstances he would go on,
placing himself in their hands, or whether he would dispense with
their services, only recommending that if he resolved not to
endeavour to go on with this Government (with such modifications as
circumstances demanded) he would declare such resolution as speedily
as possible.[3] The Duke says he did not actually tender his or
their resignations, did not throw up the Government, but _very near
it_. The King suggested the difficulty of his situation, and
Melbourne told him 'he had better send for the Duke of Wellington,
and depend upon it he would get him out of it.' 'In fact,' said the
Duke, 'Melbourne told him I should do just what I did.' Accordingly
the King did send for the Duke, and it is true that Melbourne
offered to be the bearer of his Majesty's letter. When some question
was asked about the messenger, Melbourne said, 'No messenger will go
so quick as I shall; you had better give it to me.' The Duke said
that no man could have acted more like a gentleman and a man of
honour than Melbourne did, and that his opinion of him was greatly
raised. I told him that I thought Melbourne could not have given his
colleagues an exact and correct account of what had passed, for that
they could not conceive themselves to have been so ill-treated if it
was so, and that if he had told them _all_ they would probably have
thought he had abandoned their interests. He said that it was
evident Melbourne was very happy to disengage himself from the
concern. (As all this case will probably be discussed in Parliament,
we shall see that the debate will turn principally upon the fact of
disunion, and I have little doubt that Rice and Lansdowne will
declare that they had no intention of quitting. So much depends upon
verbal niceties, and the bounds between truth and falsehood are so
narrow, the partition so thin, that they will, I expect, try to back
up their party without any absolute breach of veracity.) When the
King was reading the papers to him (the Duke), and telling him all
that had passed, _he was in a great fright_ lest the Duke should
think he had acted imprudently, and should decline to accept the
Government. Then the Duke said, 'Sir, I see at once how it all is.
Your Majesty has not been left by your Ministers, but something very
like it;' and His Majesty was rejoiced when the Duke at once
acquiesced in taking office.

      [2] [Mr. Algernon Greville, brother of Mr. Charles
          Greville, was private secretary to the Duke of
          Wellington both in and out of office.]

      [3] [This statement has certainly not been confirmed by the
          subsequent publication of papers or by the narrative of
          the King himself. It is very extraordinary that the
          Duke of Wellington should have been led to believe it;
          but this is only another proof of the extreme
          difficulty of arriving at an exact knowledge of what
          passes in conversation between two persons, even when
          both of them are acting in perfect good faith.]

The Duke said he had received very satisfactory letters from all
(or many) of the Peers to whom he had written--from the Duke of
Newcastle and Lord Mansfield, the most violent of the Tories. I
said, 'Are they ready to place themselves in your hands, and
agree to whatever you may think it necessary to do?' He said, 'I
think they are; I think they will do anything.' He told me that
affairs were left in a wretched state in the Treasury, that the
late Ministers were no men of business, and minutes had been
proposed to him finding fault with various things; but he had
refused to do any such thing, and he would repair any error he
could without casting any blame on others. On the whole he
thought everything looked well, and that he should, when Peel
arrived, put the concern into his hands in a satisfactory state.

It is perfectly clear, in the midst of assertion on one side and
contradiction on the other, that in the first instance there was
neither plot nor plan on the part of the King or anybody else.
The death of Lord Spencer really did create an enormous
embarrassment, which Melbourne felt much more than any of his
colleagues; and though he told the King 'that he was ready to go
on with the Government if such was his pleasure,' he felt no
desire to be taken at his word, and no confidence or expectation
that the arrangements he proposed would be palatable to the King
or of a permanent nature. He seems to have been candid and
straightforward in all that he said, and to have contemplated his
dismissal as a very probable result of his correspondence and
conversations with his Majesty. The Irish Church has evidently
caused _the split_; the intended reforms in it and the elevation
of Lord John Russell to the post of leader were more than the
King could digest. I wish I had seen the papers, for the sake of
knowing what it is they proposed to the King, and how far he was
disposed to go.

November 29th, 1834 {p.165}


I told the Duke yesterday what I had learnt from George Bentinck
(and he from the Duke of Richmond) of Lord Stanley's[4]
disposition. He is not at all desirous to be mixed up in the new
concern, but has no objection to take office under Peel, and he
is ready to _listen_ to any proposition that may be made to him;
but he is very much afraid of being accused of dereliction of
principle by his old colleagues and friends. It is clear,
therefore, that he would reject any overture unless it included
an agreement that the Government should be conducted upon Liberal
principles, and unless his friends were invited to join the
Government with him. The Duke took very little notice of this.

      [4] [Edward, 12th Earl of Derby, died on October 21, 1834,
          from which date his grandson, afterwards 14th Earl of
          Derby, assumed the courtesy title of Lord Stanley.]

December 1st, 1834 {p.166}

Went to St. Paul's yesterday evening, to hear Sydney Smith preach.
He is very good; manner impressive, voice sonorous and agreeable,
_rather_ familiar, but not offensively so, language simple and
unadorned, sermon clever and illustrative. The service is
exceedingly grand, performed with all the pomp of a cathedral and
chanted with beautiful voices; the lamps scattered few and far
between throughout the vast space under the dome, making darkness
visible, and dimly revealing the immensity of the building, were
exceedingly striking. The Cathedral service thus chanted and
performed is my _beau idéal_ of religious worship--simple,
intelligible, and grand, appealing at the same time to the reason
and the imagination. I prefer it infinitely to the Catholic service,
for though I am fond of the bursts of music and the clouds of
incense, I can't endure the undistinguishable sounds with which the
priest mumbles over the prayers.

I heard yesterday that there has been a breeze between Duncannon
and Melbourne, arising out of his speech at Derby. This was in
answer to an address they voted him, and it was exceedingly
temperate and reserved. In the course of it he said that 'he had
no personal cause of complaint.' A warfare has been raging
between the 'Standard' and the 'Chronicle' about what passed, and
the articles in the latter have been supplied by Duncannon or
some of them; these are at variance with Melbourne's avowal, and
they are very angry with him for what he said, and want him to
make some statement (or to authorise one) of a different kind and
more corresponding with their own declarations and complaints.
This he refuses to do, and they have been squabbling about it
with some vivacity. All this induces me the more to think that
Melbourne has never told his colleagues how very easily and
contentedly he gave up the reins of Government, not intending to
deceive them, but from a desire to avoid exasperating people whom
he found so much disturbed and so bitter.

December 2nd, 1834


Dined with Lord Lyndhurst yesterday; the dinner for Mr. Barnes. He
had collected a miscellaneous party, droll enough--Mrs. Fox, Baron
Bolland, Follett, Hardinge, &c. The Duke and Lord Chandos were to
have been there. Barnes told Hardinge there was a great cry
getting up in the country against the Duke. After dinner I had a
long conversation with Hardinge, on the whole satisfactory. He
said that he had been instrumental in bringing the Duke and Peel
together again, after a considerable coldness and estrangement had
existed between them; that after the failure in May 1832, when
Peel refused to have anything to do with the concern, he had
called upon him and insisted upon taking him to Apsley House and
spontaneously consulting with the Duke how he should withdraw from
the business; that with great difficulty he had persuaded him, and
together they went, from which time the Duke and he have again
become friends. He is convinced that Peel will at once make a fair
and cordial overture to Stanley, and thinks it of the greatest
importance that Stanley's disposition and probable demands should
be ascertained before Peel arrives. I told him what I had before
told the Duke, and what I had reason to believe were Stanley's
sentiments. He asked whether Stanley would insist upon Richmond
and Ripon coming in with him; he said that for the former he
(Hardinge) was sure Peel would never admit him without the Duke's
full and especial consent, which, however, he has no doubt the
Duke would give without hesitation, and overlook any personal
cause of offence, to facilitate a desirable arrangement; that
there was some dispute among his friends whether it would be
better that Stanley should join now or only support (if he would)
at first and join afterwards. I said, 'Unquestionably it is better
he should join at once,' to which Hardinge assented, though he
added that many thought otherwise, that if Stanley made
difficulties and declined the junction, he was persuaded Peel
would keep nothing open, and would not make provisional
arrangements to admit him and his party when they should think it
more safe and convenient to unite their future to his. What they
would like evidently is to take Stanley and Graham and wash their
hands of Ripon and Richmond, but I think they will be forced to
admit them all, for Lyndhurst owned to me that he did not think
they could stand without Stanley; and the King is so anxious for
it that if Stanley insists on terms which are not very unreasonable
(under the circumstances) they will not be refused. Hardinge said
that four seats in the Cabinet would be a large share, but that
the best men among them were prepared to make every sacrifice of
their own just expectations or claims to render any arrangement
feasible that circumstances might require, that 'all was right
with the Speaker,' and as for the High Tories, the sooner they cut
the connection with them the better, but that they (the High
Tories) were now at their feet.


He then went into the details of the King's case with his late
Ministers--much to the same effect as I had before heard from the
Duke and Lyndhurst, but perhaps rather more clearly. He said that
Melbourne had stated to the King that questions must soon be
brought under the consideration of the Cabinet relating to the
Irish Church on which a considerable difference of opinion
prevailed, and that if the opinion of the majority of the Cabinet
should be acquiesced in by his Majesty, the secession of two or
more members of it would in all probability follow; that if the
desire of his Majesty to compromise these differences of opinion
and prevent any separation should have the effect of preventing
such discussions in the Cabinet as should lead to any disunion
_for the time_, it was only fair and right to own to him that it
would be in the power of any member of the House of Commons who
should become acquainted with the difference of opinion which
prevailed to bring the question to an issue; and if such a thing
should occur, the resignations, he apprehended, would only be
retarded. The King, under these circumstances, asked how he
proposed to fill up the vacancies that would thus occur, whether
from any but what is called the extreme party, and whether he
(Melbourne), with a knowledge of the King's sentiments, could
advise him to have recourse to Lord Durham and others of the same
opinions. Melbourne acknowledged that he could look nowhere else,
and that he certainly could not give the King such advice, upon
which he said that as the breach sooner or latter appeared
inevitable, he thought it better that the dissolution of the
Government should take place at once, and he preferred making the
change during the recess, when he should have time to form other
arrangements, rather than have it forced upon him during all the
excitement of the session of Parliament. This, I think, was the
pith of the thing, and in my opinion it forms a good case.
Hardinge said that if the King had been a clever man he would
have postponed his decision and spun out the correspondence, in
the course of which he would have acquired pretexts sufficient.
This, however, explains what the other side means by insisting
that there was _no difference_ of opinion in the Cabinet; there
was none _actual_, but it was on the prospective disunion so
clearly announced to the King, and impending at such an
indefinite and probably inconvenient time, that he took his
resolution. Melbourne appears to have been bullied into a sort of
exculpatory letter on account of his speech at Derby, saying that
he spoke of having no personal cause of complaint because the
King was very civil to him.

December 5th, 1834 {p.169}

The dinner that Lyndhurst gave to Barnes has made a great uproar,
as I thought it would. I never could understand the Chancellor's
making such a display of this connexion, but whatever he may be as
a lawyer, and how great soever in his wig, I suspect that he is
deficient in knowledge of the world and those nice calculations of
public taste and opinion which are only to be acquired by
intuitive sagacity exercised in the daily communion of social

Melbourne has had to make another speech, which smells of the
recent reproaches of his colleagues; without exactly recanting
what he had said, he has amplified, modified, and explained, so
as to chime in to a certain degree with their assertions.

Brougham has been made to recall his letter offering to be Chief
Baron. It matters not what he does for the present; his star is
totally eclipsed, but not, I think, for ever quenched; his vast
abilities must find scope and produce effect. It is true he can
never thoroughly inspire confidence, but if adversity teaches him
wisdom, and cools the effervescence of his temper and imagination,
nothing can prevent his political resurrection, thought not in
'all his original brightness.'

December 6th, 1834 {p.170}

The Chancellor called on me yesterday about getting young
Disraeli into Parliament (through the means of George Bentinck)[5]
for Lynn. I had told him George wanted a good man to assist in
turning out William Lennox, and he suggested the above-named
gentleman, whom he called a friend of Chandos. His political
principles must, however, be in abeyance, for he said that Durham
was doing all he could to get him by the offer of a seat, and so
forth; if, therefore, he is undecided and wavering between
Chandos and Durham, he must be a mighty impartial personage. I
don't think such a man will do, though just such as Lyndhurst
would be connected with.

      [5] [Lord George Bentinck was member for Lynn Regis. It is
          curious that this, the first mention of Mr. Disraeli in
          political life, should have originated with the man who
          afterwards became his most powerful coadjutor and

Melbourne's two speeches at Derby, and the history connected with
them, exhibit him in a very discreditable and lamentable point of
view--compelled by the menaces and reproaches of Duncannon and
the rest to eat his words; and all this transacted by a sort of
negotiation and through the mediation of his vulgar secretary,
Tom Young, and Mrs. Lane Fox. Such a thing it is to be without
firmness and decision of character. Melbourne is a gentleman,
liberal and straightforward, with no meanness, and incapable of
selfish trickery and intrigue, but he is habitually careless and
_insouciant_, loves ease, and hates contests and squabbles, and
though he would never tell a lie, he has probably not that stern
and rigid regard for truth which would make him run any risk
rather than that of concealing anything or suffering a false
impression to be formed or conveyed with respect to any matter he
might be concerned in.

Lyndhurst told me that Peel's letter was short and cautious, but
satisfactory. He (Lyndhurst) is doing all he can to draw closer
the connexion between the 'Times' and the Government, and
communicates constantly with Barnes. He said they must make a
liberal and comprehensive Government, and sketched an outline of
such a Cabinet as he would like--four Stanleys, six of their own
people, and two High Tories, Chandos certainly, and Knatchbull
probably; but even if Stanley's other scruples can be got over,
how he is to be induced to unite with Chandos and Knatchbull or
any such men I guess not. However, the time is drawing very near.

December 7th, 1834 {p.171}

In a letter from the Duke of Portland to George Bentinck
yesterday he says that the Duke of Newcastle had been there the
day before, had talked politics, and declared that in his opinion
the leaders of his party ought not to give way upon any one
point. This is so different from what the Duke of Wellington
understood from his letter to him that I sent the letter to the
Duke, and afterwards I met him. He said he thought the Duke of
Portland must be mistaken, for the Duke of Newcastle's letter to
him was quite in another sense. This is one of the silliest of
the High Tories, but there will yet be some trouble with the
tribe. John Russell, in a speech somewhere, has made assertions
still more positive and unqualified than Melbourne's, which, if
correct, throw over the King and his case. There is a fearful lie
somewhere, which I suppose will come out in time. It is
impossible to make up one's mind in the midst of statements so
different and yet so positive. George Bentinck sent to Sturges
Bourne to know if he would come in for Lynn, but he declined.
Disraeli he won't hear of.

December 8th, 1834 {p.171}



I read John Russell's speech at Totness last night; it was a very
masterly performance, suitable to the occasion, and effective. He
endeavoured to establish these points: first, that the Duke of
Wellington had continually opposed all Reform measures and been
the enemy of all Reform principles; secondly, that they (the late
Government) had done a great deal, without doing too much; and
thirdly, that there really had occurred no circumstances in the
Cabinet, or with the King, sufficient to account for their summary
dismissal. There is no denying that his first position is
incontrovertible, that he makes out a very fair case for his
second, and his argument on the third throws great doubt upon the
matter in my mind, having previously had no doubt that the King
had a good case to show to the world. It is not so much the Duke's
opposition to this or that particular measure, but the whole tenor
of his conduct and opinions, which it puts one in despair to look
at. There would be no gross inconsistency in his maintaining our
foreign relations in their present state, notwithstanding his
repeated attacks upon Palmerston's policy. He need not refuse to
suffer any legislative interference with the Church, English or
Irish, merely because he opposed the Tithe Bill last year (great,
by the way, as I always thought that blunder was, and as events
will prove it to have been), but in his opposition to the one or
the other we look in vain for some saving declaration to prove
that it is to the specific measure he is hostile, and not to the
principles from which it emanates. If he now comes into office
with a resolution to carry on the investigations that have been
set on foot, and to propose various measures of reform in
consequence of them, however wisely he may act in bending to
circumstances, there is no escaping from the fact that his conduct
in opposition and in office is as different as light from
darkness, and that he adopts when in office those principles in
the gross which he utterly repudiates and opposes with all his
might when he is out. I should like much to have a conversation
with the Duke, and (if it were possible to speak so freely to him)
to set before him all the _apparent_ inconsistencies of his
conduct, to trace his political career step by step, and tell him
concisely all that he may have read scattered through a hundred
newspapers, and then hear what he would say, what his notions are
of political honour and consistency, and how he reconciles his
general conduct with these maxims. I am persuaded that he deludes
himself by some process of extraordinary false reasoning, and that
the habits of intense volition, jumbled up with party prejudices,
old associations, and exposure to never-ceasing flattery, have
produced the remarkable result we see in his conduct; notwithstanding
the enormous blunders he has committed, and his numerous and
flagrant inconsistencies, he has never lost his confidence in
himself, and what is more curious, has contrived to retain that of
a host of followers. In each particular act, and on every fresh
occasion, there appear in him a decision, singleness of purpose,
and straightforwardness which are inseparable from a conviction of
being in the right, and he never seems to apprehend for a moment
that he can be liable to the imputation of any selfish or
dishonourable motive. And strange and paradoxical as it may
appear, I do not think he is justly liable to it except when he is
under the influence of some strong personal feeling. Such was his
jealousy and dislike of Canning, and this led him into perhaps the
most enormous of all his political misdeeds, the overthrow of the
Corn Bill of 1827. Upon other occasions I attribute his conduct to
the circumstance of his being governed by one leading idea, and to
his incapability of taking enlarged and comprehensive views of
political affairs, such as embrace not only the complex relations
of the present, but the ostensible probabilities of the future.
His judgment, instead of being determined by profound habits of
reflection, an extensive knowledge of history, and accurate
acquaintance with human nature, seems to be wholly influenced by
his own wishes and his own conception of what the exigencies of
the moment require. It would not be difficult, I think, and
perhaps I may hereafter attempt to apply this delineation of his
disposition to the events of his life, and to show how the leading
idea in his mind has been the constant guide which he has
followed, sometimes to the detriment of the best interests of the
country and sometimes to that of his own reputation.

                          CHAPTER XXVI.

Sir R. Peel arrives--The First Council--The King's Address--Lord
  Stanley and Sir J. Graham decline to join the Government--Lord
  Wharncliffe and Sir E. Knatchbull join--The Ministers sworn
  in--Peel's Address to his Constituents--Dinner at the Mansion
  House--Offer to Lord Roden--Prospects of the Election--
  Stanley's Want of Influence--Pozzo di Borgo's Views--Russia and
  England--Nomination of Lord Londonderry to St. Petersburg--
  Parliament dissolved--State of the Constituencies--A Governor-General
  for India--Sebastiani and St. Aulaire--Anecdote of Princess
  Metternich--The City Elections--Lord Lyndhurst's View of the
  Government--Violence of the Opposition--Close Contest at Rochester--
  Sidney Herbert--Sir John Hobhouse's Views--Anecdotes--County
  Elections--The Queen supposed to be with Child--Church Reform--
  Dinner of Ministers--Story of La Roncière--The King's Crotchets.

December 10th, 1834 {p.174}


Sir Robert arrived yesterday morning at eight o'clock. Great was
the bustle among his clan; there were the Ross's, the Plantas,
and all of them pacing before his door while he was still
closeted with the Duke. Sefton came up to town last night, and
declares that Lord Stanley has announced his intention of
supporting Wood for Lancashire and opposing Francis Egerton,
which, if true, is ominous against a junction with Peel.

December 11th, 1834 {p.175}

A Council yesterday. The King insisted upon giving Peel the seal
of the Exchequer in Council, though it was not necessary. His
object was to make a speech. The Chief Justice, who was trying a
cause at Westminster, kept us waiting, and at last a carriage
was sent to fetch him. Peel made his first appearance full of
spirits and cordiality to the numerous greetings which hailed
him. He told me that he had seen the letter which I had written
to his brother Jonathan, that he agreed to every word of it, and
that he had written to Stanley in exact conformity to what I had
said. This was a letter I had written to Jonathan Peel, giving
him an account of the state of things here, and expressing at
some length my own view of Peel's situation and of what he ought
to do. When Sir Robert got to Paris he gave it to him, and as he
approves of it I am certain that his Government will be liberal
enough; but then the Irish Church! Stanley's answer may come
to-day, but they expect him in town at all events. When Denman
arrived at St. James's he had an audience and gave up the seal.
The Council was assembled, and the King, who had got his speech
all ready, first asking the Duke of Wellington if he should go
on, to which the Duke assented, delivered himself 'in apt and
gracious terms.' It really was (however superfluous) not at all
ill done, recapitulating what everybody knows, declaring that
Sir Robert Peel was now Minister of this country, and thanking
the Duke of Wellington in his own name and in that of the
country for the part he had taken and for the manner in which he
had conducted the public business during the interval; he said
that he should request him to hold the seals of the three
offices for a few days longer. He was not ridiculous to-day.
With regard to Lynn, I have handed George Bentinck over to
William Peel and Granville Somerset, and so washed my hands of

December 13th, 1834 {p.175}

Stanley has declined; I know not in what terms, but it is said
courteous. Now, then, nothing remains but a Tory Government; the
Whigs are triumphant that Stanley will have nothing to do with
it. Lord Grey, who was moderate, has been lashed into fury by
their putting up Liddell for Northumberland. Charles Grey at
Holland House the other night threw them all into dismay by the
language he held--'that if the Duke and Peel followed his
father's steps, and adopted Liberal measures, he should support
them.' Lady Holland was almost in fits, and Allen in convulsions.

December 14th, 1834 {p.175}

Lord Wharncliffe, to his great joy, was sent for by Peel
yesterday, and very civilly invited to join the new Cabinet. He
thought it necessary to enquire if he meant to be liberal, and on
receiving an assurance to that effect he at once consented.
Graham was with Peel, having come up to town on getting his
letter, but he declined joining. Wharncliffe told me that the
correspondence between Peel and Stanley was extremely civil. The
Cabinet is now pretty nearly completed; they all dined together
at Peel's yesterday. I asked Wharncliffe how Sir Edward
Knatchbull was to be converted into a Liberal, and he said, 'Oh,
there will be no difficulty; he is very reasonable.' It would be
(to me) a bitter pill to swallow to take Knatchbull; he is the
man who led that section of High Tories which threw out the
Duke's Government in 1830. The Whigs are sorry that Graham does
not join, for they hate him and want to be rid of him. They are
also discomposed at a letter of Stanley's in reply to an address
to the King from Glasgow that has been forwarded to him to
present, in which his sentiments appear to be alarmingly

Stanley and Graham will support the Government, and it now
appears that the Duke of Wellington is the real obstacle to their
joining. To Peel Stanley has no objection; he has spoken of him
in the highest terms; but after the speech which the Duke made
when Lord Grey went out, in which he attacked him and his
Government with a virulence which gave great disgust at the time,
Stanley feels that he could not with any regard to his own
honour, and compatibly with his respect and attachment for Lord
Grey, form a part of this Government. So there is another evil
resulting from one of those imprudences which the Duke blurts out
without reflection, thinking only of the present time and acting
upon his impulse at the moment. Spring Rice, whom I met
yesterday, said that their great object (in which they hoped to
succeed) was to keep the whole of their party together--their
party in the House of Commons, of course. Whether he included
Stanley in this or not I don't know, but if he did he reckons
probably without his host.

December 15th, 1834 {p.176}


Met the Duke of Richmond yesterday, who came to town for the
cattle show, and had a long talk with him; he said they had
discussed the whole matter (Stanley, Graham, and himself) at
Knowsley, and decided not to join; that the Duke of Wellington's
violent speech against all the members of the late Government
and their policy made it quite impossible, but that they were
determined to support Peel if they possibly could; and he seems
not apprehensive there would be any difficulty; he thinks
Stanley's support out of office will be more valuable than if he
had joined them, and perhaps under the above circumstances (for
I had forgotten the Duke's speech) it may be. Nothing can be
more satisfactory than the state of feeling between them all;
and certainly all those who would have followed Stanley, had he
taken office, may find as strong motives for supporting
Government now as they could have done then. I told Richmond I
thought Knatchbull was so High a Tory that I did not see how
they could make him a Liberal. He said he was not at all
strongly anti-Liberal, and that he had had the option of being a
member of Lord Grey's Government, he having been himself
commissioned to offer him the Secretaryship at War. This,
however, it is very clear, was offered as a reward for the
service he had done in giving the mortal thrust to the Duke, and
as he is an honest man, and wanted at that time the Duke's life
rather than his purse, he was probably satisfied with his
exploit, and never would have done on any terms (what Richmond
and others did) so inconsistent a thing as to join a Reform
Ministry. It is, however, remarkable that this should have
occurred. See what it was. Knatchbull, a High Tory, turns out
the Duke and a Tory Government, and lets in the Whigs; he is
offered office by the Whig Minister to whose triumph he has been
instrumental, refuses it; and afterwards, on the exclusion of
the same Whig Ministry, is offered office by the returning Tory
Government, which he had four years ago destroyed, and takes it.

December 16th, 1834 {p.177}

A great field-day at Court yesterday; all the new Ministers sworn
in, except the Colonial Secretary, who is not yet appointed, and
some subordinate officers. The King addressed each of them on his
kissing hands, and to Scarlett he made a very pretty speech about
the administration of the law. Lord Rosslyn was substituted for
Lord Aberdeen (only in the morning) as President of the Council;
why did not appear, but I had learnt from Hardinge (in a
conversation I had with him) that the arrangements would in some
respects be only temporary, and made with a view to the
subsequent admission of Stanley and his party; the nature of
their communications has been such as to afford a very fair
prospect of that junction. Peel is much elated at having got
Sugden to go to Ireland as Chancellor. Lord de Grey has been
asked to be Lord-Lieutenant. I find Stanley in his letter to Peel
said that the Duke of Wellington's speech was an obstacle to his
joining the Government. These scruples they think unreasonable;
and they allege his own thimblerig speech, which was more violent
against the Whig Government and more insulting than anything the
Duke said; but they should comprehend that this speech forms one
of the ingredients of the difficulty, as it in fact hampers his
political conduct by putting him on uncomfortable personal terms
with his old friends.

December 20th, 1834 {p.178}

Peel's letter to his constituents has appeared as his manifesto
to the country; a very well written and ingenious document, and
well calculated to answer the purpose, if it can be answered at
all. The letter was submitted to the Cabinet at a dinner at
Lyndhurst's on Wednesday last, and they sat till twelve o'clock
upon it, after which it was copied out, a messenger despatched to
the three great newspapers ('Times,' 'Herald,' and 'Post') to
announce its arrival, and at three in the morning it was
inserted. The Whigs affect to hold it very cheap, and to treat it
as an artful but shallow and inefficient production. It is rather
too Liberal for the bigoted Tories, but all the moderate people
are well satisfied with it. Of course it has made a prodigious
sensation, and nobody talks of anything else.

December 24th, 1834 {p.178}


Dined yesterday at the Mansion House; never having before seen a
civic feast, I thought this a good opportunity. The Egyptian Hall
is fine enough; the other rooms miserable. A great company, and
all Tories almost. The Lord Mayor boasted of his impartiality,
and how he had invited all parties alike, but none of the Whigs
would go. Peel spoke tolerably, but not so well as I expected;
manly enough and in good tone. In the speeches of the others
there was nothing remarkable. Ward made a violent speech,
attacking Grote and Lushington, though not by name. The loyal
party in the City are making great exertions, and they expect to
bring in three out of the four members, which I doubt, not
because I know anything of the matter, but because they are
generally out in their calculations. In the meantime the vacant
places have been gradually filled up, and generally with Tories
of a bad description--e.g. Roden[1] as Lord Steward, which,
though no political situation, would do harm merely from his name
appearing in the list. It never will be believed that such men as
he--bigoted and obstinate, and virtuous moreover--will consent to
join Peel if he has resolved to act upon principles diametrically
the reverse of those they have ever sustained, and they persist
(the Whigs) in asserting that every fresh appointment of this
kind is a new pledge that he means to govern on Tory principles.

      [1] Roden refused on account of his health.--January 4th.


A few days ago I fell in with Hobhouse, and he walked with me to
my office. He told me that he and his fellow Committee men at
Ellice's, astonished at the confident expectations of the
Carltonians as to the result of a dissolution, went over the list
scrupulously and jealously, and resolved to know the worst; that
after making every allowance they could, and excluding all
doubtful places and all Stanleyites, they found themselves with a
majority of 195 votes, and deducting from that 50 men who might
be Waverers, and on whom it might not be safe to count, they
still found 145, which they saw no possibility of disputing. On
the other hand the Conservatives, without going to actual
numbers, retain their confidence, though I confess I do not think
on any sufficient grounds as far as present appearances go. As
far as I can judge by the slight indications which reach me, the
managers of the late Government are acting with great dexterity,
and I begin to think that Rice's expectation of being able to
hold together the whole of those who are not with the new
Government is not so chimerical as I at first imagined. Although
there is a little feeling for the ex-Ministry and no excitement
in the country, there is a calm which is quite as alarming to the
hopes of one party as it is represented to be expressive with
regard to the power of the other, for unless some enthusiasm can
be created, some loyal motion to disturb the inertia of the mass,
it must be considered as standing much in the same situation as
before, and that certainly is not one favourable to the desires
and pretensions of the Conservative Government. Then within this
day or two there appear indications of a disposition to hold off
on the part of Stanley and Graham, if not to join with their old
friends, which might well alarm any watchful and anxious mind.
Stanley's speech at Glasgow contained not a syllable expressive
of regard for the royal prerogative, or of respect for Peel, or
of a disposition to try the new Government, but extravagant
compliments to Lord Grey, and Whig language generally. I asked
Hardinge last night what he thought of it, and he said it struck
him as 'too Whiggish.' I then told him that I was struck in like
manner, and that I had seen a letter from Graham in the morning,
the tone of which I did not at all like. It was to George
Bentinck about the Lynn election, for which he was to endeavour
to find a man, and failed. He said that Stanley's speech was very
good; blamed the composition of the New Government, which would
not give satisfaction, though it must always be remembered that
Peel had made use of the old materials because he could not
procure new ones; said that people were now beginning to discover
that the Whigs need not be reduced to the alternative of joining
with the Radicals or the Tories, and that when a standard was set
up (Stanley's of course) on Conservatively Liberal principles he
thought plenty would be found to join it. It is, therefore, very
questionable what course Stanley will pursue, even though a party
may range itself under him, which I doubt, and no position can be
much worse than this Government would be in if they were to hold
office at his discretion, and only while he should be pleased to
throw his weight into their scale. As far as one can judge his
weight will be small, for it is very remarkable that while for
some weeks George Bentinck has been endeavouring to find a
Stanleyite candidate for Lynn, who would be brought in without
trouble or expense, though he has ransacked the Bar and applied
to Richmond, Ripon, Graham, and Stanley himself, no such man can
be found. There are Whigs and Tories in abundance, but not one
man who will come into Parliament as a follower of Stanley and
owing his seat to the patronage of the Duke of Richmond.

It is the fashion to consider Peel's speech at the Mansion House
less Liberal in tone and indicative of less confidence than his
letter to Tamworth. I don't perceive much difference. Lord Roden
has refused to be Lord Steward, but the invitation has done the
mischief. Lord Haddington goes to Ireland, after making many
difficulties, but finishing by liking the appointment. Both
parties remain equally confident as to the result of the
elections; the Whigs, as it appears to me, with greater reason,
and as the resolution of the allies (the Whigs and Radicals) is
to throw out the Government as speedily as possible, and without
caring for consequences, I don't see how they ever can stand.
The other night at Holland House, Mulgrave, who is one of the
leading men of the electioneering committee, admitted that he
did not see what was to follow the overthrow of the Government,
but that the difficulty was one of their own creating; others of
them assert that Melbourne or Spencer will return, and another
Whig Government be formed, but they leave out of calculation
that the Radicals with whom they have joined will not suffer
themselves to be brushed off when done with, nor will the Tories
come down to assist them if they endeavour again to make head
against the Radicals. The Tories have shown themselves a
reckless and desperate party, and I see no reason for supposing
that their conduct will belie their character; they overthrow
their friends from revenge, and will hardly save their enemies
from charity; their interest, their real interest, they seem
destined ever to be blind to. There may be a hope that, having
put themselves under the orders of Peel, they will act in a body
as he shall direct them, and if so they may be a powerful and
useful Opposition, and I really believe that he will not turn
his eyes from the true interests of the country, or cease to
regard all those contingencies which may, under dexterous
management, be eventually turned to account. It is, however,
impossible not to feel greatly disquieted at the aspect of
affairs--at the mixture of bad spirit and apathy that prevails,
for I consider the apathy an evil and not a good sign. Those who
express most loudly their alarm and abhorrence of ultra doctrines
make little exertion, personal or pecuniary, to stem their
torrent. There have been some great examples of liberality. I
heard only the other day that the Duke of Buccleuch subscribed
£20,000 for the election of 1831; Lord Harrowby (a poor man) has
given £l,000 for this. The fact is, it is in politics to a
certain degree as in religion. Men fear in the one case in the
same manner as they believe in the other; they have some doubts
in both cases, but no convictions. Their conduct belies their
assertions, and when compared with that which they observe on
occasions where there is no room for doubt, it will be seen that
their want of energy or decision, their various inconsistencies,
proceed from self-deceit, which is just strong enough to permit
them to try and deceive others with actual falsehood and

December 28th, 1834 {p.182}


My brother Henry came from Paris a day or two ago to take the
place of _précis_ writer in the Foreign Office. Just before he
started old Pozzo gave him a whole string of messages to the Duke
of Wellington, adding that he would give the world for an hour's
conversation with him. These communications were evidently made
upon a supposition that their opinions were generally congenial.
He said that the affairs of Belgium required particular attention;
that the Belgians were grown insolent, and meant, by deferring a
final settlement, to avoid paying their portion of the debt and to
keep the disputed Duchies, and that _unfortunately_ the conduct of
the King of Holland had not been such as to entitle him to
assistance; that in Germany the spirit was good and tranquillity
prevailed; in Spain nothing could be worse, and he told the Duke
to be on his guard against what Alava should say to him, 'qui
n'avait pas le sens commun, mais qui était dévoué au Duc,' and
that he might _endoctriner_ him a little. Henry took a memorandum
of this and gave it to the Duke; but however disposed he may be to
enter into Pozzo's views, he will probably soon be obliged to take
a tone very unpleasant to Russia, for I find that the affairs of
Turkey are in such a state that they are to be brought under the
immediate consideration of the Cabinet. The great object of the
late Government was (and that of this Government must be the same)
to get the Porte out of the clutches of Russia. The Sultan is a
mere slave of the Emperor, but throughout his dominions, and the
Principalities likewise, a bitter feeling of hatred against Russia
prevails. Our policy has been to induce the Sultan to throw off
the yoke--by promises of assistance on one hand, and menaces on
the other of supporting Mehemet Ali against him. Hitherto,
however, the Sultan has never been induced to bestir himself. It
is evident that if this matter is taken up seriously, and with a
resolution to curb the power of Russia in the East, the greatest
diplomatic judgment and firmness will be requisite in our
Ambassador at St. Petersburg; and how under these circumstances
the Duke can send Londonderry, and how Peel can have consented to
his nomination, I am at a loss to conceive. It appears just worse
than what Palmerston did, which was to send nobody at all. In all
this complication of interests in the East, France is ready to act
with us if we will let her, and Austria lies like a great log,
favouring Russia and opposing her inert mass to anything like
_mouvement_, no matter with what object or in what quarter.

                *       *       *       *       *


January 1st, 1835 {p.183}

Parliament dissolved at last, and all speculation about the
elections will soon be settled in certainty. It is remarkable
what confidence is expressed by both sides. Three Tories stand
for the City; but Ward told me they rather expected to run their
opponents hard than to come in, but that such an exhibition of
strength would be important, as it will. The Duke of Wellington
is so well aware of the obstacle that he is to Stanley's joining
the Government that he wanted not to belong to it originally, and
he is now meditating his retreat, in order to open the way for
Stanley. It cannot be denied that he has acted very nobly
throughout this business, and upon nothing but a sense of duty,
without regard for himself. Some doubts have occurred to me of
the vast utility of Stanley, and his being so entirely without a
party proves that he is not held in very high estimation, and
though I should be glad to see a better set of names in the
various offices (which are for the most part miserably filled) I
should not altogether like to see the Duke of Wellington retire
out of deference to such men as the four who would succeed him,
and those who would have to retire with him. I heard a ridiculous
anecdote of the King the other day. He wrote to the Duke about
something--no matter what, but I believe some appointment--and
added _á propos de bottes_, 'His Majesty begs to call the
attention of the Duke to the _theoretical_ state of Persia.' The
Duke replied that he was aware of the importance of Persia, but
submitted that it was a matter which did not _press_ for the


Yesterday I dined with Robarts, and after dinner he gave me an
account of the state of his borough (Maidstone), and as it is a
tolerably fair sample probably of the real condition of the
generality of boroughs, and of the principles and disposition of
their constituencies, I will put it down. There are 1,200 voters;
the Dissenters are very numerous and of every imaginable sect and
persuasion. He has been member seventeen years; the place very
corrupt. Formerly (before the Reform Bill), when the constituency
was less numerous, the matter was easily and simply conducted; the
price of votes was as regularly fixed as the price of bread--so much
for a single vote and so much for a plumper, and this he had to pay.
After the Reform Bill he resolved to pay no more money, as
corruption was to cease. The consequence was that during his canvass
none of the people who had formerly voted for him would promise him
their votes. They all sulked and hesitated, and, in short, waited to
see what would be offered them. I asked him what were the new
constituencies. 'If possible worse than the old.' The people are
generally alive to public affairs--look into the votes and speeches
of members, give their opinions--but are universally corrupt. They
have a sour feeling against what are nicknamed abuses, rail against
_sinnicures_, as they call them, and descant upon the enormity of
such things while they are forced to work all day long and their
families have not enough to eat. But the one prevailing object among
the whole community is to make money of their votes, and though he
says there are some exceptions, they are very few indeed. Robarts
too is a Reformer, and supports all Whig and reforming Governments;
but he does so (like many others) from fear. What he most dreads is
collision, and most desires is quiet, and he thinks non-resistance
the best way. There is no reason to believe that other
constituencies materially differ from this; what therefore is the
result? Power has been transferred to a low class of persons; so low
as to be dissatisfied and malignant, high enough to be
half-instructed; so poor that money is an object to them, and
without any principle which should deter them from getting it in any
way they can: they may, on the whole, be considered as disaffected
towards existing institutions, for when they contrast their own life
of labour and privation with the wealth and splendour which they see
around them, there is little difficulty in persuading them that they
are grievously wronged, and that the wrong is in the nature of the
institutions themselves. These general considerations make them
therefore lean towards those who promise better things, and strive
to introduce changes; but as their immediate wants are always
uppermost, their votes are generally at the disposal of the highest
bidder, whatever his politics may be.

January 3rd, 1835 {p.185}

They can find nobody to go to India. Lord Ellenborough (by Peel's
desire) wrote to the Duke and asked his advice, at the same time
suggesting Sir James Graham. The Duke replied that he thought it
better not to have anything to do with that party at present;
that the best man he knew would be Lord Heytesbury, if he would
go, or such a man as Lord Fitzroy Somerset, whom he mentioned,
not because he had been long known to him, and had served under
himself, but because he was a very able man, and the best man of
business he was acquainted with. Kemp refused it; Ellenborough
said that the more he looked into Indian affairs, the more
clearly he saw the urgency of sending a Governor-General. Whether
by this he means to imply that Lord William Bentinck has done
ill, I know not; but he is always said to have done admirably
well. In a letter which the Duke wrote to the King, not long ago,
he told him that it was desirable to make as few changes in the
foreign policy of the Government as possible. Notwithstanding the
confidence of his underlings, and of the crowd of fools and
females who follow the camp, it is clear that the Duke and Peel
are both sensible of the danger of their situation.

January 4th, 1835 {p.186}

There is every prospect of a miserable defeat of the Conservatives
in the City, which will be doubly disastrous, first as to the
election, which is an important one, and secondly because it will
go far to neutralise the effect of the famous address they got up.
This is owing to mismanagement. The Committee has been bad and
negligent; then they did a very foolish thing in ousting Pattison
from Harwich to make room for Bonham; if they had left Pattison
alone (which Harris had, I believe, pledged himself should be
done), Lyall would have come in for the City, and perhaps Ward
too; but when the electioneering affairs are left to William Peel,
Ross, and Granville Somerset, no wonder there is not much
dexterity and finesse displayed. I have published a pamphlet to
help them; but as I never put my name to my pamphlets, of course
nobody reads them.

January 5th, 1835 {p.186}


Sebastiani is coming here as Ambassador--that is, unless he
changes his mind and pleads ill-health. The French Government
notified to us his appointment without asking our consent, and
when the Duke stated it to the Cabinet, objections were made; he
accordingly wrote the same day to Bacourt, stating that the
Cabinet thought the appointment objectionable, and that there
would be difficulties in transacting business with him. The
French Government expressed surprise, and rather insist upon
their appointment, and as ours does not think it worth while to
have a dispute about it, he is to come; but we think they have
behaved very ill, for the Duke never proposed the Paris Embassy
to Lord Cowley till he had communicated with France, and
ascertained that the nomination would be agreeable to the King.
It was expected that St. Aulaire or Latour-Maubourg would have
come here. It is of Madame de St. Aulaire that Talleyrand said,
'Elle cherche l'esprit que son mari trouve.' (This anecdote I
suspect not to be true, or not true of Madame de St. Aulaire, who
is a very intelligent, agreeable woman, more lively and with more
_finesse d'esprit_ than her husband.)

St. Aulaire is Ambassador at Vienna, and, however clever, he either
wants presence of mind or is touchy, as the following anecdote
shows. Madame de Metternich is a fine handsome woman, ill brought
up, impertinent, _insouciante_, and _assez bourrue_--_au reste_,
quick and amusing. She went to a ball at St. Aulaire's with a fine
coronet of diamonds on, and when he came to receive her he said,
'Mon dieu, madame, quelle belle couronne vous avez sur la tête!' 'Au
moins,' said she, 'ce n'est par une couronne que j'ai volée.'
Instead of turning it into a joke, he made a serious affair of it,
and went the next day to Metternich with a formal complaint; but
Metternich said, 'Mais mon cher, que voulez-vous? Vous voyez que
j'ai épousé une femme sans éducation; je ne puis pas l'empêcher de
dire de pareilles sottises, mais vous sentez bien que ce serait fort
inconvénant pour moi de m'en mêler. Allons! il n'y faut plus
penser,' and so turned it off, and turned him out, by insisting on
making a joke of the affair, as St. Aulaire had better have done at

January 7th, 1835 {p.187}

Just as might have been expected, the Conservative candidates in
the City are defeated by an enormous majority. Pattison, the
Governor of the Bank, the Liberal candidate who came in second on
the poll, having been proposed by Jones Loyd,[2] the richest
banker in the City, and perhaps the richest man in Europe.[3]
Such outward demonstrations as these unquestionably afford a very
plausible answer to the opposite cry, and the victory on the
Radical side is great and important. Ward told me they should at
least run them hard, so that the disappointment must be grievous;
still it is asserted that the greatest part of the wealth of the
City will be found in the columns of the address--but then the
votes are in the other scale. The elections, as far as they have
gone, are rather against the Government, but not showing any
material difference in numbers--sufficient, however, to prove
that, in point of fact, Peel's declarations have produced little
or no effect, and that the various considerations that have been
urged on the country and the appeals to its reason have been all
alike thrown away.

      [2] [Mr. Jones Loyd, afterwards created Lord Overstone.]

      [3] [The four City members were: Matthew Wood, James
          Pattison, William Crawford, and George Grote.]

I saw a letter which Barnes wrote to Henry de Ros yesterday, in
which he speaks with horror and alarm of the prevailing spirit.
He says the people are deaf with passion, and in the abrupt
dissolution of the late Government and the bad composition of
this they _will_ see a conspiracy against their liberties, and
mad and preposterous as the idea is, there is no eradicating it
from their brains. I am afraid this is too true, and though no
alarmist generally, and rather sluggish of fear, I do begin to
tremble; and while I cast my eyes about in all directions to see
what resource is in store for us, I can find none that is
anything like satisfactory; the violence of party-spirit seems to
blind everybody concerned in politics to all contingent
possibilities, and every feeling of decency and propriety is

Last night I was at Lady Holland's; there were Lord and Lady
Holland, Mulgrave, Seaford, Allen and Burdett. I asked them if
they had read Whittle Harvey's speech at Southwark, which was a
tissue of the grossest and most outrageous abuse and ridicule of
the King and Queen. They said 'No,' so I read to them some of the
most offensive passages. Not the slightest disgust did they
express. Holland merely said to one allegation, '_That_ is not
true,' and Mulgrave laughed, and said, 'Whittle is an _eccentric_

January 8th, 1835


On the whole the returns yesterday presented a gain to Government
of about 10 votes, many elections turning out contrary to
expectation both ways, and some very severe contests. The City
was a great defeat: the lowest Whig beat the highest Tory by
above 1,400. It is remarkable that many who signed the address to
the King voted for the Radical candidates.

At dinner yesterday at Lord Chesterfield's I met the Chancellor,
whom I have not seen for some time. After dinner we talked about
the state of affairs. 'Well,' he said, 'will it do? what do you
think?' I said, 'I don't know what to think, but on the whole I am
disposed to think it will _not_ do. I don't see how you are to get
on.' 'What do you think of Peel?' said he; 'is he a fit man for
the purpose?' 'He is a very able man, and prudent.' 'Aye, but is
he enough of a man of the world? does he know enough of what is
going on in the world?' To which I said, 'You have just hit upon
the point that I have been lamenting. He has not lived in the
world, and he has not about him those who do, and who can give him
that particular sort of information and advice of which he stands
in need; and I think he has, in great measure owing to this,
committed a great blunder in forming such a Government as he has
done; he has not been able to throw off the old prejudices of
keeping to his party, and thought it necessary to depend upon
them, when he ought to have seen that the case was one out of
ordinary rules, that the support of the Tories alone could not
maintain him, and that, if they would not give it him for their
own interest, and in furtherance of their own principles, without
insisting upon being in office, though he might not be able to get
on without it, he would still less be able to get on with their
support alone. In his place I should have told them I could not
take them in, that if they would confide in me, and let me help
the country out of its difficulties in my own way, I would do the
best I could for it and for them.' Lyndhurst said that 'he was not
much consulted;' that if he had had the formation of the
Government he should have gone to work very differently; that he
would have had a small Cabinet, eight or ten at most, composed of
new men, leaving out Aberdeen, Goulburn, Herries, and the rest of
that description, employing them if possible abroad, or if not,
telling them that it was necessary to lay them on the shelf for a
time, and that he would do what he could for them at a future
period; that Ellenborough had told Peel he had much better not
take him into the Government; that he was aware he was not
popular, and though he might be of some use with regard to details
of business, his support out of office would (he thought), on the
whole, be more serviceable than his being in the Cabinet. Peel
said that his willingness to sacrifice himself only made it more
incumbent on him not to permit him to do so, and insisted upon
having him. Lyndhurst said he had hoped that Sandon would have
been taken, and he had suggested Lord Carnarvon, to which Peel
replied that he was still so young that he thought he might be
passed over for the present I said, 'Why it is the present for
which it is necessary to provide, and it is _now_ that he might
have been made available.' (Carnarvon would not join on account of
ill-health.) We then talked over what sort of a Cabinet might have
been got together, of new names, moderate men, few in number. He
admitted that a great mistake had been committed, and that, as it
was irreparable, so it would very probably be fatal. He praised
the Duke of Wellington. I said I would not have taken him in, or
have got him to go to Ireland, for he was ready to do anything to
advance the cause. He liked this idea very much. I reminded him
that the first day we had talked over the matter he had admitted
that it would never do to bolster up the old concern again, and
that Hardinge had told me the Tories were all ready to make any
sacrifices or postpone their claims, so that such a course as we
suggested need not have been difficult. I told him of Barnes's
letter, and of his fears, and what he said of the effect produced
by the composition of the Government. He said the 'Times' had
behaved admirably to them, and the Government were under great
obligations to me for what I had done in that matter. I told him I
was glad to hear they were on such good terms, as having been
instrumental to the connection, which I had no doubt had entailed
an immediate loss on the proprietors of the paper.

He asked me if I thought the Opposition meant to refuse the
Supplies. I said I had no doubt they did. 'Then we must go.' But
he still expects they will have 300 votes in the House of
Commons, and with that he calculates that they may struggle on
with one-half of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the
King, and a large proportion of the wealth and respectability of
the country. It would be difficult, but he thought they might get
on; but that the fact was, there was _no going on_ after the
transfer of power to another class, which the Reform Bill had
effected. I said there was no doubt of that, and that the Reform
Bill had produced virtually a complete revolution in this
country. 'Aye,' said he, 'much more than that of '88.'

January 9th, 1835 {p.191}


Dined at Holland House; they are satisfied with the elections.
Mulgrave said that, out of the present return, they had to add
thirty to their list and to deduct thirteen of their original
calculations, giving them seventeen more than they expected. There
is a small gain to the Tories, but nothing like enough. It cannot
do; all the moderate Whigs (for it is not a question of Tories)
are beaten in the metropolitan districts. Spankie's admirable
addresses have ensured his defeat. Duncombe, immediately after an
exposure of the most disgraceful kind, will be returned by a
majority doubling that of any of the other candidates; and it is
not a little remarkable that Duncombe is supported by all the
Dissenters, even the Quakers, with whom austerity of morals and a
decent behaviour are supposed to have weight--but the rabid spirit
of disaffection to government and rule bears down every other
consideration, and these 'enlightened electors' (as their
flatterers always call them) are frantic with passion against
everything belonging to what they call 'the aristocracy' of the
country. But who can wonder at these people, when we see the great
Whig Lords smiling complacently at their brutal violence and
senseless rage? At Holland House they talk in the same strain; not
that they utter any indecent language, but they are passionate for
the success of the movement. One single object have they--to eject
Peel and the Tory Government; they own they don't know what is to
follow; they do not deny that the movement must be accelerated,
but they don't care; they say the Duke is responsible, for he
ought not to have accepted the King's commission, and then
Melbourne must have been sent for again the next day. Now _they_
must take the consequences--that is, the King and the Tories. They
said last night that by the old Government the movement might have
been checked; by any that can be formed on the downfall of the new
it cannot--or at least that it must go farther than it would have
done. I asked, 'Then is there anything you think worse than
advancing the movement?' 'Yes,' cried out Lord Holland, 'making
the movement stand still.' 'And do you mean that you believe there
is any danger of that, and that the movement (the progress of
improvement) ever can stand still?' 'Yes, I do believe it,' &c....
Such a miserable apology for their insane violence puts argument
and reasoning out of the question; they are resolved to fight for
power, 'to let slip the dogs of war,' ignorant whither they will
go, and careless what shall be their prey.

January 10th, 1835 {p.192}

Nothing is more remarkable in these elections than the confidence
of both parties in the result, and the difference of their
statements as to actual numbers, Bonham, who is now, _faute de
mieux_, the man-of-all-work of the Tories, told me last night
that they had an actual majority on the returns of about twenty,
whereas I went through the list, and after detecting some errors,
made out that there is a majority of about thirty the other way.
The Whig language is still the same always, and everywhere--that
they do not see what is to happen when this Government is out;
that no daylight appears, but still that out it shall go. They
own that they must (if they return to power) do a great deal more
than they would otherwise have done, but that while they obey
that necessity, they make it easy to their consciences, because
it is the other party which has imposed it upon them.


January 11th, 1835 {p.193}

The Government people still declare their satisfaction at the
result of the elections, and make out that the numbers are
tolerably even. The contests are curious from their closeness.
Charles Wellesley lost at Rochester by one, Lushington by four.
There is a great number of similar cases; in that of Rochester it
is more remarkable from the accident by which the election was
lost. There were two ships in quarantine, one of which had one
voter on board and the other two; they had both sailed the same
day from the port they left, but one had been longer on the
voyage. The ship with one voter had a right to be released on the
9th, the last day of the election, the other not till three days
later. As the circumstances were the same. Sir J. Marshall, the
Superintendent, suggested that both might be released together,
but I did not dare relax the severity of the restriction.[4]
Rosslyn was rather for doing it, but I persuaded him it would be
dangerous, as, if the election should turn upon it, we should
never hear the last of it, especially the Duke, to whose charge
it would be laid; and the election _actually turned on those two
votes_. The best chance that I see is, that when the hour of
struggle arrives there may be more moderate men than the Whig
leaders are aware of--more who, without supporting, still less
joining, the new Government, will abstain from taking a violent
part against them. This is my only hope, for as to a majority, I
have not the slightest expectation of any such thing, and am at a
loss to conceive on what they count.

      [4] [The administration of the Quarantine Regulations is
          vested in the Privy Council, and exercised by the Clerk
          of the Council]

January 12th, 1835 {p.193}

Up to the latest returns the Tories make out that they have a
majority, or at least an equality; the Whigs, that they have a
majority of about seventy. The latter calculation is nearer to the
truth, and it only remains to be seen how many of their people
will refuse to support extreme measures. Last night at Holland
House Mulgrave was perfectly furious with Charles Fox for saying
he would not oppose Manners Sutton being put in the chair. It has
been asserted all along by some of the opposite party that Peel's
measures have been influenced (especially in the composition of
his Government) by a desire to keep the Tories together, and
prepare a strong Opposition. I suspect there is some truth in
this, for I can account in no other way for the strange
appointments he makes, and the undiluted Toryism of his
Government. He goes on the old aristocratic principle of taking
high birth and connection as substitutes for other qualifications,
and he never seems to consider the former avowed sentiments of any
man in weighing his fitness for office. He has just made Sydney
Herbert Secretary to the Board of Control, an office of great
labour and involving considerable business in the House of
Commons.[5] He is about twenty-two or twenty three years old,
unpractised in business, and never spoke but once in the House of
Commons, when he made one of those pretty first speeches which
prove little or nothing, and that was in opposition to the
Dissenters. He may be very fit for this place, but it remains to
be proved, and I am surprised he did not make him begin with a
Lordship of the Treasury or some such thing, and put Gladstone,
who is a very clever man, in that post. Praed is First Secretary
to the Board of Control, and will do the business.

      [5] [The injustice of this remark has since become very
          obvious, for no man was better qualified to enter upon
          official life, or to run a great career in it, than
          Sydney Herbert. It must also be said of Sir Robert Peel
          that he was ever on the watch for the young and rising
          statesmen who, he said, were hereafter to govern the
          country; and a very large proportion of the men who
          have since played a most conspicuous and useful part
          were introduced by Sir Robert Peel to public life--Sydney
          Herbert, the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Gladstone, Lord
          Cardwell, and others.]

I very much incline to believe that, although Peel says he is
satisfied with the returns, he does not expect the thing will
last, and that upon this conviction he is determined to secure a
retreat with such a force as shall make him formidable hereafter.
Such as the appointments are at home, so are they abroad:
Londonderry to St. Petersburg, Stuart to Vienna, and in all
probability Strangford to Constantinople--the three men who are
considered the great upholders of the Anti-Liberal system.
(Stuart told everybody he had the offer, but it was not true.)

The Duke of Leuchtenberg arrived last night. The picture of the
young Queen of Portugal (which is probably flattered) does not
make her very tempting.

January 15th, 1835 {p.195}


The day before yesterday I fell in with Hobhouse, and we walked
together for some time. He said he could not understand what the
Government people meant by claiming a majority, as he heard they
did; that on the Borough returns the Opposition had a majority of
100 more or less, but that the difference could only be accounted
for by one party including all those who call themselves Whigs,
and who supported the late Government, and by the other party
counting those who, though not supporters, would be disposed to
give them a trial. He wondered at and blamed the constitution of
the Government, ridiculed the idea of Stanley succeeding Peel,
acknowledged that he saw no possibility of any other Government
being formed on the dissolution of this, and had no conception
what would happen--that another dissolution would be indispensable.
I said that I did not see any more than he did what they were to
do when they had got Peel out; that their junction with the
Radicals must end there, unless (which I could not believe) they
meant to come into office on the principle of supporting and
carrying all the measures they had opposed last year. He said, 'I
for one will go no farther than I did then; no, that is out of the
question.' He said the restoration of Melbourne's Government was
impossible after what had passed; they could not look the King in
the face again, nor he them, after such a clear intimation on his
part that he disliked them, and dreaded their principles. Soon
after, however, he said that any other Government must be formed
on a more popular principle, and especially must make the
_arrangement_ of the House of Lords a condition, for it was
impossible to go on as things were, between the two houses; that
it might have been discovered when the Reform Bill was proposed
that this would be the inevitable consequence of passing that
measure, but that all this he did not expect to be accomplished
without a violent collision, which would very likely lead to a
republic; that he should be sorry for the disturbance, but was
prepared for it, and if a sacrifice was to be made, he could not
hesitate in choosing the object of it.

Yesterday morning I met Duncannon, and talked it all over. I asked
him if he saw any chance of forming a Government, and if he
figured to himself what the King would do. 'Yes,' he said, 'he
will send for Stanley.' 'What next?' 'He may send for Lord Grey.'
'Will Lord Grey propose such measures as you think indispensable?'
'If he will not return, or won't go the length, he may send for
Melbourne again; but it is clear he--the King--must be prepared
for a more Radical Government.' I said, 'I don't think he will
ever consent to take such a one, or to agree to the measures they
will propose to him.' 'Oh, but he must, he can't help himself.'
'Well, but my belief is that, happen what may, he will not.' 'Why,
you don't think he will abdicate?' 'Yes, I do, rather than agree
to certain things.' 'Well, but then he must abdicate.' Such is the
language of the leaders of the other party, and so calmly do they
contemplate the possibility of such a consummation. The point on
which all this turns is evidently the destruction of the House of
Lords. The Whigs find it necessary to finish the work they began,
and to destroy the last bulwark of Conservative power. Stanley's
speech at his election, which was very able and eloquent, has
evidently disappointed them. They had cherished a hope that he
would unite with them at last, which they now find he will not do.
There has been a great debate in their camp whether they shall
attack the Speaker or not, but it seems fixed that they shall, and
probably they will be beaten. I am glad they do this.

Theodore Hook, whom I met at dinner the other day, and who is an
_âme damnée_ of the Speaker's, said that he was ready to give up
the chair if it was thought imprudent to fight for it; he also
said (which I don't believe) that the Home Office had been
offered him, and that he had declined it because he could not
quit the chair without a peerage, and that he should be of more
use in it than in the House of Lords.

Theodore Hook _improvised_ in a wonderful way that evening; he
sang a song, the burthen of which was 'Good Night,' inimitably
good, and which might have been written down. I heard two good
things at dinner yesterday, one of Spankie's. In his canvass he
met with a refusal from some tradesman, who told him he should
vote for Duncombe and Wakley. Spankie said, 'Well, my friend, I
am sorry you won't vote for me, and I can only say that I hope
you may have Tom Duncombe for your customer, and Wakley for your
tenant.'[6] The other is attributed to Alvanley. Some reformer
was clamouring for the expulsion of the Bishops from the House of
Lords, but said he would not have them all go; he would leave
two: 'To keep up the breed, I suppose,' said the other.

      [6] [The one was celebrated for non-payment of his bills,
          and the other was suspected of setting fire to his
          house. Wakley's house was burnt, and he brought an
          action against the Insurance Office, which declined to
          pay his policy. I forget what was the result of the
          trial, but that of the evidence was a conviction of his
          own instrumentality.]

January 17th, 1835 {p.197}


The Middlesex election terminated in the return of Hume by about
400 votes--Wood got a majority of about 250 at first, but could
not sustain it. It would have been a capital thing to turn out
Hume, but I never expected it.

January 20th, 1835 {p.197}

Sir George Murray is beaten at Perth; James Wortley at Forfar--blows
to the Government. On the other hand, Palmerston is beaten in Hants,
at which everybody rejoices, for he is marvellously unpopular; they
would have liked to illuminate the Foreign Office. Lord Harrowby
called on me yesterday; he told me my pamphlet had been attributed
to Croker in some company where he had been. Jonathan Peel told me
yesterday morning that Lady Alice Kennedy had sent word to his wife
that the Queen is with child; if it be true, and a queer thing if it
is, it will hardly come to anything at her age, and with her health;
but what a difference it would make!

January 23rd, 1834 {p.197}

Within the last few days the county elections have given a
considerable turn to the state of affairs. The Conservatives have
been everywhere triumphant. Norfolk, Derbyshire, Hants,
Lancashire--two Whigs turned out and two Conservatives returned;
Ingilby in Lincolnshire; one in Surrey, one in Kent: and if these
affairs had not been infamously managed, they would have returned
two in Surrey, two in Kent, and (if they had put up a better man)
one in the other division of Norfolk. The great and most
important victory, however, is Francis Egerton in Lancashire, who
is nearly 1,000 above his opponents, and has been received with
astonishing enthusiasm, and was the popular candidate, even at
Manchester and with the mob. These elections have damped the
spirits of the Radicals, and proportionally raised those of the
Government. The 'Morning Chronicle' was yesterday quite silent on
the subject, and at Holland House, where I dined, they were
evidently in no small disgust. I told Lord Holland that I
considered the Lancashire election as the most important event
that had occurred, and one calculated to have a great moral
effect in favour of the Government, which he owned was true, and
they did not deny that the Government had cause for elation.

In the morning we had a meeting at the Council Office to consider
of the removal of assizes, when Lyndhurst in his off-hand way said
to me, 'Well, I think we are safe now; I have no fears.' 'Haven't
you,' I said, 'but I have.' 'Oh no, we are on a rock--adamant.' I
don't think they are yet in a condition to begin triumphing, but
I certainly see daylight, which I did not before. Nobody can
possibly deny that there is a great reaction in the country; and
though the weight of the towns, and the power of the ten-pounders
thrown into the other scale, make it preponderate, there is a
strong counteracting force which will enable the better cause to
maintain a respectable fight. I expect that Francis Egerton's
election will produce indirectly very important consequences, and
will be the means of proving to moderate, doubting, timorous
politicians that they need not shrink from avowing whatever
Conservative sentiments they really do entertain. Much remains to
be done, many difficulties to be surmounted, before anything like
security can be felt, but undoubtedly the political horizon looks
much brighter than it did.

January 25th, 1835 {p.199}

A ridiculous thing happened the other day. The Speaker came to
the Council Office in a great stew about the attacks on him, and
wanted to look at the register of the names of those who had
attended at the different Councils. Though I think he is a
_pauvre sire_, he has a very tolerable case here, and I wrote a
letter to the 'Times' in his defence, and signed it 'Onslow,'
happening to think of Speaker Onslow. The next day appeared a
letter from _Lord Onslow_, declaring that he was not the author
of a letter which had appeared in his name. The 'Times' published
it, adding they thought he could hardly be serious. Munster told
me the day before yesterday that he was told of the Queen's being
with child on the day of the Lord Mayor's dinner; that she is now
between two and three months gone. Of course there will be plenty
of scandal. Alvanley proposes that the psalm 'Lord, _how_
wonderful are thy works' should be sung. It so happens, however,
that Howe has not been with the Court for a considerable time.

January 27th, 1835 {p.199}


There is a Committee sitting at my office to arrange the Church
Bill--Rosslyn, Wharncliffe, Ellenborough, and Herries. It is
generally believed they mean to bring forward some very extensive
measures. Allen says, 'The honest Whigs cannot oppose it with
honour, nor the Tories support it without infamy,' that all the
honest Whigs would support it, the honest Tories oppose it, the
dishonest Tories would support, and the dishonest Whigs oppose it.
He told me an anecdote at the same time which shows what the
supineness and sense of security of the Church were twenty years
ago. An architect built a chapel on Lord Holland's land, near
Holland House, and wished it to be appropriated to the service of
the Church of England, and served by a curate. The rector objected
and refused his consent. There was no remedy against him, and all
that could be done was to make it a Methodist meeting-house, or a
Roman Catholic chapel, either of which by taking out a licence,
the builder could do. However, he got Lord Holland to speak to the
Archbishop of Canterbury (Sutton), to tell him the difficulty, and
request his interference with the rector to suffer this chapel to
be opened to an Orthodox congregation. After some delay the
Archbishop told Holland that he had better advise his friend to
take out a licence, and make it a Catholic or Dissenting chapel,
as he thought best. The builder could not afford to lose the
capital he had expended, and acted upon the advice of the Primate.
The chapel is a meeting-house to this day. I shall be very glad if
this reform of the Church is well done and gives satisfaction, and
I do not know that any of the present Ministers are pledged
against a measure which improves the discipline without
diminishing the revenues of the Church, but certainly reforms, and
especially ecclesiastical reforms, do come with a bad grace from
them. It is ludicrous to see the 'Standard' writing Church reform
articles; and the other day I looked back at Knatchbull's speech
at the Kentish meeting, a week after the dissolution of the late
Government, in which he expressed an earnest hope that he might
leave this country 'without _any change_ in _Church_ or _State_.'
He has been Anti-everything during his whole life, and now he is
come into office to carry into effect 'safe and necessary
reforms,' which he never could perceive the slightest occasion for
while he was out. All these things are disgusting; they disgust
one with political life, they lower the characters of public men.
One strains one's eyes in vain to catch a sight of sincerity,
straightforwardness, disinterestedness, consistency; each party we
have constantly acting with a view to its own interests _as a
party_, and always disregarding consequences with miserable

February 2nd, 1835 {p.201}


The elections are over, and still each side claims a majority. It
will turn out probably that the Government have about 270 thick
and thin men. Since the Lancashire election, the Whigs have
certainly not been so elated, though they still expect to
succeed. They begin with the Speakership, and put up Abercromby,
who is probably the best candidate they could select; he is a
dull, grave man, sensible and hard-headed I fancy, but it has
always been matter of astonishment to me that they should make so
much of him as they do. The Duke of Wellington is constantly
regretting that he did not abstain from taking office, as he
wished to do, and I hear that Peel now thinks it would have been
better: but he thinks so because he fancies that Stanley would
have joined if the Duke had not been there, which is after all
very doubtful. Stanley has preserved the strictest neutrality
through the late contest, and been very guarded and cautious in
his language--so much so, that the Whigs think he will vote for
Abercromby against Manners Sutton, which I don't believe. The
Church Reform is in active preparation; I know nothing of its

Pozzo di Borgo is coming here, and the Emperor sends him partly to
save time and, Madame de Lieven writes me word, 'to prove his
goodwill, by sending his ablest and most confidential diplomatist.'
Old Talleyrand would very likely have been glad enough to come
back too (while the Duke is in office), but he is gone to
Richecote. A great mystery is still made about the Queen's
_grossesse_; the medical men believe it, though they think it no

February 8th, 1834 {p.201}

On Monday last we had the Sheriffs' dinner at Lord Rosslyn's,[7]
where I met for the first time all the new men. Murray did not
come, for since his defeat in Perthshire he no longer considers
himself of the Cabinet. Before dinner Peel told me he had offered
the vacant Lordship of the Treasury to Charles Canning,[8] in a
letter to Lady Canning, saying it would give him great pleasure
to introduce her son into public life, and that he should be glad
to treat him with confidence, and do all that lay in him to
promote his success. Lady Canning wrote a very gracious answer,
saying that she preferred his being in Parliament some time
before he took office, but neither he nor she was indisposed to
support him and his Government. At this dinner the Duke talked to
me about Spain, and said that the affair at the Post Office at
Madrid, in which Canterac was killed, was the most lamentable
thing that had happened, and the most discreditable to the
Government; that if the Carlists did not rise upon it all over
Spain, it was clear there were none; that it was a most
extraordinary war, in which the Carlists had the superiority in
the field, but possessed no fortified and even no open town; and
that, notwithstanding all the plunder and devastation incidental
to such a state of things, all the farmers in the disturbed
provinces regularly paid their rents.

      [7] [The Lord President's annual dinner to the Cabinet, at
          which the Sheriffs for the ensuing year are selected,
          to be appointed by the King at the next Council.]

      [8] [Afterwards Viscount Canning and Governor-General of
          India in 1856.]

Sandon is to move the address in the House of Commons, Lord
Carnarvon refused to move it in the House of Lords. I think the
Church Reform Commission, which was gazetted a few days ago, has
done good, especially as it is backed up by Peel's refusing to
fill up the vacant Prebendary of Westminster, and placing it at
the disposal of the Commissioners.

I went to Oatlands on Wednesday for two nights, and met the
Duchess, Countess, the Granvilles, and Pahlen. It was agreeable
enough. Lord Granville told us a curious story of an atrocity
very recently committed in France. The governor of a military
academy had objected to one of the officers, a professor,
bringing a woman who lived with him into the establishment. The
man persisted, and he finally ordered her to be ejected.
Resolving to be revenged, the officer took these means; he bribed
a servant of the governor's, who let him into the house at night;
when he got into the bedroom of his daughter, ravished her, and
then wounded her severely with some sharp instrument, but not
mortally. The girl is still alive, but in a state of frenzy; the
case is coming before the French tribunals. [This was the famous
case of La Roncière, very inaccurately stated above. There is now
little doubt that La Roncière was innocent, and that the story
was got up by the girl to revenge herself on him for some

[Page Head: THE KING'S WHIMS.]

My brothers tell me that the Duke is bored to death with the
King, who thinks it necessary to be giving advice and opinions
upon different matters, always to the last degree ridiculous and
absurd. He is just now mightily indignant at Lord Napier's affair
at Canton, and wants to go to war with China. He writes in this
strain to the Duke, who is obliged to write long answers, very
respectfully telling him what an old fool he is. Another crotchet
of his is to buy the Island of St. Bartholomew (which belongs to
Denmark, and which the Danes want to sell) for fear the Russians
should buy it, as he is very jealous of Russia. The Duke told him
that it would cost £70,000 or £80,000, for which they must go to
Parliament; and he did not think any House of Commons we were
likely to have would vote such a sum for such a purpose. Then he
does not at all like Pozzo di Borgo's coming here, and wrote to
say that since he was to come, it was well that he would have the
vigilant eye of the Duke to watch him, for he never could look
upon him in any other light than as the servile tool of advancing
the ambitious objects of an aggrandising and unprincipled Power,
or words to that effect. He thinks his present Ministers do not
treat him well, inasmuch as they do not tell him enough. The
last, it seems, constantly fed him with scraps of information
which he twaddled over, and probably talked nonsense about; but
it is difficult to imagine anything more irksome for a Government
beset with difficulties like this than to have to discuss the
various details of their measures with a silly bustling old
fellow, who can by no possibility comprehend the scope and
bearing of anything.

                          CHAPTER XXVII.

The Speakership--Temporary Houses of Parliament--Church Reform--
  Dissenters' Marriage Bill--Peel's False Position--Burke--
  Palmerston's Talents as a Man of Business and Unpopularity--
  Sympathy of Continental Courts with the Tories--Abercromby
  elected Speaker--Defeat of the Government--Tactics of the
  Opposition--The Speaker does not dine with Peel--Meeting of
  Stanley's Friends--Debate on the Address--Lord John Russell
  leads the Opposition--The Stanley Party--Second Defeat of the
  Government--Peel's Ability--The Lichfield House Meeting--Debate
  on Lord Londonderry's Appointment--His Speech in the Lords and
  Resignation--Sir E. Sugden resigns the Great Seal of Ireland--
  Lady Canterbury--Brougham in the House of Lords--Peel's
  Readiness and Courage--Lord Canterbury and Stratford Canning
  proposed for Canada--Approaching Fall of the Peel Government--
  Meetings of the Opposition--Further Defeat--Sir Robert Peel's
  own View of the State of Affairs--He resigns.

February 14th, 1835 {p.204}


There has been a wonderful lull for some time past, and though we
are said to be, and I believe we in fact are, on the eve of a
crisis of great importance, perfect tranquillity prevails
universally (except, of course, in Ireland), and men go about
their daily occupations without any signs of apprehension. The
state of this country is a curious political paradox; however,
speculation will soon be lost in certainty, so it is of no use
thinking more of the matter. The newspapers have been filled
_usque ad nauseam_ with the debates about the Speakership, and
both parties are equally confident, but the bets are in favour of
Sutton. The argument on his side has been triumphant, and the
Abercrombians have not urged the best that they might. Tom
Duncombe, who at first said he would vote for Sutton, and now
votes the other way, puts it on the true ground, 'that it is a
good factious vote.' I have little doubt that Peel will come down
in Parliament with a fair and reasonable case, but I have no hope
that he will propose or agree to anything satisfactorily about
the Irish Church; and if anything overturns his Government, it
will be that unhappy question of appropriation. From George
Dawson's language, whom I fell in with the other morning, I see
they are resolved to stand like rocks in defending 'the Church,'
as they call it. All this week and the last I have been at my
office the whole day with our Judicial Committee, which works
very well. We have Shadwell, Parke, Bosanquet and Erskine
continually; and Vaughan, Nicholl and Jenner occasionally. Alava
talked to me about the Duke of Wellington, of whom he said
everybody was afraid, even his nearest relations, and that he
found him, 'très changé pour lui.'

February 15th, 1835 {p.205}

Dined at Miss Berry's, and Lord John Russell came after; told me
he had 320 people to vote with him on the Speakership (of whom
perhaps 20 will not come), so his party make sure of it. Nobody
talks of anything else, and what has been written on the subject
in pamphlets and newspapers would fill volumes. Though it is
become inconceivably tiresome, I cannot help writing and talking
about it myself, so impossible is it to avoid the contagion. I
went yesterday to see the two Houses of Parliament;[1] the old
House of Lords (now House of Commons) is very spacious and
convenient; but the present House of Lords is a wretched
dog-hole. The Lords will be very sulky in such a place, and in a
great hurry to get back to their own House, or to have another.
For the first time there is a gallery in the House of Commons
reserved for reporters, which is quite inconsistent with their
standing orders, and the prohibition which still in form exists
against publishing the debates. It is a sort of public and avowed
homage to opinion, and a recognition of the right of the people
to know through the medium of the press all that passes within
those walls.

      [1] [The old Houses of Parliament were burnt down on
          October 16, 1834, during Mr. Greville's absence from
          town in the autumn. The Houses here spoken of were the
          temporary buildings used during the erection of the new



Lord John said to me, 'Do you remember last year, when we were
talking, I told you I thought the House of Lords would throw out
some measure or other--that there would be a change of Government,
a dissolution; and then we should have a Parliament returned with
which _nobody_ could govern the country? You see we have reached
that point.' According to their several calculations, both the
opposite parties continue to claim a majority, or rather on the
Tory side an equality; and as these are made by men experienced in
the composition of the House, and as almost everybody is pledged
and committed in some way or other, it is a perfect enigma to me
how one or the other can be so deceived. The Whigs, having
discovered that Abercromby must be proposed 'upon a great
principle' (which is great as _omne ignotum_ is _magnificum_--for
they have never given a hint of what the principle is), have now
found out that the English Church Reform which is in agitation is
a very bad move on the part of the Government, as _the people_ do
not care about Church Reform here--do not want any such thing.
This is, very possibly, in great measure true; for _the people_,
who are urged and excited by the Radical leaders, will be sure to
grow indifferent about such reforms as they can obtain by
legitimate means, and with the concurrence of legitimate
authority, and be invited to agitate for those which may be more
difficult or slow of accomplishment. Sydney Smith said last night
that he hears from those who know that it will be very sweeping;
but he thinks it will not touch the great livings, nor meddle with
advowsons. He concludes that at the same time the Dissenters will
be relieved from Church rates, that tithes will be extinguished,
and the question of Dissenters' marriages settled. This has been
an enormous scandal, and its continuance has been owing to the
pride, obstinacy, and avarice of the Church; they would not give
up the fees they received from this source, and they were
satisfied to celebrate these rites in church while the parties
were from the beginning to the end of the service protesting
against all and every part of it, often making a most indecent
noise and interruption. All these grievous abuses must be done
away with; and deeply responsible are those who never would hear
of their being done away with before. These guilty parties are the
clergy and the Tories, both of whom, now that it is almost too
late, have consented to drop their arrogant pretensions, and to
submit to those necessary and reasonable reforms against which
they have so bitterly inveighed, and so resolutely fought. We are
disgusted and shocked at reading Croly's account of the scandalous
conduct of the Catholic clergy in Ireland, with regard to the
emoluments they extort from their miserable flocks, and at the
systematic desecration of holy things which they countenance and
practise; but when the difference is considered between their
spiritual condition and their moral composition as a class, the
conduct of the clergy here appears just as revolting. The Irish
clergy are generally sprung from the lowest class, and have
received a bad education at Maynooth; they depend for subsistence
upon the voluntary liberality or devotion of their people, they
have few motives or principles of restraint, and every incentive
to follow the shameful course which they do; but the English
clergy are generally respectably born, well educated, and amply
endowed, and yet they are content to be the ministers of a
scandalous system, which, if it were not a source of profit to
themselves, they would not tolerate for an instant. Instead of
compelling the Dissenters to be married in church, if they had
been really penetrated with any devotional feelings, or by any
considerations of delicacy and charity, they would long ago have
complained of this necessity as a grievance, and besieged the
Legislature with entreaties to relieve the Church from the
scandal, and themselves from so painful and odious a duty. But it
was a badge of inferiority and dependence forced upon the
Dissenters, and a source of profit to themselves; and therefore
they defended and maintained it, and this is what they call
defending the Church; and when the Dissenters themselves pray to
be relieved from the tax and the humiliation, and liberal men
support their prayer, a cry is got up that the Church is in
danger. When the Dissenters, having prayed in vain, grow louder
and bolder in their demands, and the cries of the Churchmen
gradually sink into a whine, which is at last silenced in
submission, the Church really is in danger; and then, when it no
longer can be refused, it becomes perilous to grant the boon which
justice and wisdom have so long required. So it is, and has been
with all obstinate and senseless denials, followed by reluctant
and tardy concessions--with Catholic emancipation, the Test and
Corporation Acts, Parliamentary Reform, and with everything else;
and thus, one of the great difficulties which beset Peel and his
Government is, that they stand in an utterly false position. As a
statesman, it must be mortifying to him to reflect that all the
great measures which his political life has been spent in opposing
have been carried in spite of him, and that whatever danger may
have resulted from this cause is in great measure owing to the
opposition he was enabled, by his great talents and his influence,
or rather the influence of the party which he led, to give to
those measures. He contrived totally to fail in preventing the
success of the measures themselves, but so to mar and delay them
as to obviate the good that might have been produced by timely and
voluntary concessions; and now, coming forward as he says, 'to
resist the pressure from without,' he finds himself compelled to
yield to that pressure; for what, after all, is the language which
he now holds, what are his addresses, his speeches, his promises,
his Church Commission, but a surrender to the spirit and the
principle of Reform, and to the demands of the people--_the
people_, as contra-distinguished from those great interests on
whose support he has depended, and whose wishes or prejudices he
has consulted? For assuredly, neither the King, nor the Church,
nor the aristocracy, seriously and sincerely desire these or any
other reforms, and only agree to them from necessity. Peel is, I
think, right; he has no other alternative. Such is the force and
power of public opinion, that no Government can resist it; and if
Peel can succeed in restraining and directing it, if he can
convert it from a destructive into a conservative element, he will
render such a great service as will cancel all the former mischief
he has done; but he enters with disadvantage upon a course which
implies at the outset the surrender of much of the governing
principle of his political life, and in which neither friend nor
foe can doubt that the conduct he adopts, however justifiable,
necessary, indispensable, is compulsory and unpalatable. A man who
is called to the head of affairs must undoubtedly act, not
according to any impracticable obstinate theories of his own, but
according to the state in which he finds affairs, no matter how
produced or by whom; but it is a very different thing to adopt a
system reluctantly and under necessity, because somebody else by
his incapacity or his misfortune has rendered it indispensable,
and to do so after you yourself have brought about this state of
things: and such is the false position of Peel with all his Tory
associates. This, however, is begging the question in dispute
between the two great antagonistic parties. Peel would say that
the imprudent concessions and reckless changes of the Whigs have
made the difficulty; the Whigs would say that the resistance of
the Tories to all moderate and gradual reforms produced the
sweeping measure of '31, and the excitement that was partly its
cause and partly its consequence.

February 17th, 1835 {p.209}

Yesterday I read Burke's appeal from the new to the old Whigs,
which contains astonishing coincidences with the present times.
His definition of the people is somewhat tumid and obscure, and
involved in a splendid confusion of generalities and abstruse
doctrine; but it is a wonderful monument of his genius, and
exhibits that extent of knowledge and accuracy of insight into the
nature of parties and the workings of political ambition which
make him an authority for all times, and show him to be in the
political what Shakespeare was in the moral world. But his
writings, however as objects of study they may influence the
opinions or form the judgment of young men, would have no more
power than a piece of musty parchment to arrest the tide of
present violence, and superinduce reflection and calmness. A
speech of Tom Duncombe's would produce far greater effect than the
perusal of a discourse of Burke's. Wisdom never operates directly
on masses; it may work upon them through secondary and by indirect
means, but it cannot face the noise of actual contest, where
passion and not reason is always uppermost. Nobody but Burke could
have described so well the Dukes of Devonshire and Bedford of the
present day, who appear to have lost their senses, and to be ready
to peril all their great possessions to gratify the passions of
the moment. He says:--'But riches do not in all cases secure even
an inert and passive resistance; there are always in that
description men whose fortunes, when their minds are once vitiated
by passion or evil principle, are by no means a security from
their actually taking their part against the public tranquillity.
We see to what low and despicable passion of all kinds many men in
that class are ready to sacrifice the patrimonial estates which
might be perpetuated in their families with splendour, and with
the fame of hereditary benefactors to mankind, from generation to
generation. Do we not see how lightly people treat their fortunes
when they are under the passion of gaming? The game of resentment
or ambition will be played by many of the great and rich as
desperately and with as much blindness to the consequences as any
other game. Passion blinds them to the consequences as far as they
concern themselves, and as to the consequences with regard to
others, they are no part of their consideration.'


The other night I met some clerks in the Foreign Office to whom
the very name of Palmerston is hateful, but I was surprised to
hear them (Mellish particularly, who can judge both from capacity
and opportunity), give ample testimony to his abilities. They
said that he wrote admirably, and could express himself perfectly
in French, very sufficiently in Italian, and understood German;
that his diligence and attention were unwearied--he read
everything and wrote an immense quantity; that the foreign
Ministers (who detest him) did him justice as an excellent man of
business. His great fault is want of punctuality, and never
caring for an engagement if it did not suit him, keeping
everybody waiting for hours on his pleasure or caprice. This
testimony is beyond suspicion, and it is confirmed by the
opinions of his colleagues; but it is certain that he cut a very
poor figure in Parliament all the time he was in office before.

At the Travellers' yesterday I fell in with Bülow, who is just
come back from Berlin to resume his mission. He told me that he
was on such terms with Palmerston that it was impossible for him
to stay here, and that for some time past he had given up
communicating with him except upon the most indispensable matters
and in the most formal way. He then gave me an account of the
reception of the news of the change of our Government at Berlin,
where the Emperor of Russia happened to be at the time. The
Empress had come there on a visit to her father, and the Emperor
(who is supposed to have preserved his conjugal fidelity
immaculate) had rushed from Moscow without any notice to see her,
and was still there when news of this great event arrived. There
is something very characteristic in the first impression which the
intelligence produced, at once manifesting the secret wishes of
the party and their ignorance and apparent incapacity of
comprehending the nature of our Constitution, and the limited
extent of the power of the King of England. The Emperor
immediately conceived that the whole system of the late Government
would be reversed at home and abroad, that Leopold would be driven
from Belgium, the Dutch dominion restored, and the Quadruple
Alliance dissolved. Bülow, who has been in England long enough to
know better the real state of things, endeavoured to undeceive
him, and succeeded, though not without great difficulty; but when
he proceeded to explain to him that the new Government would very
likely not be able to keep their places, and that at any rate they
would be compelled to conduct the Government upon the principle of
Reform which the late Government had established, the Emperor
could not by any means comprehend it, nor why or how there could
be any difficulty in keeping their places if the King was resolved
to support them, and had appointed them at his own pleasure. It
would seem as if they had never read the last two or three years
of our history, or, having read it, as if the habits of unbounded
power in which they are born, educated, and expect to die, had
rendered their understandings utterly impervious to the apparent
paradox of a crowned head destitute of power to choose his own
Ministers. The Duke of Cumberland, who was likewise there, began
by talking the same nonsense, and was full of the destruction of
the Reform Bill; but Billy Holmes, who, whatever else he may be,
is a very sharp fellow, succeeded in muzzling him. This account
which Bülow gave me is, however, more than amusing; it is
instructive, because it shows which way the real wishes of the
absolute sovereigns point, and makes it highly probable that they
look upon the present settlement of Europe as one only _ad
interim_, and to be remodelled whenever an opportunity shall
present itself. They are satisfied at present with damming and
dyking out the waters of Liberalism, but they hope to drain the
lands in which they are collected, and to place themselves for
ever out of the danger of an inundation. The war of opinions is in
fact declared; it may languish, there may be truces, but there
will be no peace in our time.

February 19th, 1835 {p.212}


The important day is arrived, and it dawns in sunshine and south
wind. In a few hours the question of the Speakership will be
decided, and there will at least be the gain (wherever the loss
may fall) of getting rid of a subject which has become intolerably
tiresome. For the last three weeks every newspaper has been
literally filled with the controversy, every club engaged in
betting on the event; in every room, at the corner of every
street, nobody talked of anything else. It was the first enquiry
of every man you met, 'Well, what do you hear to-day? they say
Sutton will win by 30.' The next man (a Whig) would say, 'It is
safe; Abercromby will have 317 votes sure'--each party unboundedly
confident, and both securing a retreat by declaring that defeat
will not signify. Half the Opposition think it a false move to try
it, and the more sober of the Government are conscious that a
defeat will be very injurious.

We had a Council yesterday, and a levee more than usually
brilliant; all the new Ministers and all the old, the whole Corps
Diplomatique, with a host of others, mixed up in the first
_entrée_ room, and all very civil and good-humoured. The King
received the ex-Ministers very graciously, and talked to them
all, at least to all I saw pass by. Brougham alone was absent,
and Lord Spencer, who was hardly to be considered as one of them,
and is not in town, though, by-the-bye, I think I am wrong in
this, because there were others whom I did not see--Duncannon,
Spring Rice, and Hobhouse.

February 20th, 1835 {p.213}

The great battle is over and the Government defeated, 316 to 306.
Such a division never was known before in the House of Commons,
and the accuracy of the calculations is really surprising.
Mulgrave told me three days ago they had 317 people, which with
the Teller makes the exact number. Holmes went over the other
list, and made it 307--also correct. In the House so justly had
they reckoned, that when the numbers first counted (306) were
told to Duncannon in the lobby he said, 'Then we shall win by
10.' Burdett and Cobbett went away, which with Tellers makes a
total of 626 members in the House. All the Irish members voted
but 4, all the Scotch but 3, all the English but 25. The Irish
and Scotch, in fact, made the majority.

The elation on one side and the depression on the other were
naturally considerable, and there was not time last night to
adjust scattered thoughts. Much money was won and lost; everybody
betted. I won £55, for on the whole I thought (though quite a
toss-up) that the chances were rather in favour of Abercromby. I
had a better opinion of the cleverness of the managers on his
side, and their amazing confidence staggered me, so that after at
first believing Sutton to be sure, I finished by leaning the
other way. The debate seems to have been dull--Sutton was dull,
Peel was dull; Stanley clever, strong against the Opposition, but
thought to have been indiscreet. A Tory told me it was a second
edition of the thimblerig speech, which, if so, will not do him
good. He carried apparently very few people with him, but made
one convert--Angerstein--who changed his vote because Stanley
made out that Abercromby was for the Ballot. This seems an
excellent reason why he should be opposed as a Minister or a
candidate, but none why he should not sit in the chair of the
House. Lord John Russell is said to have spoken remarkably well,
which is important to them as a party, being his first appearance
as their leader. Peel and the Duke dined at Lord Salisbury's, and
all the Tories were invited there in the evening, with the
intention probably of celebrating their anticipated victory; and,
if so, their merry meeting must have been changed to dismal
alarms, for there is no denying or concealing that it is a very
serious disaster. The moral effect of beginning with a defeat is
bad; it discourages the wavering and timid, who might have felt
half disposed to support the Government and the constitution. The
trial of strength leads to very uncomfortable reflections, for
every man of these 317 is prepared to go all lengths; and though
there are probably none among the majority who will support
Government, there are some among the minority who will oppose
them--Dudley Stuart, Angerstein, and Burdett, who went away.


The majority of the world naturally look at this event with the
eye of party, and as a triumph one way and a mortification the
other; but I, who have no party prejudices and predilections, and
care nothing who is in the chair, and not much who is in office,
provided 'the thing,' as Cobbett calls it, is kept going, look at
this division with sorrow and alarm, as affording undoubted
evidence that no prospect appears of the possibility of this or
any other Government being able to accomplish the purposes for
which a Government is intended. We seem to be arrived at what is
vulgarly termed a dead lock. Nothing can be more clear than that
the present Ministers are in a minority, and that all the other
parties in the House united can beat them when they will. It is
equally clear that they can beat any section of their opponents
whenever these are disunited. The political attraction which
binds together the mass cannot last long, and there are too many
elements of repulsion in _esse_ or in _posse_ not to insure the
speedy disjunction of the several atoms; but in the meantime, if
they can be held together, what is to happen? Peel will take a
beating or two, but he _may_ be so beaten as to be compelled to
resign or again dissolve. Suppose he dissolves. The Tories think
the reaction is on the increase, and that the Conservative
interest would gain largely by another dissolution; still there
is scarcely a hope of their gaining enough to enable Peel to
carry on the Government with such constant and dependible
majorities as can alone render it efficacious and secure. On the
other hand, if Peel resigns, the Opposition, should they return
to power, must dissolve; for what can they do against 300 Tories?
and what Ministry can by possibility be formed that can have a
certain majority _of its own_ out of the heterogeneous mixture of
Whigs, Radicals, Repealers, and men of every shade and gradation
of opinion? Their situation, notwithstanding their victory, seems
worse than that of their antagonists with reference to their
power as a party; and if they do storm Downing Street and St.
James's, and go again to the country, as far as appearances go,
what chance have they of materially bettering their condition,
and getting another House of Commons more manageable and better
adapted to their purpose than this? This victory, therefore, will
not enable the old Government to triumph over the new, or
materially affect the positions of the two parties, and, as
somebody said last night, they will be very much puzzled what to
do with their majority now they have got it.

The first impression of great events is generally one of alarm,
which upon this occasion subsequent reflection has diminished as
far as relates to the _immediate_ peril of the present Government.
Speculation already began last night as to the Address, on which
some pretend no amendment will be moved, others that one will,
which as certainly will be carried. No question can, however, be
more embarrassing to the Whig leaders, for they would be disposed
in prudence to abstain from any very violent measure, but will
find great difficulty in dealing with their associates. If they
resolve upon pushing their victory and amending the Address, they
run the risk of exciting terror by their violence; if they avoid
this, probably some of the Radicals will do it, and then they must
support Government on the Address against a Radical section of the
House, or join with the Radicals in one of two ways, either by
supporting their amendment or persuading them to withdraw it; in
either case drawing closer the bonds of that connexion which they
are ashamed and afraid to avow, and which will, I strongly incline
to believe, be in the end fatal to the Whig party. The only thing
that can truly be predicted is, that all is confusion, uncertainty,
embarrassment, a state of things full of difficulty and peril, but
not _totally_ without hope.

February 21st, 1835 {p.216}

The Government were grievously annoyed at the event of Thursday,
and the Duke rejected all the commonplaces of consolation, 'that
it would turn out a good thing.' At Lord Salisbury's dinner (to
which Peel did not go) they were all very dejected, and the Duke
said at once it was as bad as could be; and the thing appeared
the worse because they had been led to feel so very secure. He
desired his private secretary to have everything ready to quit
the Foreign Office at a moment's notice. However, at dinner
yesterday at Peel's (a great dinner to all the Ambassadors and
twenty-six people) he said to me, 'It is very bad, but I consider
the country _on its legs again_.' 'Do you?' I said, 'I am glad
you think so.' 'Oh, yes, I think that, however this may end; I
think the country is on its legs again.'

The Whigs are resolved to push their victory with all their
energies, and they appear to have no doubt of ousting the
Government, and as they are determined to proceed by any and
every means in their career, and the others are equally resolved
to fight the battle while any means of resistance remain, the
strife must be deadly, and such as to extinguish any hope of a
coalition between moderate men of both sides for the simple
reason that moderation has ascended to Heaven, and such men will
no longer be found.

February 23rd, 1835 {p.216}


The Opposition mean to move an amendment to the Address, which
they expect to carry by a larger majority than the last. Their
tactics are completely arranged, and their understanding with
O'Connell and all the Radicals so good that they think there is
no danger of any indiscreet ebullition in any quarter. Discarding
every prospective consideration, and prepared to encounter all
consequences, they concentrate all their energies upon the single
object of turning out the Government, in which they have no doubt
of succeeding. It is the first time (as far as I know) that any
great party ever proceeded upon, and avowed, such a principle as
that which binds these people together and puts them in action;
namely, to destroy the King's Ministry, without any reference to
the measures that Ministry may propose, and without waiting to
see how they may intend to carry on the Government. Not only do
they throw out of their consideration the conduct of the
Administration, but they are resolved to accomplish its
destruction, without being prepared to substitute any stronger
Government in its room, and with a perfect knowledge that its
dissolution must necessarily produce a state of extraordinary
embarrassment, from which they do not pretend to have the power
of extricating the country. All that they ever condescend to say,
in answer to any such remonstrances, is this: 'The King exercised
his prerogative in a most extraordinary and unjustifiable manner.
We have the same right to reject his Government, that he had to
turn out ours; if there is embarrassment, it is none of our
creating, the King and the Tories must be responsible for it. We
care not what are the principles now avowed by them. If they are
not Reformers, they cannot govern this country, and are not to be
tolerated at the head of affairs. If they are, it is not to be
endured that they should usurp our places, and then in defiance
of all their principles, and in opposition to all their previous
conduct, carry into effect the measures which we should, with
perfect consistency, have brought forward. We will listen
therefore to nothing. Out they shall go, and till we have got
them out, we will never rest, nor desist from our attacks.' 'Quid
sit futurum cras, fuge quærere,' such is the manner of their
reasoning. Their intention seems to be to avoid doing anything
very desperate, but to keep beating the Government, constantly
exhibiting their own power and the helpless state of their
adversaries to the world. Some of them affect to deny their union
with O'Connell, but they say whatever suits their present
purpose. In the case of Manners Sutton, they took care to have
the charges against him disseminated through the country, and did
their best to have them believed. The constituencies believed
them, and instructed their representatives accordingly; and when,
by these means, they had secured a majority, they came down at
the last moment to the House of Commons and owned that there was
not one word of truth in the allegations against him. John
Russell had written a letter (perhaps more than one) in which he
urged opposition to Sutton, on the ground of his having advised
the dissolution of the last Parliament. Goulburn got possession
of this letter, which was handed to him during the debate, he
does not know by whom. (Goulburn told me this himself.) He gave
it to Peel while he was speaking, or just before. Peel asked John
Russell if he had ever said so, and John Russell denied it. Peel
did not produce the letter as he might have done, but the story
was told in the 'Times' the next day. So in the case of the
Bishop of Exeter, and Lord John's controversy with him. He told
an untruth, undoubtedly without knowing it, but he might have
known it; the lie did its business--

         In public spoke, it fell with greater force,
         And, heard by hundreds, was believed, of course;

and though he afterwards made a very handsome apology, half the
people who were influenced by the original statement never heard
of the contradiction, or cared for it, if they did; and to show
the candour of the Liberal press, the 'Morning Chronicle,' and
other papers of that persuasion, which trumpeted forth the
original lie, never inserted the subsequent correspondence, and
Lord John's contradiction of his own statement. I like him so
much personally, that I am sorry for all this. To return to the
party, they are boiling with indignation at the idea of another
dissolution, and talk of such advice to the King as affording
good ground for impeachment, though till they have settled the
House of Lords, and had their wicked will of it, the Ministers
would be pretty safe before that tribunal for such an act. It is
the general opinion that Peel will dissolve, and go once more to
the country if he can, but this must depend upon the sort of
opposition they offer, and the majorities they can bring into the
field. Adolphus FitzClarence told me that he never saw the King
so determined as he is to stand by this Government to the last,
and I do not think any of these men will prove deficient in

February 24th, 1835 {p.219}


The Opposition expect a majority of from thirty to forty on the
amendment. The union with O'Connell is complete, however long it
may last, and he has agreed to give up Repeal, and they are to
find some lucrative place for him when they get in again. What he
wants is to be a Master of the Rolls in Ireland; the rent fails,
and money he must have. It is a wretched thing that there is no
buying that man _now_ without disgrace; well would it have been
to have made the purchase long ago; and it will not be the least
curious part of his curious life if this bargain takes place, and
he settles down into the regular discharge of his professional
duties, and _bonâ fide_ abandons agitation. There was great
curiosity last night to know whether the Speaker dined with Peel.
It is usual for him to dine with the leader of the House of
Commons on these occasions, and hear the speech read. Sutton
always dined with Althorp, but then Althorp put him in the chair.
Abercromby, however, very properly told Peel the difficulty he
felt, and that he thought he should only embarrass the company,
and Peel acquiesced in his excuse.

February 25th, 1835 {p.219}

The King went down to Parliament in the midst of a vast crowd,
and was neither well nor ill received; nobody takes his hat off,
but there was some slight cheering. The speech disappointed me,
it was rather bald, and so thought some of the moderate men. In
the morning there was a meeting at the King's Head, Palace Yard,
to which moderate members of Parliament were invited by an
anonymous circular. Thirty-three were present, Sir Oswald Mosley
in the chair. Graham came to it, and said Lord Stanley would have
come also, but that he had invited a few of his friends to
assemble at his house, with an object similar to that which had
brought the present meeting[2] together and that if it were
agreeable to any of these gentlemen to meet his friends that
afternoon he should be glad to see them. They all went, and there
were present forty-five or fifty, of whom eight had voted for
Abercromby. He made them a speech, stating that it was evident
the Government must fall if they were to be repeatedly defeated,
and his view of the necessity of obstructing violent measures
directed against them was something to this effect. The result
was an agreement to meet again this day, and last night a few
more names were added to their list. This may, therefore, be
considered the Stanley party, and the best thing that can happen
will be that this party should grow numerous. Many men do not
like the composition of the Government, and yet wish to support
it, without being identified with it, as the majority of those
who attend the meetings are disposed to support Peel. Stanley
securing them as his adherents, and placing himself at their
head, must in fact subscribe to their opinions and disposition;
and as men are more inclined to join a numerous than a scanty
sect, fresh adherents may repair to that standard. Eventually he
will join the Government, and the best chance of weathering the
storm will be through this moderate Liberal party.

      [2] [This meeting (which will probably have important
          results, as it was the foundation of that which met
          afterwards at Stanley's, and the formation of this
          party will turn the balance on the Conservative side)
          originated in the most insignificant causes. Sir Oswald
          Mosley, an ordinary person, and a Mr. Young, talking
          the thing over, suggested to one another to try and get
          together moderate men, and they penned and sent out a
          parcel of notes addressed to those who they thought
          came under that description, bearing no signature, and
          giving no indication of the quarter from which they
          emanated. When the thirty-three people who came were
          assembled, they found themselves for the most part
          strangers to each other, and each asking who such and
          such an one was. When Graham invited any who chose to
          go to Lord Stanley's, Mosley rather wanted to decline,
          to go on with his own meeting, and play an important
          part, but nobody would hear of this, so he was obliged
          to go with the rest to Stanley's house.]


The debate was opened by Sandon in a speech feebly delivered, but
containing good matter. Morpeth made a good speech, moving the
amendment. The debate was very dull indeed, Dr. Bowring a total
failure. It was expected the House would adjourn, if not divide,
and the Speaker put the question, when Peel got up. It was
curious to see the lulling of the uproar, and the shuffling and
scrambling into seats, till all was quiet and the whole coast
clear. He spoke very ably for nearly two hours and a half, his
speech not containing much oratory, but in a tone at once lofty
and firm, yet discreet, calculated to inspire confidence and to
make an impression on all who are impressible. There is no use in
entering into details of speeches which are now reported with
such perfect fidelity. This may not be without its effect on
Stanley's meeting to-day, and his speech will be listened to with
intense anxiety to-night. The Opposition (as Duncannon told me)
expected a majority of between thirty and forty, so that if it is
considerably less than that, it will be tantamount to a defeat.

February 26th, 1835 {p.221}

Stanley spoke last night, attacking both sides, not violently,
but announcing his intention to vote against the amendment. The
Government were annoyed at his speech, especially at his
expressing some sort of disapprobation of the Duke of Wellington,
which he would have done well to omit, for many reasons. Lord
John Russell, by universal admission even of his enemies, made an
excellent speech. I did not hear either him or Stanley. John has
surpassed all expectations hitherto, as leader, which is matter
of great exultation to his party, but the tide is already
beginning to turn, and there are evident symptoms of weakness in
the great unwieldy heterogeneous body he is at the head of.
Tavistock came to me yesterday morning, and told me his brother
had sent for him, 'finding himself in difficulties.' He did not
particularise them, but said that naturally, in a situation of
such novelty, he found considerable difficulties to contend with.
He owned that the meeting at Lichfield House, which O'Connell had
attended by invitation, had alarmed and disgusted many of the old
Whigs, and it was settled there should be no more such meetings.
Then there has been some little correspondence between Ward and
Lord John about the Irish Church question, the former wishing to
manage the matter, which he brought forward last year, and he
wrote to John about it, who replied rather shortly, that he
himself intended to submit a motion on the subject. This is a
trifle, but trifles like these contribute to form an aggregate of
importance, and the moment there is any beginning of disunion or
weakness in such a party, a very short time will make it fall to


Lord Stanley assembled his followers again yesterday to the
number of about fifty; other adhesions, and half-adhesions,
occurred in the course of the evening, and the result is an
expectation that the boasted majority of thirty or forty will
dwindle down to four or five, or perhaps be no majority at all.
The erection of this standard will therefore, in all probability,
save the Government, and defeat the factious designs of the great
Whig and Radical coalition; but I distrust Stanley himself, and
see the great chance there is of his vanity and selfish ambition
producing other difficulties, the pressure of which, though he
may not feel it now, will some time hence become heavy to him.
His object at present is to gather to himself the largest party
he can; but though he may lead them, he can only lead them the
way they are minded to go, and the design of his friends is to
show themselves Conservatives without being Tories, to save this
Government, not from love to it, but from fear of its opponents
and of the alternative. He certainly may have the appearance of
being the arbiter of all great questions, and actually be so to a
certain degree, but as his ultimate object must be his return to
office, he can only hope to return (at least with any prospects
of success) with Peel and the Tories. It is, therefore, egregious
folly in him, by an affectation of neutrality and independence,
to shock and disgust that great body, which must ever be the
strength of a Conservative Government, by twitting the Duke of
Wellington and attacking with sarcasms or reproaches certain
measures or omissions, or particular members of Government, and
especially the Duke himself. The Duke is, after all, the idol of
the Tories, and they will not endure that a youth like Stanley
shall avail himself of his accidental advantages to treat their
great man with levity and disrespect; and all this he has not
coolness, sagacity, and temper enough to see, nor to discern that
his most becoming and dignified course would be to conduct
himself with a seriousness and gravity suitable to the importance
of the crisis and of the part he aspires to play and the
magnitude of the interests which are at stake. If he believes in
his conscience that the Opposition are animated with a spirit of
faction, and that their triumph would be the forerunner of
revolution or confusion, he should take his stand on a great
principle, and support the Government in such a manner as might
best enable it to confound the schemes of its antagonists; but
all this time he is dreading to be called a Tory, and he does not
certainly give up the hope and notion of reuniting himself with
the moderate section of his late colleagues. He endeavours to
keep up an amicable intercourse with them, and to make them
believe that he has no intention of connecting himself more
closely with this Government. Such ambiguous conduct, and his
occasional asperities and incivilities, have begun already to
disgust and alienate the Tories; and though they have too much
need of him now not to be obliged to restrain the expression of
their feelings, the time may come when he will have need of them,
and he will then find the inconvenient consequences of his
present behaviour.

February 27th, 1835 {p.223}

They divided at half-past one this morning, 309 to 302. I went
over the list before dinner, and made out a majority of six
(correct all but one). Gisborne, Howick, and Graham spoke
tolerably, O'Connell very good for the first ten minutes, and
very bad all the rest. I was not there. Certainly Stanley's
conduct is queer. Notwithstanding the sharp things he said
against Government in his speech on Wednesday, and various little
marks of scorn he throws out here and there, he said to Francis
Egerton on Tuesday, after all the Opposition men had been
speaking, 'Why does not Peel get up, or at least put up one of
the Government, to put an end to all this balderdash?' Francis
went and told Peel, who was very much out of sorts (at the state
of the debate I suppose), and asked rather angrily for Sir G.
Clerk. Francis went to look for Clerk, and when he returned Peel
was on his legs. This he told me yesterday morning.

March 5th, 1835 {p.224}

Met Mulgrave at dinner at Seaford's, and he still talks with
confidence of turning the Government out; that five or six of
Stanley's tail have whisked round again to the Whigs; that they
can beat the Government on every question by greater majorities
than on the two they have already tried, which were the worst for
them, and that any other Government (of their party) would get
through the business of the session.

March 11th, 1835 {p.224}

The repeal of the malt tax was defeated by a majority of 158,
much more than was necessary, and it is thought that Government
would have done wisely, when they found they were sure of not
being beaten, to allow their friends to redeem their pledges (or
as many of them as stood deeply committed), for it will be found
that several of them will suffer greatly from this vote in their
counties. Peel (as usual) made an admirable speech; he continues
to distinguish himself by a marked superiority, both in oratory
and management, which cannot fail to produce a great effect both
in the House of Commons and the country. There is nobody who
approaches him, and every day he displays more and more his
capacity for government and undoubted fitness for the situation
he is in. He cannot help being a great man, because he lives in
an age of pigmies; and he will be as great as great talents
without a great mind can make anybody. Even some of the violent
Radicals say that if Peel's associates could be disposed of, they
would not object to him.

March 13th, 1835 {p.224}

There was a meeting of the Opposition at Lichfield House
yesterday, to consider what they should do about Hume's motion to
grant the supplies for three months, and the result was that the
design should be abandoned. Thus they have shown their teeth
without daring to bite. Many of their people would not have gone
with them, and if this grand project failed _now_ thus early in
the session, still less chance will it have at a later period.
Peel's skill and great superiority, and the disunion and
uncertainty of the vast unwieldy body opposed to him, will carry
him through.

March 14th, 1835 {p.225}


Last night was a terribly damaging night to the Government, and
fully justifies all that I, in common with almost everybody else,
thought of that miserable appointment of Londonderry.[3] Shiel
brought it forward, and a storm burst from every side. Stanley
made a strong speech against it, and Mahon totally broke down.
Peel spoke cleverly, as usual, but fighting under difficulties,
and dodging about, and shifting his ground with every mark of
weakness. The result is that Londonderry cannot go, and must
either resign or his nomination be cancelled. This is miserable
weakness on the part of the Government, and an awkward position to
be placed in. It is very questionable if the Duke of Wellington
will not resign upon it, which would make another great
embarrassment, for there is nobody to fill his place. It serves
the Government right, and the Duke especially, for having built up
such a wall to run their heads against. They knew the loathing
people had for the man, how odious and ridiculous he had made
himself, how obnoxious and indefensible the appointment would be,
and yet, though there was no reason or occasion for it, and their
circumstances were so difficult that the utmost caution and
prudence were requisite in all their subordinate and collateral
proceedings, as well as in the great and essential ones, they had
the blind and obstinate folly to make this appointment. It is not
_contempt_ of public opinion in the Duke, but it is that ignorance
or indifference, or disregard of it, which has been the besetting
sin of his political life, and has so largely affected his
political sayings and doings. Peel ought to have known better, and
have taken a more correct view of his position, and the effect
such an appointment would have on it. It is difficult to say what
consequences may flow from this affair. The Government can stand
no shocks and buffets; if they go on, it can only be by the most
dexterous management, and by obtaining constant advantages in the
petty and daily warfare of Parliament, and thus gathering
confidence by degrees, that they can accomplish it. It would be
too mortifying if such a man should be the cause of the downfall
of the Government and of all the evils that would result
therefrom. Knatchbull, who was dragged into the discussion by Peel
(in order to make a diversion), defended himself and spoke
remarkably well. He is the only Cabinet Minister who has shown
anything like a faculty to support Peel. It was rather amusing to
see the attempt of Peel to take the dogs off the scent of
Londonderry and throw them on that of Knatchbull; but they were
soon whipped off, and put again upon the right track. There was
one good hit. A Sir George Strickland, attacking Knatchbull, said,
'Talk of the Right Honourable Baronet as a Reformer, indeed, when
_I remember_ his coming down night after night during the Reform
Bill, and opposing every part and particle of it, clause after
clause,' when Knatchbull took his hat off and said, 'I was not a
member of that Parliament.'

      [3] [The Marquis of Londonderry had been appointed
          Ambassador to St. Petersburg.]

March 15th, 1835 {p.226}

The Londonderry debate has made a great sensation, and is a
source of prodigious triumph and exultation to the Opposition. In
the morning I met Lady Peel, who was full of compassion for
Londonderry, and said, 'He had behaved very nobly about it.'
Nobody doubts that he cannot go, whether he resigns voluntarily
or not; but, end how it may, it is a disastrous occurrence. If
Government should persist in the appointment, they would be
beaten by a great majority, and the House of Commons would vote
him out; if it is given up, it is a monstrous concession to the
violence and power of the House of Commons, for however
objectionable the appointment may have been, it is not so
outrageous as to call for the interference of Parliament with the
King's undoubted prerogative, and on the whole the principle of
such interference may be considered more inconvenient than
submitting to the appointment itself. It will probably lead
before long to other encroachments upon the Executive power, and
we shall soon see the House of Commons interfering about


In the evening I met the Duke of Wellington at Lady Howe's, who
talked about the affair, and said that he was not particularly
partial to the man, nor ever had been; but that he was very fit
for that post, was an excellent Ambassador, procured more
information and obtained more insight into the affairs of a
foreign Court than anybody, and that he was the best relater of
what passed at a conference, and wrote the best account of a
conversation, of any man he knew. I said this might be all true,
but that though _he_ knew it, the generality of people did not,
and the public could only judge of him by what they heard or read
of his speeches, and what was related of his conduct on former
occasions; that on that account he was very obnoxious, and that
his violent and intemperate attacks upon the foreign policy of
the late Government, the sentiments he had displayed generally,
had raised a great prejudice against him, and I had therefore
been sure from the moment I heard of the appointment that it
would be severely attacked, and regretted exceedingly for that
reason that it had ever been made. I had told Lady Peel the same
thing, for it is difficult to resist telling them the real truth;
and I know not why it should not be told them.

Last night I met Lord Howick, who is bitter enough against the
Ministers, and expressed his earnest desire that they might be
well dragged through the mire, but not be turned out. I asked,
'Why, if he wished they should stay in, he desired that they
should be discredited?' and he replied, 'That it would be very
difficult _at present_ to replace them, but that he saw the
prospective means, and he would have them go on till the time was
ripe for change, but that they should be made every day more
odious.' These means, I doubt not, are the reconciliation of
Stanley with the Whigs, which is clearly contemplated by both one
and the other. Hobhouse's speech the other night was very civil
to Stanley, no doubt with that view, and much personal intimacy
is affected between him and the Whig leaders. Then much light is
thrown upon it in my mind by the account I have just heard from
Charlton (who enlisted under the Stanley banner) of the tone and
_animus_ displayed at the last meeting at Stanley's. There
Stanley was pressed by Mr. Young to declare in strong terms his
want of confidence in the Government; and Patrick Stewart said
that if Hume's motion, for limiting the supplies to three months,
was placed in the hands of Lord John Russell, he thought he must
vote for it. Stanley opposed this suggestion, and declared his
disapprobation (let who would bring it on) of so strong a measure
as stopping the supplies, and he said he thought the want of
confidence might be sufficiently evinced without having recourse
to any murderous measures, anything absolutely destructive of the
Government. The general tone and disposition of the meeting was
very inimical to the present Ministry, and Charlton was himself
so little satisfied with what passed, and especially with
Stanley's apparent bias and feeling, that he wrote to him to say
that he had joined his party on the express notion that he was
prepared to give the Government a fair trial, and to ask whether
he did not understand him correctly in attributing to him still
such an intention. He replied very courteously, and tolerably
satisfactorily, but it certainly seems probable that he is more
disposed to reunite with his old friends than to form any
connection with these men, though what is uppermost in his mind
is to raise his own consequence and authority, and make the best
bargain he eventually can. Charlton says that he has since tried
to engage him in conversation upon the subject of the democratic
tendency of the times, but that he has no mind to discuss the
subject. Charlton is such a violent, foolish, dangerous fellow,
that it is no wonder if Stanley kept aloof from him, and was not
disposed to be more than merely civil to him.

March 17th, 1835 {p.228}


Londonderry made a good speech in the House of Lords last night,
gentlemanlike and temperate. He got a good deal of empty praise in
both Houses in lieu of the solid pudding he is obliged to give up.
He said 'that he had had no communication with the Government, nor
had sought any advice, neither had any been tendered to him; that
he had after due deliberation determined on the course he should
pursue.' All this is untrue; he went to Peel on Saturday morning,
and told him he was ready to do what he pleased; but Peel said he
could give him no opinion. He then consulted various people, the
Dukes of Cumberland and Buckingham _inter alios_, who advised him
not to resign. It appeared to be his object to obtain opinions to
that effect, and up to late yesterday afternoon nobody knew what
he meant to do; so much so, that the Duke left the Foreign Office
without being apprised of his intentions, and desired if any
letter came from him that it might be sent after him to the House
of Lords. He received the letter on the stairs, which he read and
instantly sent to Peel. It has altogether been a miserable affair,
and it is certainly true what John Russell said, that in 'the
experiment they are now making, that which the Right Honourable
Baronet called a fair trial, they were running considerable hazard
that the most useful prerogatives of the Crown would lose that
dignity and respect in which they had formerly been held.' It is
clearly true that this most dangerous precedent of interference
has occurred because the Government has not strength to prevent
it, and because we have the anomaly of a Government beating up
against a hostile majority. The man was utterly unfit, and ought
never to have been appointed, but the case against him (such as it
appears in their hands) is quite insufficient to warrant the
interference of Parliament.

I take it that the effect abroad will be prodigious, for though
Londonderry resigns of his own accord, and Peel says he would
have stood by him if he had not, the simple case is (and such
will be the appearance of it all over Europe) that the King
appointed Londonderry Ambassador to Russia, and the House of
Commons cancelled the appointment.

Everything meanwhile continues in a state of uncertainty. The
Opposition is not united; the Stanley party, with their leader,
observe a suspicious and suspected neutrality, but the Government
is at their mercy whenever they join the Opposition, or, indeed,
if they keep aloof. Such a state of things cannot go on very long,
and the fate of the Government must be settled one way or the
other. Every day produces fresh indications of Peel's superiority,
and his capacity for the lead in the House of Commons, but he does
not appear to have gained much in those points where he was most
deficient--cordiality and communicativeness. Francis Egerton came
to me to-day and complained that on the Londonderry debate,
finding that nobody spoke on the Treasury Bench, he went and sat
by Peel and offered to speak, but could get no answer from him;
and Ashley was furious because when Hume asked for some
information on some point of Navy estimates, on which he (Ashley)
had taken pains to prepare himself, Peel would not let him give
it, but took it out of his hands. All this is very impolitic, and
shows that whatever else he has gained by experience, he has not
gained the art of making himself popular with his own adherents in
the way that Castlereagh and Canning used to be; and therefore,
however he may be looked up to as a Minister, he will never be
followed with the same personal devotion that they commanded.

March 20th, 1835 {p.230}

I have been laid up with the gout all this week, and could not go
out to see and hear what is going on. On Tuesday night Peel
brought in the Dissenters' Marriage Bill, and his plan gave
almost general satisfaction except to those whom nothing can
satisfy. The Opposition papers gave it a sort of cold and sulky
approbation, evincing how little the loudest advocates for
reforms of this nature really care about them. The 'Morning
Chronicle' seemed to regret that Peel's Bill should give
satisfaction more than it rejoiced that the Dissenters were to
obtain it. Marriage is made a civil contract for the Dissenters,
and a slight civil form is substituted for the religious ceremony
of the Church of England. This relieves them from all their
grievance; but it is now said that they lie under a degradation,
because it is not also made a civil contract for everybody else,
and that the law ought to be changed universally. I think it
would be better if it was a civil contract, but nothing can be
more captious than such an objection, or more impertinent, and I
do not desire to see the law changed, because I believe the
majority of members of the Church of England are content that it
should remain as it is, and that their feelings or prejudices
would be shocked by the alteration.

The King is in great indignation at the proceedings in the House
of Commons about Londonderry. The Duke sent Londonderry's letter
of resignation to him, and his Majesty returned it with a letter
in which he expressed his approbation of Londonderry's conduct,
and added, that 'he was more than ever satisfied of the
correctness of his determination in November last, to refuse his
consent to his Government being led by Lord John Russell in the
House of Commons, since he had witnessed his conduct upon the
occasion, and the support he had given to the unconstitutional
attack that had been made upon this appointment.' He made no
allusion to Stanley, whose conduct must have galled him still


Sir E. Sugden has resigned the Chancellorship of Ireland because
his wife is not received at Court. He might have ascertained very
easily beforehand what would happen, or have contrived to keep her
away from Dublin. It was understood when he took the Great Seal
that he declined being made a peer, on account of the illegitimacy
of his eldest son. Half the world had never heard of Lady Sugden,
or knew anything of her history; and as she is an excellent woman,
charitable and kind-hearted, I fancy she has moved without
obstruction in his natural circle of society. He went to Ireland
before any Lord-Lieutenant was named, and Lady Sugden was received
as a matter of course. When Lady Haddington was apprised of her
origin and history she foresaw the difficulty, and asked the Queen
what she was to do. Her Majesty told her to do what she pleased,
but that certainly she could not be received at Court here. The
Lady-Lieutenant therefore was compelled to decline receiving her,
for all Ireland would have been affronted had she received at the
Castle a lady not presentable at St. James's. Sugden was very
angry, and his indignation arose principally, it would seem, from
Lady Canterbury's having been received at Court, which he
considers (with some reason) as a case equally flagrant. Her
reception was a matter of bargain, I forget at this moment on what
occasion, and certainly a strong measure. The talk is that James
Parke will go to Ireland, and Sugden return to the Bar, which will
be hard upon those who had shared his vast business, especially on
the silk gown men.

March 21st, 1835 {p.232}

Lord Grey is come to town; he is very strong against the
Radicals, and highly disgusted at so many of them having been
admitted to the Opposition meetings. He and Stanley met with
excessive cordiality. Sefton was there when Stanley called upon
him. The King received Lord Grey at the levee with such civility
and attention as to excite peculiar observation.

March 22nd, 1835 {p.232}

A few nights ago Brougham was speaking in the House of Lords
(upon Lord Radnor's motion about university oaths), and was
attacking, or rather beginning to attack, the Duke of Wellington
in that tone of insolent sarcasm which is so familiar to him,
when in the midst of his harangue the Duke from the opposite side
lifted up his finger, and said loud enough to be heard, 'Now take
care what you say next.' As if panic-struck, Brougham broke off,
and ran upon some other tack. The House is so narrow, that Lords
can almost whisper to each other across it, and the menacing
action and words of the Duke reached Brougham at once. This odd
anecdote rests upon much concurrent evidence. Alvanley told it to
De Ros, and Lord Salisbury said he was sitting close to the Duke,
and witnessed it all. The Chancellor afterwards confirmed it.


On Friday night, on the debate upon Irish Tithes, Peel bowled
down his opponents, Howick, Rice, and Thomson, like so many
ninepins; for, besides his vigour and power in debate, his memory
is so tenacious and correct, that they never can make any
mistakes without his detecting them; and he is inconceivably
ready in all references to former debates and their incidents,
and the votes and speeches of individual members. It cannot be
denied that he is a great performer in his present part. Old Sir
Robert, who must have been a man of exceeding shrewdness,
predicted that his full energies would never be developed till he
was in the highest place, and had the sole direction of affairs;
and his brother Lawrence, who told this to Henry de Ros, said
that in early youth he evinced the same obstinate and unsocial
disposition, which has since been so remarkable a feature of his
character. I wish he was not hampered with the Irish Church
fetters, which he cannot throw off.

Peel wrote a letter to Hume, demanding an explanation of certain
offensive expressions he had made use of in the House of Commons,
and got an answer, which was sufficient, though not very civil.
It was rather unnecessary that he should take any notice of what
Hume said, but Peel is a man of very high and prompt courage, and
seems to have made a rule to himself never to suffer impertinence
from any quarter to pass unchecked. It is certainly of great
service to a public man, and it largely increases the estimation
in which he is held, to establish such a character. It is no
small detriment to Brougham that he is accounted an arrant
coward; and it is remarkable that Peel never was known to deal in
the insolence, and bullying, and offensive personalities in which
the other has so copiously indulged, both in Parliament and at
the Bar.

March 24th, 1835 {p.233}

A meeting at Lichfield's yesterday, when they resolved to reserve
themselves for the great battle on Monday next, in full
persuasion that Peel will resign after the division. Whether he
means it or not, I have no idea, but it is surprising to me that
they do not think it better to attack him on his Tithe Bill than
on the Appropriation clause; for I think he must go out if beaten
on the former, but need not if beaten on the latter. They are,
however, bent upon his expulsion; and Lichfield (who is more or
less in their secrets) told me they feel no difficulty as to
making another Government under Melbourne's auspices. There was a
great dinner of the Opposition at the Duke of Sussex's on Sunday,
to which Brougham was not invited. It will not be the least of
their difficulties how to deal with him. Sugden, after all, stays
in Ireland. The Bar were up in arms at his menaced return among
them, which would have had the effect of half ruining some of
those who took silk gowns upon his retirement. His absurdity
will, therefore, have had no other effect than that of revealing
his wife's misfortune to the whole world in a very noisy way.
Lord Canterbury gives up Canada on account of his wife's health,
and probably not liking to face the disagreeable things that
would have been said about himself and her. Lord Aberdeen has
offered it to Stratford Canning, who, though clever enough, is so
_difficile à vivre_, that nobody can be less calculated for
conciliatory objects; so that for a situation which required an
agent of strong understanding and good temper, they successively
selected a foolish man of good temper, and a clever man of bad.

March 26th, 1835 {p.234}


On Tuesday night Government was beaten on a division about the
Chatham election; a thing of no consequence in itself, but the
whole affair was mismanaged. John Russell had said he should not
divide, but his people were not to be restrained. Peel would have
given way, but his whippers-in told him he was strong enough in
the House to carry it, which only shows how stupid they are. It is
now universally believed that he will resign next week, after the
division on John Russell's motion, upon which he is sure to be
beaten by twenty or thirty votes. I am inclined to believe that he
has made known his intentions to Stanley, for the latter
entertains no doubt on the subject. The Greyites are all alive,
and patting Lord Grey on the back all day long to incline him to
obey the summons they confidently expect him to receive from the
King. It is very obvious that Peel cannot go on; and I doubt much
if he could even were he to obtain a majority on Monday. His
physical strength would not suffice for the harassing warfare that
is waged against him, the whole brunt of which he bears alone.
This, however, is his own fault, for he will not let anybody else
take a part, whether from distrust of his colleagues, or his own
rage for being all in all. Then, from the relative constitution of
the two parties, he must be in continual danger of defeats upon
minor and collateral questions, or suddenly started points. His
party is in great part composed of the rich and fashionable, who
are constantly drawn away by one attraction or another, and whose
habitual haunts are the clubs and houses at the west end of the
town; and it is next to impossible to collect his scattered forces
at a moment's notice. The Opposition contains a dense body of
fellows who have no vocation out of the walls of the House of
Commons; who put up in the vicinity; either do not dine at all, or
get their meals at some adjoining chop-house, throng the benches
early, and never think of moving till everything is over;
constituting a steady, never-failing foundation, the slightest
addition to which will generally secure a majority in the present
state of the House. In old times the placemen and immediate
hangers-on of Government, who make it their business to attend in
order to carry the public business through, afforded a regular
certain majority for the Ministers of the day; but now this
household phalanx is outnumbered by these blackguards, the chief
of whom are O'Connell's Tail and the lower Radicals. All this
immensely increases Peel's embarrassment; and the tactics of his
opponents have been extremely able, considered with a view to
obstruct the march of Government. While the leaders have abstained
from any violent measure, and have always resolved at their
consultations not to stop the supplies or impede the public
service, their active partisans have taken good care to produce
all the same effects, by raising debate after debate upon every
description of personal question, and every miscellaneous matter
they could drag in, so as to prevent any progress being made in
the public business; and in this they have completely succeeded,
for never was there more noise and violence, and less business
done, than in this session.

In anticipation of Peel's resignation there are three parties all
animated with different hopes and desires--the Grey party, the
Melbourne, the Stanley. The first want Lord Grey back with all
the moderate Whigs, throwing over the Radicals; and leaving out
the 'Dilly' (as Stanley's party is derisively called); in fact,
Lord Grey would only come back to carry the Irish question, which
Stanley will be no party to. The second want Melbourne and all
his kit back again, to go on with all the strength that the
united force of Whigs and Radicals amounts to. The third,
expecting that Lord Grey will decline to return without Stanley,
desire that the Radical Whigs should attempt it, with (as they
think) the certainty of failing, and then, that the urgency of
the case may bring about a coalition between Lord Grey, Peel, and
Stanley. Such a coalition would be very desirable in many
respects, but I much doubt Peel's ever consenting to take office
_under_ Lord Grey (though with an equality of authority and
influence in the Government), and to lead a party from which all
his old friends, and those who look up to him with unbounded
devotion, must necessarily be excluded, and to give up all
pretensions to ascendency and domination in the Cabinet.

March 28th, 1835 {p.236}


It appears now very doubtful whether Peel will resign after a
defeat on Monday; and I am disposed to believe that it is not his
intention; indeed, I never could understand why he should. He has
over and over again declared that whenever the Opposition would
bring forward a direct motion against him, he should be prepared
to resign, but not till then. Still, I do not see how he can go
on, and am much inclined to think he ought not. Weak as he is, at
the mercy of this furious and reckless Opposition, Government
suffers in his hands; the Crown and all Executive authority
suffer. Every Government, to be useful and respectable, should
have the power of carrying its measures in its own way through
Parliament; but Peel cannot do this, and instead of quashing any
mischievous or untimely motion, he is compelled to submit to one
defeat after another upon matters which would never have been
stirred (or certainly not successfully) with the late Government,
or with any which possessed the confidence of the House of
Commons. It was expected that Hume would persist in his motion
for referring the Army estimates to a committee, and that the
Whigs would support him; but when it came to the point, at the
suggestion of John Russell and Stanley, he very sulkily withdrew
it; but the night before, Government was beaten on two divisions,
one about the Leicester election, upon which all the lawyers in
the House were unanimous. But these opinions had no effect upon
the Radical majority, and they voted an address to the Crown to
confer a charter upon the London University, Lord John Russell
supporting it, although this question had been argued before the
Privy Council, which had still to report upon it; and I believe
that the general opinion of the Lords was against conferring the
charter in the present circumstances of the university.
Certainly, there was no discussion in Council after the arguments
were closed, but I gathered that the impression was unfavourable
to the grant of the charter. The House of Commons knows nothing
of the argument, and rejected Goulburn's amendment to have the
proceedings before the Privy Council laid upon the table, voting
the address merely because Government opposed it.

March 29th, 1835 {p.237}

A meeting yesterday of Tories at Bridgewater House for the
purpose of securing a better attendance. Twenty-nine Moderates
met at the 'King's Head,' passengers in the 'Dilly;'[4] but of
these, nine mean to vote with John Russell, and one stays away;
also, two or three others vote against Stanley: queer partisans
and _soi-disant_ followers, who oppose him on his own vital
question. Peel concerted with Stanley in the House on Friday,
that the resolution should be met with a negative. Wharncliffe
was here to-day, loud in his praises of the Duke of Wellington,
and delighted with the Cabinet of which he is a member, _jam
morituri_ as they are.[5] He owned that they could not _probably_
go on, but that they would not give in till they could show their
friends that they had done all that men could or ought to do; so
that they are resigned to their fate, and only studying in what
attitude they shall meet it.

      [4] [The 'Derby Dilly' was the nickname given to Lord
          Stanley's section of a party, from a joke of
          O'Connell's, who had applied to it the well-known
             'So down thy hill, romantic Ashbourne, glides
              The Derby Dilly, carrying six insides.']

      [5] [Lord Wharncliffe was Lord Privy Seal in Sir Robert
          Peel's first Administration.]

March 31st, 1835 {p.238}

It is universally believed that Government will go out after this
debate. I think it very doubtful, but the sooner they now go the
better; they are well aware they must retire, and the question
is, whether they shall do so immediately or wait till they have
passed the Mutiny Bill. If the House of Commons refused to pass
the Mutiny Bill, I think they would dissolve again. The King is
in a dreadful state of mind, as well he may be; however, it is
all his own doing, he had the courage, or rather rashness, to
dismiss his late Ministers, but I fear he has none of the cool
and reflecting resolution, and calm moral courage, which are
necessary for this crisis; he will again submit to whatever is
dictated to him.

In the meantime, the perplexity of the Opposition increases as the
moment of their triumph approaches. There were 260 people at Lord
John Russell's dinner, all prepared to go any lengths, and 20 more
who were absent put their names down. O'Connell, who declared 'it
was the most delightful evening he ever passed in his life,'
publicly acknowledged John Russell as his leader, and the Radicals
were all present but Hume. Lord Auckland (who called upon me about
a house he is thinking of taking through my mediation) said he
would not do anything about it till this week was over, as
circumstances might render it unnecessary for him to provide
himself with a residence, but that he did not see how anything
permanent could come out of the present state of things. He
expected Ministers would resign, that there would be audiences and
negotiations, and that at last they would come back again; that in
the present state of parties he saw not how any other Government
could go on any better than this; and when I asked him about John
Russell's dinner, he said it went off very well, but the
composition of it was _frightful_ (or some such word, but not, I
think, quite so strong). John Russell and Melbourne, however, are
satisfied they can go on with the Radical assistance, and they
have gone too far now to throw these allies over; they must and
will make sacrifices to secure them for their own protection, and
if the House of Lords is swamped in the first instance, they will
have things all their own way.


If it were not for the peril to all that is worth preserving, I
should not be sorry for anything that happened to the House of
Lords, to whose bigoted and senseless obstinacy (upheld and
directed I am sorry to say by the Duke and Lyndhurst) the present
miserable condition of affairs is mainly attributable. Their
rejection of the Tithe Bill last year was their crowning exploit.
After all their blunders and impotent struggles against a
stronger power, if they had passed that Bill, or restored
Stanley's in committee, and returned it to the House of Commons,
I believe everything might have been retrieved. It has been
remarked, and certainly with truth, that Peel has never once
endeavoured to excuse the House of Lords or to vindicate the
peers from the taunts and reproaches which have repeatedly been
thrown out against them. In point of fact, I believe that the
Lords either did not consult him, or did not care for his
opinion. There is no disguising that the Lords liked nothing so
well last year as beating the Government, and exhibiting their
puny and spiteful power; now they are mightily shocked and
disgusted at the majority of the House of Commons taking their
revenge, though certainly the latter do it with much more rage
and factious violence, but with them it is a system of tactics
for a specific and attainable object. The Lords really had no
intelligible object but to embarrass a Government they could not
demolish, and gratify their own spite. If the most violent
Radical had been permitted to chalk out the most suicidal course
for the House of Lords to follow, he could have devised nothing
more ingenious and well contrived than what they have actually
done, taking care to keep up their character in the nation for
intolerance, and inculcating a belief in their adherence to the
most illiberal maxims of foreign and domestic policy, instead of
devoting all their energies to the recovery of the ground they
had lost in popular estimation, and strengthening themselves for
the contest, which anybody might have seen was not very remote.

April 3rd, 1835 {p.240}

They divided at I know not what hour this morning--321 to 289,[6]
a smaller majority than I was led to expect when I heard that 18
or 19 of Stanley's (so-called) party meant to go against him.
Anybody who records from day to day the shifting appearances of
the political sky must constantly recant one day the opinion and
expectation of the preceding. Stanley's speech the night before
last may very likely make an important difference in the result
of this extraordinary contest, for he has, as it seems to me, put
a final end to any possibility of junction with the great body of
the Whigs now arrayed under John Russell; he attacked Lord John
himself--his Whig and Radical alliance and the inconsistency of
his present conduct--with the utmost vehemence and scornful
reprobation, and he poured forth a torrent of sarcasm and
ridicule upon the prospective Government that he concludes they
meditate. This is so conclusive that it paves the way to his
junction with Peel, or if the latter goes out and John Russell
does come in, it is clear that he will have both Peel and Stanley
in opposition to him, against whom in the nearly balanced state
of parties he could not struggle on for a month. He was miserably
feeble in this debate (in his opening speech), and though he may
just do to lead an Opposition which wants no leading, and merely
sticks him up as a nominal chief, he could no more lead a
Government in the House of Commons than he could command an army
in the field. [So much for my prediction. Stanley's followers
dropped off and left him alone, the Government had no difficulty,
and John Russell proved a very good leader.--January 1837.]
Whatever may be the fate of Government for the present, I believe
it to be impossible that anything can prevent Peel's speedy
return to office; he has raised his reputation to such a height
during this session, he has established such a conviction of his
great capacity and of his liberal, enlarged, and at the same time
safe views and opinions, that even the Radicals, such as Hume,
join in the general chorus of admiration which is raised to his
merits; he stands so proudly eminent, and there is such a general
lack of talent, that he must be recalled by the voice of the
nation and by the universal admission that he is indispensable to
the country.

      [6] [On the 30th of March Lord John Russell moved the
          resolution which was carried by this division; the
          terms of it were, 'That this House resolve itself into
          a committee of the whole House, in order to consider
          the present state of the Church Establishment in
          Ireland, with the view of applying any surplus of the
          revenues not required for the spiritual care of its
          members to the general education of all classes of the
          people, without distinction of religious persuasion.']


I am much inclined to think that this debate on the Irish Church
question will eventually damage the Whigs not a little. Their
speeches this year might all have been answered by their speeches
last year on the same subject, and nothing can be so glaring as
their inconsistency and the factiousness of their motives. The
question is not a popular one in the country, where nothing like
favour to the Catholics of Ireland or their religion is agreeable
to the mass. The arguments in the debate have been triumphantly in
favour of the Government _upon the resolution_ as contradistinguished
from the principle; for though I am decidedly favourable to the
principle, and never had a doubt that it is preposterous to
contend that if there is a reform of the Church, and there turns
out to be a surplus, such surplus should not be dealt with as
Parliament in its wisdom shall deem best for the general
interests, under the actual circumstances of the country, at the
time the appropriation takes place; still it is perfectly
consistent with that opinion to refuse to vote for the appropriation
of the surplus which may never exist at all, or only exist at some
distant period, when other circumstances may render the proposed
appropriation altogether inexpedient.

_In the afternoon._--Peel's speech was not so good as usual; it
was laboured, and some say tame. In the morning I met him and
walked with him; he seemed in very good spirits, talked of the
thing as over, said he could not endure any meddling with the
Tithe Bill, that he considered great good had been done by the
dissolution, which had created a party strong enough to obstruct
any violent measures on the part of their opponents, said he
understood they had sent for Lord Spencer did not believe Lord
Grey would have any concern with it. I said that it was clear
after Stanley's speech that _he_ would have nothing to do with
the Whigs. He said he conceived so, but that it was very odd that
Lord John Russell did not see it in that light, and had said that
Graham could not join them, but he did not see why Stanley might
not. I told Peel that in my opinion the best thing that had been
done was the proof that he had been enabled to exhibit that he
was indispensable to the government of the country, and that if
he could infuse some firmness and courage into the King, and
persuade His Majesty stoutly to resist any requisition to swamp
the House of Lords, and rather to appeal to the country than
consent to it, in a very short space of time he must come back. I
asked him if he thought the King was capable of any such
firmness. He said he thought he was, that he was in a miserable
state of mind at the prospect before him, and all the more so
from feeling how much there was in it which fell personally upon
himself. In the meantime it does not seem that the Ministers have
come to any positive resolution, or even conviction, as to the
moment of their retirement, nor as to its absolute, unavoidable
necessity. Peel evidently considers the contest at an end. Lord
Rosslyn this morning thought he would resign immediately; the
Duke, on the other hand, appears by no means so certain that the
Tithe Bill will be mutilated, and that they shall be compelled to
go out at all. Stanley and Graham are angry that they don't
resign directly; they think Peel would retire more brilliantly at
once than by waiting for more defeats. They forget that he is
bound to satisfy his own party. Stanley, with that levity which
distinguishes all his conduct, talks of him as of 'a hunted fox,
who, instead of dying gallantly before the hounds in the open,
skulks along the hedgerows, and at last turns up his legs in a
ditch.' This he said to George Bentinck, who told it to me; it is
not the way that Lord Stanley ought to speak of Sir Robert Peel.
What I certainly do regret is that he condescended repeatedly to
entreat John Russell to put off bringing up the report till
Monday, and exposed himself to a refusal. He should have invited
the decision of the contest rather than have tried to protract

April 4th, 1835


I told Jonathan Peel last night that Stanley and Graham blamed
Sir Robert for not resigning at once. He said that Sir Robert
would, as far as his own feelings were concerned, have preferred
resigning long ago, but that a vast number of his supporters were
furious at the idea of his resigning at all, and wanted him to
persist at all hazards, and he was compelled to resign only upon
such a point as might enable him to satisfy them that he had
abided by the pledge which he gave at the beginning to persevere
while perseverance could be useful or honourable. He then told me
(which I certainly did not attach the slightest credit to[7])
that he should not be at all surprised if his brother were now to
retire from public life. Such an idea in some moment of disgust
may have crossed his mind, but if he were to do so in the vigour
of his age and at the climax of his reputation, it would be the
most extraordinary retirement that history ever recorded. Men of
the most splendid talents have often shrunk from entering public
life, but I am not aware of any instance of a man who had
attained the eminence and the fame of Peel who has withdrawn from
the theatre of his glory and power without some stronger motive
than any that can be found for him.

      [7] A great fool indeed I should have been if I had.--1838.

I was told last night that the scene of noise and uproar which the
House of Commons now exhibits is perfectly disgusting. This used
not to be the case in better, or at least more gentlemanlike,
times; no noises were permissible but the cheer and the cough, the
former admitting every variety of intonation expressive of
admiration, approbation, assent, denial, surprise, indignation,
menace, sarcasm. Now all the musical skill of this instrument is
lost and drowned in shouts, hootings, groans, noises the most
discordant that the human throat can emit, sticks and feet beating
against the floor. Sir Hedworth Williamson, a violent Whig, told
me that there were a set of fellows on his side of the House whose
regular practice it was to make this uproar, and with the settled
design to bellow Peel down. This is the _reformed_ House of
Commons. Peel told Lord Ashley the other day that he did not think
it possible for the same man to be Prime Minister and leader in
the House of Commons (he meant to be First Lord of the Treasury
and Chancellor of the Exchequer), that no physical strength was
adequate to the labour of both employments. He may therefore
hereafter put some Peer at the head of the Government, but it is
equally indispensable, as it seems to me, that the real
substantial power should be vested in the leader of the House of
Commons, especially when he is a man so superior as Peel must
always be to any colleagues he may be associated with.

April 5th, 1835 {p.244}


I understand now what Jonathan Peel meant by talking of the
possibility of his brother's retiring from public life. He is no
doubt thoroughly, heartily disgusted with his own associates. It
appears that they (the Tories, or many of them) are indignant at
his declaration the other night that on the Tithe Bill being
altered he would go out, so that while others are blaming him for
not going out at once his own followers are enraged that he will
not set the House of Commons at defiance and stick to his post.
It is very evident that many of them are desirous (if Peel does
resign) of continuing the fight under the Duke of Wellington, if
they could prevail on him to try it, and to dissolve Parliament
and get up a 'No Popery' cry. They say that 'the country' (by
which they mean their own faction) looks up to the Duke, and that
Peel has really no interest there. The fact is that they cannot
forgive him for his Liberal principles and Liberal measures, and
probably they never believed that he was sincere in the
professions he made, or that he really intended to introduce such
measures as he has done. They feel (not without reason) that they
cannot follow him in the broad path he has entered upon without
abandoning all their long-cherished maxims of exclusion and
ascendency, and that in so doing they would incur much odium and
disgrace. Peel sees and knows all this, and cannot fail to
perceive that he is not the Minister for them and they no longer
the party for him. It is no wonder that he is anxious to break up
this unmanageable force, and he probably would rather trust to
that increasing feeling and opinion about himself, which is so
apparent among all classes of politicians, to place him by-and-by
at the head of a party formed upon Conservative principles and
embracing a much wider circle of opinions. Still this Tory body,
obstinate and bigoted as they are, have no other chief, and can
find none, and it is essential to Peel to keep them if possible
under his influence and direction, and therefore (I believe very
reluctantly) he defers his resignation.

April 6th, 1835 {p.245}

Yesterday Wharncliffe came here; very low indeed; he says he
never thought they were safe, though he owns that he was
surprised and disappointed that there were no defections--not
one--from the enemies' ranks when these measures were brought
forward. He says he was with the King the other evening, and
asked him if he was going back to Windsor. His Majesty said 'he
could not go back, that he could not bear being there; there he
had none of them (his Ministers) to talk to, and day and night
his mind was absorbed in public affairs.' Poor wretch! he suffers
martyrdom, and has more to suffer yet, for I expect they will
have no mercy on him. Yesterday I had more proofs of the animus
of the Tories. One of them, a foolish, hot-brained fellow
certainly (but there is no such enormous difference between the
best and the worst), told me that if Peel really did go out upon
the Tithe Bill he would abandon his party; that he ought to let
them alter the Bill as they pleased, wait till the House of
Commons threw it out, and then dissolve Parliament.

April 7th, 1835 {p.245}

Each day elicits some new proof of what I have written above--the
totally altered feelings and expressions of all conditions of
politicians about Sir Robert Peel. It would seem as if his friends
were suddenly converted into his enemies, and his enemies into his
friends. The Tories still cling to the expectation that he will
hold on to office; they say that if he goes out he abandons his
party, abandons the King. They call to mind Pitt in 1784. 'Very
slippery,' said one to me yesterday, when I read to him Peel's
answer to the City address. On the other hand Mulgrave was last
night enthusiastic in his praise; he owned that he had done
admirably--given proof of his perfect sincerity and acted in
accordance with all his declarations and professions. 'I am,' said
he, 'astonished; nothing in Peel's past political career led me to
expect that he would have done so admirably as he has. He has
raised himself immensely in my opinion.' Such is the language of
them all, swelling a choral note of praise; and then, to make the
whole thing more ridiculous (if anything so serious can be
ridiculous), the Tories, who abuse him lustily, are moving heaven
and earth to retain him, by violence almost, in his place; while
the Whigs and Radicals, who laud him to the skies, are striving
with might and main to turn him out. In a state of profound
tranquillity these Ministers are quietly transacting business with
a perfect consciousness and an universal understanding that their
Government is at an end, and the Opposition are redoubling their
blows in the House of Commons, and waiting in the complete
certainty of returning to office, for which they are already
making all their arrangements. The parts are all so quietly
performed, the catastrophe is so clearly before everybody's eyes
and understanding, that it more resembles a dramatic representation
than a mighty event in real life, big perhaps with incalculable

April 8th, 1835 {p.246}


There was a majority of twenty-seven last night, which I conclude
settles the business.[8] There was to be a Cabinet this morning
at eleven, at which they had resolved to agree upon their
resignations. Wharncliffe saw the King last night. He is very
composed; they think they can infuse courage and firmness into
him, but when he is left to himself, I doubt him. Nothing can be
imagined more painful on both sides than his approaching
interview with the once rejected and now triumphant Whigs.
Yesterday I rode with Ellice up the Park. He said, 'Grey will do
anything they wish him to do, but I think he had better have
nothing to do with it.' He talked of the new Government that will
be formed as having no difficulty; that they might have if Peel
and the Tories went into violent opposition, which he is
convinced Peel will not do. I said they might go on till the
Tithe Bill went to the House of Lords, when they would expunge
the appropriation clause. He said, 'They won't be so mad; there
is no Church of Ireland now, and the question is whether there
shall be one, for without that clause no Tithe Bill will ever

      [8] [The Ministry was defeated on the Irish Tithe Bill on
          the 3rd of April by a majority of 33 in a House of 611;
          on the 6th of April by a majority of 25 in a House of
          499; and on the 7th of April by a majority of 27 in a
          House of 543.]

                         CHAPTER XXVIII.

Lord Grey and Sir James Graham express Conservative Views--
  Opinions of Lord Stanley--Lord Grey sees the King, but is not
  asked to resume Office--Lord Melbourne's Second
  Administration--His Moderation--A Difficulty--Spring Rice--A
  Joyless Victory--Exclusion of Brougham--The New Cabinet--Lord
  John Russell defeated in Devonshire--Lord Alvanley and
  O'Connell--Duel with Morgan O'Connell--Lord Wellesley resigns
  the Lord Stewardship--The Eliot Convention--Swift _v._ Kelly--
  The Kembles--London University Charter discussed at the Privy
  Council--Corporation Reform--Formation of the Conservative
  Party--The King's Habits--Secretaryship of Jamaica--Lord
  Melbourne's Tithe Bill--The Pope rejects the Recommendation of
  the British Government--Relations with Rome--Carlists and
  Christinos in Spain--Walcheren--The King's Address to Sir
  Charles Grey--Stanley and Graham cross the House--Failure of
  Stanley's Tactics--Alava and the Duke of Cumberland--A Sinecure
  Placeman--Lord Glenelg and the King--Concert at Stafford
  House--The King's Aversion to his Ministers and to the
  Speaker--Decision on the Secretaryship of Jamaica--Archbishop
  Whateley--Irish Church Bill--Payment of Catholic Clergy--Peel
  and Lord John Russell--Factious Conduct of Tory Peers--The
  King's Violence--Debate on the Corporation Bill.

April 9th, 1835 {p.248}

Yesterday the Ministers resigned. Peel announced it to the House of
Commons in a short but admirable speech by all accounts, exactly
suitable to the occasion, and to his principal object--that of
setting himself right with his own supporters, who begin to
acquiesce, though rather sulkily, in the course he has pursued. Lord
Grey is to be with the King this morning. He was riding quietly in
the Park yesterday afternoon, and neither knew nor cared
(apparently) whether he had been sent for or not. His daughter told
me (for I rode with them up Constitution Hill) that his family could
not wish him to return to office, but would not interfere. She then
talked, much to my surprise, of the possibility of a junction
between him and Peel; she owned that Peel had done wonders, but
said that she could not wish for such a junction _now_, however it
might be possible and desirable that it should take place some
little time hence. This shows a very Conservative spirit and a
marvellous thaw in the rigidity of the Grey politics.


In the morning I went to Graham to ask him to advocate my cause in
the Sinecure Committee and defend my interests there. After
talking over my case (about which he was very obliging and
promised his zealous assistance) we discussed general politics at
great length. It is very evident that he and Stanley have no
leaning towards the Whigs, and look _now_ solely to a junction
with Peel and the construction of a Liberal and Conservative party
and Government. He talked of this, and of the mode of accomplishing
it, with as much zeal and fervour as if he had been a member of
the Cabinet which has just fallen, and I think his opinions
coincide very much with my own. He wants the King to be well
_endoctriné_, and that his firmness (if he has any) should be
directed to one or two points, and his mind not puzzled with
complicated instructions. He should be advised never to admit
O'Connell to any office, and to resist a creation of Peers. He
thinks, if his Majesty is stout on these points, that things will
come round, and he by no means despairs of the feeling and animus
of the country. I told him the Tories and late Government people
still contended that if he and Stanley had joined the thing would
have gone on, which he vehemently denied, and declared that they
could not have saved Peel and should have entirely compromised
themselves; he talked with great admiration of Peel, and of the
reception he had met with from him in the interview they had on
his return, which he said was cordial and obliging to the greatest
degree, and without any appearance of that coldness and reserve of
which he has been so often accused. He then talked of Stanley with
great openness--of his talents, character, and political views. I
told him that Stanley had not raised himself this session, that he
had given much offence by the general levity of his conduct, and
especially to the Tories by the occasional flippancy or severity
of his attacks upon them, that as it was clear that any
Conservative Government must depend upon the great body of the
Tory party for support, it was improvident in him to make himself
obnoxious to them, and that he would do well to exert his
influence over Stanley for the purpose of restraining those
sallies in which he was too apt to indulge, and showing him the
expediency of conciliating that not very wise but still powerful
body. He asked in what way Stanley had offended. I told him
generally in the sarcastic or reprobating tone he had used, and
particularly in his personal attack on the Duke for holding the
offices. He owned there was truth in this, 'but what could you do?
it was impossible to change a man's character, and Stanley's was
very peculiar. With great talents, extraordinary readiness in
debate, high principles, unblemished honour, he never had looked,
he thought he never would look, upon politics and political life
with the seriousness which belonged to the subject; he followed
politics as an amusement, as a means of excitement, as another
would gaming or any other very excitable occupation; he plunged
into the _mêlée_ for the sake of the sport which he found it made
there, but always actuated by honourable and consistent principles
and feelings, and though making it a matter of diversion and
amusement, never sacrificing anything that honour or conscience
prescribed.' I said that this description of him (which I had no
doubt was true) only proved what I already thought--that, with all
his talents, he never would be a great man. He said he always must
be very considerable; his powers, integrity, birth, and fortune
could not fail to raise him to eminence. All this I admitted--that
nothing could prevent his being very considerable, very important,
as a public man--but I argued that one who was animated by motives
so personal, and so wanting in gravity, to whom public care was a
subsidiary and not a primary object, never could achieve permanent
and genuine greatness. He said that Stanley had a great admiration
for Peel, without any tincture of jealousy, and that he was quite
ready to serve under him, though he could not help doubting
whether it would be possible for two such men, so different in
character, to go on well together in the same Cabinet. I told him
what Wharncliffe had told me, that no man was ever more easy to
act with, more candid and conciliatory, and less assuming than
Peel in the Cabinet, and Graham said that Stanley was likewise
perfect as a colleague, so that it may be hoped there would not be
any such incompatibility if they were to come together. I was with
him two hours and a half, and we discussed very fully all
political contingencies with the freedom of twenty years ago, when
we were great friends.

April 10th, 1835 {p.251}


Nothing decisive yesterday. Lord Grey was with the King in the
morning; he there met Lord Melbourne, Lord Holland, Lord John
Russell, and Lord Lansdowne, and went back to St. James's. It was
said in the evening that Lord Grey was to assist in the formation
of the Government, but not to take office himself.

April 11th, 1835 {p.251}

The intention of Lord Grey evidently was to avoid office if he
could, but if strongly urged by the King, and his feelings
appealed to, to yield. The King, however, did not urge him at
all, probably much to his astonishment, but assuming apparently
that he would under no circumstances return to office, consulted
him as to the course he should adopt. All my information as to
what has hitherto taken place amounts to this:--His Majesty has
been in a very composed state of mind, has received the Whig
leaders in a way that has given them complete satisfaction, and
as far as personal intercourse goes the embarrassment appears to
be removed. He has given Melbourne _carte blanche_ to form a
Government, and he is proceeding in the task. Notwithstanding the
good face which the King contrives to put upon the matter in his
communications with his hated new-old Ministers and masters, he
is really very miserable, and the Duchess of Gloucester, to whom
he unbosoms himself more than to anybody, told Lady Georgiana
Bathurst that with her he was in the most pitiable state of
distress, constantly in tears, and saying that 'he felt his crown
tottering on his head.'

It is intended to leave O'Connell out of the arrangement, and at
the same time to conciliate him and preserve his support. In this
they have apparently succeeded. O'Connell 'has behaved admirably
well,' and the difficulty with regard to him is at an end. Of the
Radicals some are to be included and no notice taken of the rest.
Brougham is to be set at defiance; his fall in public estimation,
his manifold sins against his own colleagues, and his loss of
character all justify them, and enable them (as they think) to do
so with impunity. Melbourne, who when Lamb[1] is here is greatly
influenced by him, is strongly against any Radical measures or
Radical colleagues, and has no thought of a creation of Peers or
of any desperate expedients, and he is not at all satisfied with
the resolution which John carried, and which was the immediate
cause of Peel's resignation, being fully alive to all the
inconvenience of it.

      [1] [Meaning Sir Frederick Lamb, his brother, usually
          residing abroad in the diplomatic service.]

Just now Tavistock was here, having come from St. George's
Church, where he went to assist at Lord John Russell's marriage,
and as the ceremony could not begin for half an hour, he came
over to pass the interval with me.[2] He told me that 'there
still existed _one_ difficulty, one only, which I should not
think of, apparently unimportant, but which circumstances
rendered important, and if this was got over, the Government
would be formed and go on, that he thought it was an _even bet_
whether it was got over or not. What this difficulty is, so
little obvious, but so important, I do not guess; but in such
affairs _one_ difficulty will not stand in the way of completing
an arrangement the consummation of which has cost such incredible
exertions, and such sacrifices of consistency and of public
interests to the interests or ambition of a party.

      [2] [Lord John Russell married, in April 1835, Theresa,
          widow of Lord Ribblesdale. Mr. Greville lived at this
          time on the north side of Hanover Square.]

April 12th, 1835 {p.252}


Nothing settled yesterday, and great doubts if anything would be.
Lord John was married in the morning; he returned to Kent House
with his bride, and Melbourne was to have sent him word at _one_
what was definitively settled; he waited till two, when no news
arriving from Melbourne, he went off to Woburn. He was at that
time by no means sanguine as to the arrangements being completed,
and talked in doubt of the Foreign Office, to which he is to go.
However, Melbourne was to be with the King this morning to
announce that the Ministry would or would not do. Sefton told me
last night that the _difficulty_ proceeds from Spring Rice; if it
should fail (which it will not, I expect) Peel must stay in and
take in the Dilly, who would not then scruple to join him. The
Government would be formed upon the _principle_ of not settling
this eternal Irish Church question, which I think so great an
evil that it is on the whole better that Melbourne should form a
Government and go on as long as he can--that is, till something
decisive is done about the Irish Church. I met the whole Dilly at
dinner yesterday at Stafford House, and when I told Stanley and
Graham that I understood Spring Rice made the difficulty, they
both said that it must be what they called 'his conundrum,' which
I had never heard of before; but it means his determination to
apply the surplus to the purposes of _general education_, but not
to go a jot further, and they suppose that this is not far enough
for the others, and hence the difficulty.

April 13th, 1835 {p.253}

Nothing positively known yesterday, but that the thing is settled
in some way, Clusterings and congregations of Whigs about
Brookes', audiences with the King, and great doubt whether Grey
took office, and the Foreign Office.

April 14th, 1835 {p.253}

Yesterday it was understood that everything was settled, but
after all it was only the night before last that Melbourne was
definitively charged with the formation of a Government. The
difficulties were O'Connell and Spring Rice; the former was got
over by his waiving all claim to employment and promising his
gratuitous support. By what underhand management or persuasion,
and what secret understanding, this was effected will be a
mystery for the present, but nobody doubts that it has been
accomplished by some juggle. Spring Rice wanted to wash his hands
of the concern; he did not think it promised sufficient
stability, and without some assurance of its lasting he wished to
decline taking office. They would not hear this, and represented
to him that he was indispensable, and it ended in his giving way.
It certainly would have been very unjustifiable of him, after
going all lengths with them, to hold back at last, but it shows
the opinion of the best men among them of the rottenness of the
concern. Lord Grey declined taking office, but wrote to say that
the Government should have all his support, and that he wished
Howick to be included in it, which is the same thing as if he
were there himself. Nothing was settled about the cast of
offices, and they were waiting for Lord John's arrival from
Woburn to discuss that matter. Between the pretensions of one
man, the reluctance of another, and the hymeneal occupation of
the leader the matter hobbled on very slowly. I certainly never
remember a great victory for which Te Deum was chanted with so
faint and joyless a voice. Peel looks gayer and easier than all
Brookes' put together, and Lady Holland said, 'Now that we have
gained our object I am not so glad as I thought I should be,' and
that I take to be the sentiment of them all.

Riddlesworth, April 16th, 1835 {p.254}


At Newmarket the day before yesterday, and came here to-day,
where I find the Duke and Duchess of Cleveland and two or three
others. I know nothing but by my letters from London, by which I
learn that nothing is yet settled, but they go on negotiating and
endeavouring to arrange their rickety concern. Having concluded
their bargain with O'Connell, they have taken fright about
Brougham, and degraded as he is, and contemptuous and confident
as they were about him, they are endeavouring to make terms with
him, and it will probably end in his recovering the Great Seal.
When this is done they will have consummated their disgrace.
Sheil said, 'The difficulty is how to deal with a bully and a
buffoon,' and as they have succumbed to and bargained with the
one, now they are going to truckle to the other; there is not one
of them who has scrupled to express his opinion of Brougham, but
let us see if he really does come in or much indignation may be
thrown away. The general opinion (I am told) is that this
Ministry will last a very short time and that ultimately a
coalition must take place under the direction and supremacy of
Sir Robert Peel. This is jumping to a conclusion over many
difficulties. However, nothing can be more meagre than the
triumph of the Whigs nor more humiliating than their position;
even my Whig-Radical friends write me word that 'O'Connell holds
the destiny of the Government in his hands, and is acknowledged
to be the greatest man going.' It was hardly worth while (in a
national point of view, whatever it may have been in a party one)
to turn out Sir Robert Peel in order to produce this result.

Buckenham, April 29th, 1835 {p.255}

At Newmarket all last week, here since Monday. I know nothing of
politics but from newspapers and my letters; racing and hawking
are my present occupations. There seems to be an impression that
the present Government will not last very long, but as the
grounds of that opinion are the badness of its composition, I do
not see that its speedy dissolution is so certain; the public
seems to have got very indifferent as to who governs the country.
I was curious to hear how the Council went off at which the
Ministers took their seats, and how the King comported himself.
He seems to have got through it tolerably, though it must have
been a bitter ceremony to him. He made no speeches and took no
particular notice of anybody except Lord Howick, to whom he was
very civil, on account probably of his father, and because he is
a new man. The threatened contests of most of them ended in
smoke. Devonshire and Yorkshire will, however, be important and
severe. Of all the appointments those that are most severely
criticised are Mulgrave's and Morpeth's. It is said that Charles
Kemble and Liston might as well have been sent, as the former has
always imitated the one, and the latter involuntarily resembles
the other. Mulgrave, however he may be sneered at, has been tried
and found capable, and I think he will do very well; he has
courage and firmness and no want of ability. He is besides
hospitable, generous, courteous, and agreeable in private

      [3] [Lord Melbourne's second Administration was composed as

           First Lord of the Treasury      Viscount Melbourne.
           Lord President of the Council   Marquis of Lansdowne.
           First Lord of the Admiralty     Lord Auckland.
           Lord Privy Seal                 Viscount Duncannon.
           Home Secretary                  Lord John Russell.
           Foreign Secretary               Viscount Palmerston.
           Colonial Secretary              Lord Glenelg.
           Board of Control                Sir John Cam Hobhouse.
           Secretary at War                Viscount Howick.
           Board of Trade                  Mr. Poulett Thomson.
           Chancellor of the Exchequer     Mr. Spring Rice.
           Irish Secretary                 Viscount Morpeth.
          The Earl of Mulgrave was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,
          The Great Seal was put in Commission.]

May 1st, 1835 {p.256}

Morpeth made an excellent speech on introducing his Irish Tithe
Bill, and has raised himself considerably. Morpeth is (as it
appears to me) ill selected for the difficult post he occupies;
he has very fair ability of a showy kind, but I doubt the
solidity and strength of his material for the rough work which is
allotted to him.


The last day of Parliament was distinguished by a worse attack of
O'Connell upon Alvanley for what he had said the day before in
the House of Lords. Alvanley has sent him a message through
Dawson Damer demanding an apology or satisfaction, and the result
I don't yet know.[4]

      [4] [O'Connell had called Lord Alvanley a 'bloated
          buffoon,' and as usual took refuge in his vow never to
          fight another duel. Upon this his son, Morgan
          O'Connell, offered to meet Lord Alvanley in lieu of his
          father, which was accepted and the duel took place.]

London, May 17th, 1835 {p.256}

Newmarket and gout have between them produced an interval of
unusual length in my scribblings, though I am not aware of having
had anything particularly interesting to record. We had Stanley at
Newmarket the second week as well as the first, taking a lively
interest in John Russell's defeat in Devonshire. This defeat was a
great mortification to his party, and was not compensated by the
easy victory which Morpeth obtained in Yorkshire. These elections
and the affair between Alvanley and O'Connell have been the chief
objects of attention; all the newspapers are full of details,
which I need not put down here. Alvanley seems to have behaved
with great spirit and resolution. There was a meeting at De Ros's
house of De Ros, Damer, Lord Worcester, and Duncombe to consider
what was to be done on the receipt of Morgan O'Connell's letter,
and whether Alvanley should fight him or not. Worcester and
Duncombe were against fighting, the other two for it. Alvanley at
once said that the boldest course was the best, and he would go
out. It was agreed that no time should be lost, so Damer was
despatched to Colonel Hodges, and said Alvanley was ready to meet
Morgan O'Connell. 'The next morning,' Hodges suggested. 'No,
immediately.' The parties joined in Arlington Street and went off
in two hackney coaches; Duncombe, Worcester, and De Ros, with Dr.
Hume, in a third. Only Hume went on the ground, for Damer had
objected to the presence of some Irish friend of O'Connell's, so
that Alvanley's friends could only look on from a distance. The
only other persons who came near them were an old Irishwoman and a
Methodist parson, the latter of whom exhorted the combatants in
vain to forego their sinful purpose, and to whom Alvanley replied,
'Pray, sir, go and mind your own affairs, for I have enough to do
now to think of mine.' 'Think of your soul,' he said. 'Yes,' said
Alvanley, 'but my body is now in the greatest danger.' The
Irishwoman would come and see the fighting, and asked for some
money for her attendance. Damer seems to have been a very bad
second, and probably lost his head; he ought not to have consented
to the third shots upon any account. Alvanley says he execrated
him in his heart when he found he had consented to it. Hodges
acted like a ruffian, and had anything happened he would have been
hanged. It is impossible to know whether the first shot was fired
by mistake or not. The impression on the minds of Alvanley's
friends is that it was _not_, but it is difficult to believe that
any man would endeavour to take such an advantage. However, no
shot ought to have been fired after that. The affair made an
amazing noise. As O'Connell had threatened to mention it in the
House of Commons, Damer went to Peel to put him in possession of
all the circumstances, but he said that he was sure O'Connell
would not venture to stir the matter there.

Lord Wellesley's resignation of the White Wand has set conjecture
afloat as to his motives, and it is asserted on one side, but
denied on the other, that disgust at O'Connell's predominance is
the reason, following disappointment at not having been himself
reinstated. I do not know the truth of the matter. Lord John
Russell takes his seat on Monday, after which business will begin
again in earnest in the House of Commons. There is an impression
that this Government will not be of long continuance, and that
the Ministers are themselves aware that their tenure of office
must be brief. They will at all events get through this session,
for much remains to be done in the way of approximation and
combination between different sections of public men before any
satisfactory arrangement can be made for replacing the present
Ministers. If it was not for the Irish question, and the apparent
impossibility of bringing that to any final adjustment, I should
not despair of the introduction of a better state of feeling and
the mitigation of the bitterness and animosity which set men of
different parties so irreconcilably against each other. At
present there is certainly a great calm after the storm which
raged so fiercely a little while ago. I have been so out of the
world between Newmarket and the gout that I know but little of
what has been passing, and merely throw in this brief notice to
keep up the chain of my observations and remarks.

May 24th, 1835 {p.258}

Came from Newmarket on Thursday night. Melbourne is said (by his
friends) to be doing very well in the House of Lords, but the
discussion on Friday about Lord Wellesley's resignation gave him
great annoyance. Lord Wellesley declined to say why he had
resigned, and merely declared it was not on account of Mulgrave's
procession, but he did not contradict any one of the assertions
that the cause was disgust at O'Connell's ascendency. When Lord
Harrowby said that 'if he had been Mulgrave he would rather have
been torn in pieces than have marched in under such banners as
were displayed,' Lord Wellesley loudly cheered him. Peel's speech
at the dinner the other day has made a great deal of noise, for
he is supposed to have thrown over his High Tory friends very
completely in it, and to have exhibited a determination to adapt
his opinions and conduct to the spirit of the times. However, the
Tories affect to be satisfied, laud it to the skies, and
distribute it through the country. In the House of Commons up to
this time nothing has been done; Peel has made over his
Dissenters Bill to the Government, who will probably do nothing
with it this session. Nobody expects the present Administration
to last long, as it is said, not even themselves; but nothing is
prepared for the formation of a better and more durable Cabinet.

Lord Eliot[5] and Colonel Gurwood have returned from Spain,
satisfied that the Carlist party cannot be put down, and having
had a conversation with Louis Philippe, the substance of which
appeared in the 'Times,' and very correctly. Great indignation is
expressed at the indiscretion which let this out, and it is
understood that Gurwood has been chattering about what passed in
all directions. The King of France, it is clear, will not
interfere, and so they must fight it out. Spanish stock fell 15
per cent, in one or two days. The King is in such a state of
dudgeon that he will not give any dinners to anybody.

      [5] [Lord Eliot (afterwards Earl of St. Germans) had been
          sent to Spain by the Duke of Wellington, in March 1835,
          to endeavour to mitigate the atrocities which at that
          time disgraced the leaders on both sides in the civil
          contest raging in Spain. He was eminently successful in
          his mission, and a Convention (commonly known as the
          Convention of Bergara) was signed under his Lordship's
          mediation at Logroño on the 27th of April, 1835. A
          narrative of this mission was printed by Lord St.
          Germans in 1871.]


Yesterday Swift and Kelly's[6] case came on before the Privy
Council. It was to have been heard the Monday before, when it
would have been argued and decided, because every day in the week
was disposable for the purpose, but Brougham thought fit to
interfere. He insisted upon being there to hear it, and compelled
Lord Lansdowne to put off the hearing till Saturday, to the
extraordinary inconvenience of all parties. On Saturday the court
met, but no Brougham. They began, and in about two hours he made
his appearance, read his letters, wrote notes, corrected some
paper (for the press, as I could see), and now and then attended
to the cause, making flippant observations, much to the terror of
Jervaise--Miss Kelly's uncle--for all his interruptions appeared
to be directed adversely to them. I told Mr. Jervaise he need not
pay any attention to what Brougham said. As he came late, so he
went away early, breaking up the court at half-past three, and as
other engagements occupied the Judges the rest of the week, it
was put off till the 18th of June.

      [6] [The curious case of Swift v. Kelly was heard by the
          Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and is
          reported in Knapp's 'Privy Council Reports,' vol. iii.
          p. 257. Mr. Greville had known something of the parties
          in Rome, and their adventures are related in a former
          part of these Journals, vol. i. p. 379.]

May 30th, 1835 {p.260}

On Wednesday last went to Charles Kemble's in the evening;
singing and playing; Mrs. Arkwright, Miss Strutt, old Liverati
(horrible squabbling), and Miss Adelaide Kemble. The father and
mother both occupied with their daughter's book, which Kemble
told me he had 'never read till it appeared in print, and was
full of sublime things and vulgarities,' and the mother 'was
divided between admiration and disgust, threw it down six times,
and as often picked it up.'

Thursday night. {p.260}

To Horace Twiss's what he called 'a Judy party'--a supper and
jollification, where all were expected to contribute to the
amusement of the company who possessed wherewithal. The
contributors were Twiss himself, Mrs. Arkwright, Miss Cooke,
Dance, Miss Dance, Planché, Mrs. Blood, Mrs. Groom, Theodore
Hook, Billy something, who imitated Cooper and Ward. I stayed
till two, and they went on till three. It was sufficiently
amusing altogether, though noisy and vulgar; company very
miscellaneous, but everybody ready to amuse and be amused.

Friday. {p.260}


The Committee of Council met on the matter of the London
University; Brougham of course the great performer; the same
persons were summoned who had attended before, but great changes
had since taken place, which made the assembly curious. There
were Melbourne, Lord Lansdowne and certain of his colleagues,
Brougham and Lyndhurst--both ex-Chancellors since the last
meeting--Richmond, Ripon, Stanley and Graham, the Dilly complete,
and Lord Grey. When they came to discuss the matter nobody seemed
disposed to move; at last Brougham proposed a resolution 'that
the King should be advised to grant a charter making the
petitioners an University, the regulations and restrictions to be
determined hereafter.' The Bishop of London objected on behalf of
King's College to any advantages being conferred on the London
University which would place the latter institution in a better
condition than the former. After much tedious discussion the
words 'university,' &c., were omitted, and the resolution moved
was '_to grant a charter_.' The Duke of Richmond formally opposed
it, his principal objection being to the insolvent state of the
concern. Brougham sat in contemptuous silence for a few minutes
while the Duke spoke, and then replied. There was a squabble
between them, and an evident inclination on the part of the
majority present to refuse the charter, but the address of the
Commons with the King's answer were read, which presented a very
difficult case to act upon. The King's answer amounted very
nearly to an engagement to grant a charter; the Privy Council was
bound to decide without reference to the address and answer, and
the bias _there_ was to advise against the grant. Brougham, after
much ineffectual discussion, said in a tone of sarcastic contempt
that 'their hesitation and their scruples were ridiculous, for
the House of Commons would step in and cut them both short and
settle the question.' This is doubtless true, and he can effect
it when he will; but how monstrous, then, was the vote. The House
of Commons had never heard a tittle of the evidence or the
argument; the Council had heard it all, and were bound to report
upon it, when the House, while the judgment of the Privy Council
was still pending, voted an address to the Crown for the purpose
of obtaining an adjudication of the matter one particular way,
without reference to the proceedings before the tribunal. They
all seemed agreed that if it was expedient to grant a charter it
required much consideration to decide under what restrictions and
regulations it should be conceded, and Lord Grey declared that if
he was called upon, without reference to any proceedings
elsewhere, to decide upon the arguments they had heard at the
bar, he should decide against giving the charter, but if he were
called upon to advise the Crown what under all the circumstances
it was expedient to do, his advice might be very different.
Graham said he could not divest his mind of the knowledge he
possessed of what had passed in the House of Commons, and he
thought the Government ought to advise the Crown on its own
responsibility what course it was expedient to adopt. After
wasting an hour and a half in a very fruitless and not very
interesting discussion (everybody looking bored to death except
Brougham, who was talking all the time) the Council broke up
without doing anything, and agreed to meet again on Friday next.
Old Eldon was very busy and eager about it, and had all the
papers sent to him; he could not attend, being wholly disabled by
the gout. Of course the charter (at least _a_ charter) will be
given, because the House of Commons in the plenitude of their
ignorance, but of their power, have so decided.

June 14th, 1835 {p.262}


Taken up with Epsom since I last wrote, and indisposed to
journalising, besides having nothing to say. I did not attend the
second meeting at the Privy Council on the London University
question. Lord Eldon came to it, and there was some discussion,
but without any violence; it ended by a report to the King,
requesting he would dispense with the advice of the Council; so
the matter remains with the Government. It is clear that they
would have advised against granting the charter but for the
answer which the King made to the address of the House of
Commons, which was in fact a _promise_ to grant it. This answer
was the work of Peel and Goulburn, and I can't imagine what
induced them to put such an one into his Majesty's mouth, when
they might have so properly made him say that he had referred the
matter to the Privy Council, and was waiting for their report.

The calm and repose which have succeeded to the storms of the
early part of the session are really wonderful; all parties seem
disposed to lay aside their arms for the present, one reason of
which is that parties are so evenly balanced that neither wishes
to try its strength. Then the line which Peel is taking precludes
any immediate renewal of hostilities. The measures of Government
are confined to one or two questions, of which the Corporation
Reform has alone been brought forward. Peel made a very able and
dexterous speech upon John Russell's introduction of that
measure, in which he exhibited anew his great superiority, and at
once declared his intention of admitting the whole principle of
it, reserving to himself to deal as he thought fit with the
details. It has been asserted on both sides that the Whigs and
the High Tories are equally disgusted at his speech, the former
for cutting the ground from under his feet, the latter for his
departure from good old High Tory principles. There may be some
truth in this, but the Tories profess generally to be satisfied
and convinced, and to be quite ready to follow him in the liberal
course on which he has entered; so much so that it is now said
there is no longer such a thing as a Tory. Peel clearly does not
intend that there shall be (as far as he is concerned as their
leader) a _Tory_ party, though of course there must be a
_Conservative_ party, the great force of which is the old Tory
interest, and his object evidently is to establish himself in the
good opinion of the country and render himself indispensable--to
raise a party out of all other parties, and to convert the new
elements of democratic power into an instrument of his own
elevation, partly by yielding to and partly by guiding and
restraining its desires and opinions. Neither is there any
mystery in his conduct; his object and his intentions are evident
to all, and it is perhaps advantageous that he has nothing to
conceal. At the same time he plays this game with great prudence
and ability. It is not his interest to strike great blows, but
constantly to augment the reputation and extend the influence he
has acquired, and this he does visibly and sensibly. There seems
to be an universal impression that nothing can keep him out of
office long. This Government may probably scramble through the
session; there is no particular question on which they are likely
to be overturned, but there is a conviction that any Government
must be provisional in which Peel is not included, and that
before long the country will insist upon his return to power.

June 19th, 1835 {p.264}


At Stoke for the Ascot races. Alvanley was there--nobody else
remarkable; fine weather and great luxury. Riding to the course
on Wednesday, I overtook Adolphus Fitzclarence in the Park, who
rode with me, and gave me an account of his father's habits and
present state of mind. The former are as follows:--He sleeps in
the same room with the Queen, but in a separate bed; at a quarter
before eight every morning his _valet de chambre_ knocks at the
door, and at ten minutes before eight exactly he gets out of bed,
puts on a flannel dressing-gown and trousers, and walks into his
dressing-room. Let who will be there, he never takes the
slightest notice of them till he emerges from this sanctuary,
when, like the _malade imaginaire_, he accosts whoever may be
present with a cheerful aspect. He is long at his ablutions, and
takes up an hour and a half in dressing. At half-past nine he
breakfasts with the Queen, the ladies, and any of his family; he
eats a couple of fingers and drinks a dish of coffee. After
breakfast he reads the 'Times' and 'Morning Post,' commenting
aloud on what he reads in very plain terms, and sometimes they
hear 'That's a damned lie,' or some such remark, without knowing
to what it applies. After breakfast he devotes himself with Sir
Herbert Taylor to business till two, when he lunches (two cutlets
and two glasses of sherry); then he goes out for a drive till
dinner time; at dinner he drinks a bottle of sherry--no other
wine--and eats moderately; he goes to bed soon after eleven. He
is in dreadfully low spirits, and cannot rally at all; the only
interval of pleasure which he has lately had was during the
Devonshire election, when he was delighted at John Russell's
defeat. He abhors all his Ministers, even those whom he used
rather to like formerly, but hates Lord John the most of all.
When Adolphus told him that a dinner ought to be given for the
Ascot races he said, 'You know I cannot give a dinner; I cannot
give any dinners without inviting the Ministers, and I would
rather see the Devil than any one of them in my house.' I asked
him how he was with them in his inevitable official relations. He
said that he had as little to do with them as he could, and bowed
them out when he gave any of them audiences as fast as possible.
He is peculiarly disgusted with Errol, for whom he has done so
much, and who has behaved so ungratefully to him; but it is a
good trait of him that he said 'he hoped the world would not
accuse Errol of ingratitude.' He did not invite Errol to the
Castle even for the Ascot races, and has seen little or nothing
of him since the change. Adolphus said that he believed he was
saving money. He has £120,000 a year, of which £40,000 goes in
pensions; the rest is at his own disposal. He gives up his
Hanoverian revenue--about £16,000 a year--to the Duke of

June 21st, 1835 {p.265}

Yesterday I dined with Lord Ripon; Lord Grey and Stanley and
Graham dined there. I sat next to the latter, who holds nothing
but Tory language. He talked of Stanley's letter to Sir Thomas
Hesketh, and of the great offence it has given the Tories. Graham
thought it indiscreet and uncalled for, though in the principles
(anti-clubbism and anti-associations) he agreed. Graham is very
full of the expedition to Spain,[7] and expresses much alarm at
the idea of an army being formed which is to act independently of
the control and authority of the Government, to be composed of
Irish Catholics, supplied by O'Connell (who, he says, has been to
Alava and offered him any number of men) and commanded by Evans,
who is a Republican. He believes that Peel entertains the same
sentiments of aversion and alarm that he does; but he said that
when he attempted to draw from him his opinion the other night he
could not succeed; that Stanley has no alarm on the subject;
expects that on Wednesday next Peel will make a severe attack
upon the Government on this matter; [but this fell to the

      [7] [This was the Spanish Legion, commanded by General de
          Lacy Evans. Licence was given under the Foreign
          Enlistment Act for British subjects to enter the
          service of Queen Isabella.]

In the morning yesterday I was in court for the unfortunate case
of Swift and Kelly, about which I cannot help taking an interest
from having been originally concerned in it, and because I think
there has been great villany somewhere. Some of the circumstances
connected with this appeal are curious, as showing the accidents
on which the issue of matters of vital importance to the parties
often depend, and how the mistakes or selfishness of individuals
concerned may influence the result, and in a way they little
expected or calculated upon.

June 27th, 1835 {p.266}

I am again tormented to death with the Committee on West India
places, and menaced with a report that will be fatal to my
case.[8] Graham has been very obliging about it, and attended the
Committee on Thursday to see what they were about and give me
notice. I went to Lord Melbourne yesterday and stated my case to
him, invoking his protection, and he appeared extremely well
disposed to do what he could for me. I told him I did not wish
him to pledge himself till he had seen the case and considered
it, such as I had laid it before the Committee; and then, if he
is satisfied that I stand upon tenable grounds, I will ask him to
exert his influence and authority in my behalf. However, I much
doubt whether, strive and struggle as I may, I shall ever escape
from the determination of this morose and rigid millionaire
[Francis Baring, who was not, however, a millionaire or anything
like it, either _in præsenti_ or _in futuro_] to strip me of my
property; and I have made up my mind to its loss, though resolved
to fight while I have a leg to fight upon.

      [8] [Mr. Greville held the sinecure office of Secretary of
          the Island of Jamaica, which was threatened at this
          time by a Committee of the House of Commons. He
          succeeded, however, in retaining it, until he
          voluntarily resigned the appointment many years
          afterwards. His salary as Clerk of the Council was
          diminished by £500 a year as long as he held the two

Yesterday we were again occupied all day with Swift and Kelly,
which to-day will be brought to a close. The conduct of Brougham
on this trial exceeds all imagination and belief. From the
beginning he has taken a one-sided view of the case, and
apparently set out with a bias which has continually increased,
till he has become altogether identified, and in a manner
passionately identified, with the appellant's side; and he
exhibits this bias by one continual course of advocacy, battling
every argument and every point with the respondent's counsel with
a virulence and an intemperance that are so disgusting that my
blood boils while I listen to him. But his conduct in all other
respects displays the most extraordinary contrast with that of the
other judges who sit there; they, at least, listen attentively and
consecutively to the whole case, and when they do interrupt it is
for the purpose of obtaining explanations and elucidations, and
without the exhibition of any bias. But he is writing letters,
reading newspapers, cutting jokes, attending only by fits and
starts; then, when something smites his ear, out he breaks, and
with a mixture of sarcasm and ribaldry and insolence he argues and
battles the point, whatever it may be.


_Afternoon._ I am just come from the court. Lushington finished
his speech at two, and when Pemberton was about to reply Brougham
announced that he must go away to the London University, where he
was to distribute prizes. The consequence was that the reply was
deferred till next Wednesday, and the parties will be put to the
expense of £60 more. His conduct to-day was exactly of a piece
with that which he has exhibited throughout the trial. With all
the ingenuity and astuteness of which he is master he has
attacked every part of the respondent's case; and, to do him
justice, he has often displayed great acuteness and expressed
himself with admirable force and precision; but it was the
conduct of an advocate and not of a judge, and a much better
advocate has he been for Swift than either of those he retained.
(Pemberton, however, conducted the case with consummate skill and
judgment.) He finished by declaring that as far as he was
concerned he should not desiderate a reply, except on one or two
points on which he wished to hear it. After the court broke up
Baron Parke came into my room and asked my opinion, at the same
time telling me his own, which was as decidedly against the girl
as Brougham's. I argued the case with him, especially the points
which Lushington failed to enforce as strongly as I think he
might have done, but his mind was made up. Shadwell, on the
contrary, leans the other way, and agreed with me in my view of
it. It is, however, very clear that nothing can prevent the
reversal of Sir John Nicholl's judgment; for Erskine will very
likely go with Brougham and Parke, and if he does not Lord
Lansdowne undoubtedly will; but if I were to attend this court a
hundred years I should never forget the conduct of Brougham on
this trial. My disgust would not have been a jot less had he
espoused the same side that I do; and if I were myself engaged in
a suit, and he were to take up my own cause in such a barefaced
and outrageous manner, with such an utter contempt of dignity and
decency, I should feel the utmost shame at such partiality,
though exerted in my behalf.

June 30th, 1835 {p.268}

I went to Melbourne on Sunday and carried him my case.[9] He told
me he had already desired Spring Rice to speak to Baring on the
subject, and I believe he will do what he can; but these great
people, however well disposed, can seldom be urged into
sufficient resolution and activity to take an energetic way of
settling the matter, and they have always so much consideration
for each other that Melbourne will probably, with all his
good-nature, feel a sort of delicacy to his subordinate colleague
in rescuing me from his clutches. Yesterday I went to the Duke of
Wellington and gave him my case to read, requesting him to exert
his influence with his Tories, and get them to attend the
Committee and defend me there. He read it, approved, and promised
to speak to both Peel and Herries. I had previously desired
George Dawson to speak to Peel. I might certainly, after the very
essential services I rendered Peel and his Government, go with
some confidence to Peel or any of them and ask for their aid in
my difficulty; but it is not wise to remind men of an obligation;
if they do not feel it without being reminded they will not be
made to do so by any hint, and an accusation of ingratitude will
be implied, which will only excite their resentment; if they are
sensible of the obligation they will return it without any

      [9] [Relating to the Secretaryship of Jamaica.]


After I had said what I had to say to Melbourne he asked me what
was thought of the Tithe Bill. I told him it was thought a very
outrageous measure by the Tories, but that I thought it useless
and that it did not go far enough. 'I know you do,' he said, 'but
such as it is it will very likely overturn the Government.' He
then talked over the Irish question, and owned that nothing could
settle it, that _they_ might perhaps bolster up the Irish Church a
little longer than the other party could, that they, however,
could not do _more_ than this now, and it was only doubtful if
they could do _this_. He talked the language of reason, and with a
just sense of the insuperable difficulties which present
themselves on all sides with respect to this question, but at the
same time of their eventual (though as to time uncertain)
solution. I told him that I had long been of opinion that the only
practicable and sound course was to open a negotiation with Rome,
and to endeavour to deal with the Catholics in Ireland and the
ministers of the Catholic religion upon the same plan which had
been _mutatis mutandis_ adopted universally in Germany and almost
all over the Continent, and that there was nothing the Church of
Rome desired so much as to cultivate a good understanding with us.
He then told me a thing that surprised me, and which seemed to be
at variance with this supposition--that an application had been
made to the Pope very lately (through Seymour) expressive of the
particular wish of the British Government, that he would not
appoint M'Hale to the vacant Catholic bishoprick, _anybody but
him_, notwithstanding which the Pope had appointed M'Hale; but on
this occasion the Pope made a shrewd observation. His Holiness
said that 'he had remarked for a long time past that no piece of
preferment of any value ever fell vacant in Ireland that he did
not get an application from the British Government asking for the
appointment.' Lord Melbourne supposed he was determined to show
that he had the power of refusing and of opposing the wishes of
Government, and in reply to my question he admitted that the Pope
had generally conferred the appointment according to the wishes of
Government. Can anything be more absurd or anomalous than such
relations as these? The law prohibits any intercourse with Rome,
and the Government whose business it is to enforce the law has
established a regular but underhand intercourse, through the
medium of a diplomatic agent, whose character cannot be avowed,
and the Ministers of this Protestant kingdom are continually
soliciting the Pope to confer appointments, the validity, even the
existence, of which they do not recognise, while the Pope, who is
the object of our orthodox abhorrence and dread, good-humouredly
complies with all or nearly all their requests. These are the
national and legislative follies of this wise and prosperous
people, and such is the false position into which we are drawn by
a long course of detestable policy--policy arising at first out of
circumstances, and eventually adhered to from those powerful
prejudices which struck their roots so deep into the soil that the
force of reason and philosophy has not yet been sufficient to tear
them up. Peel, in one of his speeches on Catholic emancipation,
bade the House of Commons not to deceive itself, and to be aware
that if that Bill was carried, we must have Episcopal (or
Protestant) England, Presbyterian Scotland, and Catholic Ireland.
He prophesied well and truly no doubt, and to that consummation
affairs will eventually come, as they ought to come, though not
without many a struggle, through many a year. The prophecy of Peel
is advancing to its accomplishment, but he has either forgotten it
or finds it convenient to forget it.


Yesterday the Duke of Wellington talked about the Spanish war,
the nature of which he described very well, and expressed his
opinion that on the whole the Christinos have the best chance; he
said Zumalacarreguy was an able man, and that his death must have
a very important influence on the result. We talked of Napier's
controversy with Perceval.[10] He said Napier had not fairly
treated Perceval's character in the controversy, said he had
never read a syllable of the book, in order to keep clear of
discussions, but that when the work was completed, and all
controversies were silenced, he might probably look it over, and
if he discovered any errors tell the author of them. He said that
no doubt the army had been greatly in want of money, but that
this was not the fault of the Government. It was a great mistake
to suppose that any advantage had been derived (as to obtaining
funds) from the bank restriction; certainly the raising of loans
was facilitated by it, but the war would have been much less
expensive without it, and he had always been of opinion that the
immediate cause of the bank restriction was the Loyalty Loan.
This loan had drained the bankers and individuals of ready money,
and the consequence was a stagnation in commerce, and therefore
in circulation, which rendered the bank restriction necessary. He
then talked of the Walcheren expedition, and said that though it
was wretchedly conducted and altogether mismanaged, it was not
ill-planned, and if they had gone straight to Antwerp it might
have rendered very great service to the general cause, and have
put Bonaparte in great difficulties. I had always fancied that he
had disapproved of that expedition.

     [10] [The Duke referred to Sir William Napier's 'History of
          the Peninsular War.']

July 1st, 1835 {p.271}

This morning Pemberton was heard in reply in Swift's case, and
after a short discussion the court came to a resolution to upset
Sir John Nicholl's decision. Brougham behaved very decently
to-day, and stated fairly enough his opinion, but he was quite
clear, and so was Baron Parke, as to the judgment. The Vice-Chancellor
with hesitation acquiesced, and Erskine said nothing; the Lord
President went with them, so that the court was unanimous.

From thence I went to St. James's to swear in Sir Charles Grey[11]
and Charles Fitzroy Privy Councillors, when we had a most curious
burst of eloquence from his Majesty. This is the first time I have
seen him and his present Ministers together, and certainly they do
not strike me as exhibiting any mutual affection. After Sir Charles
Grey was sworn the King said to him, 'Stand up,' and up he stood. He
then addressed him with great fluency and energy nearly in these
words:--'Sir Charles Grey, you are about to proceed upon one of the
most important missions which ever left this country, and, from your
judgment, ability, and experience, I have no doubt that you will
acquit yourself to my entire satisfaction; I desire you, however, to
bear in mind that the colony to which you are about to proceed has
not, like other British colonies, been peopled from the mother
country--that it is not an original possession of the Crown, but
that it was obtained _by the sword_. You will take care to assert
those undoubted prerogatives which the Crown there possesses, and
which I am determined to enforce and maintain, and I charge you by
the oath which you have just taken strenuously to assert those
prerogatives, _of which persons who ought to have known better have
dared even in my presence to deny the existence_.' His speech was
something longer than this, but the last words almost precisely the
same. The silence was profound, and I was amused at the astonishment
depicted on the faces of the Ministers. I asked Lord Lansdowne and
Lord Holland who it was that he alluded to. Neither knew, but the
former said he thought it might be Ellice, and that the King
referred to something Ellice had said to him when he was Minister.
Somebody said they thought it was Spring Rice, but that could not be
when Rice was sitting at the table. I have heard many specimens of
his eloquence, but never anything like this. After this he had to
give Durham an audience on his embassy, which must have been very
agreeable to him, as he hates him and the Duchess of Kent, whose
'magnus Apollo' Durham is.

     [11] [Sir Charles Grey had just been appointed Governor of
          Jamaica. He had previously filled for a short time the
          office of Chief Justice of Bengal, and enjoyed at this
          time a considerable reputation in society. The Minister
          to whom the King referred in his concluding observation
          was Lord Glenelg as will be seen presently.]

July 3rd, 1835 {p.272}


The night before last Lord Stanley and Graham quitted their
neutral seats below the gangway, and established themselves on
the opposite bench below Peel. This was considered as an
intimation of a more decided hostility to the present Government,
and as an abandonment of the neutrality (if such it can be
called) which they have hitherto professed. Last night O'Connell
made a very coarse attack upon Stanley in consequence of this
change, which lashed him into a fury, and a series of retorts
followed between them, without any result. O'Connell half
shuffled out of his expressions, but refused to apologise; the
chairman (Bernal) took no notice, and the matter ended by a
speech from Stanley and a few remarks upon it from Lord John
Russell. The former stated his reasons for this ostentatious
locomotion, which amounted to this: that he had been rudely
treated in the House by ironical cheers and other intelligible
sounds, and attacked by the Government newspapers, and he had,
therefore, departed from a society for which he owned he was not
fitted. It was not, I think, dignified or judicious, and George
Bentinck, the most faithful of his followers, was not satisfied
with the proceeding or the explanation. His party, such as it
was, was finally extinguished by this act, though it hardly had
any existence before; some five or six men, among whom were Gally
Knight, George Bentinck, Stratford Canning, and Sir Matthew
Ridley, went over to the Opposition benches; the others dispersed
where they chose.

The real history of the transaction is this: it originated with
Graham, and it is not the first time he has lugged Stanley into
what may be called a scrape. He was returning from some division
to his usual seat when he was assailed by those cheers, and some
voice cried out, 'Why don't you stay where you are?' on which he
bowed in acquiescence to the quarter whence the recommendation
proceeded, and instantly retreated to the other side. The next
day he told Stanley that _he_ must now stay where he was, and at
the same time he produced the 'Globe' newspaper, which contained
a very coarse attack upon Stanley himself. This article, together
with Graham's representation, determined him to take up his
position on the Opposition bench, and accordingly there he went,
but without any intimation to his friends, who, to their great
surprise, found him there, and only got from him the above
explanation that evening in the House. Lord John Russell's reply
to Stanley's speech was very courteous, and rather well done as
far as it went, for he only said a few words. Lord Stanley is
certainly fallen from his high estate, and is in a very different
position from that which he aspired to occupy at the beginning of
the session. He is without a party, and without any authority in
the House except what he derives from his own talents for debate.
He has now no alternative but to unite himself with Peel's party,
and to act under him, without any pretension to competition, and
without the possibility of being considered as a separate element
of political power. He has been brought to this by a series of
false steps from his first refusal to join Peel, followed by his
flippant and undecided conduct throughout the great contest. The
Whigs and the Tories both hate him, and neither will be very
ready to forgive him. There is a mixture of contempt in the
dislike of the former, and an undisguised satisfaction among the
most violent at having got rid of him, which make any future
approximation to their side impossible, and the Tories, though
they will receive him in their ranks, will never forgive him for
his conduct, to which they attribute the failure of the
Conservative effort, for his presumption in endeavouring to set
up a middle party and render himself the arbiter of the contest,
and especially for his affectation of want of confidence in Peel
and his attacks upon the Duke. In the meantime this move of
Stanley's has rather served to strengthen the Government in the
House of Commons; between the disposition of many to go with
Government, the lukewarmness and indolence of the Conservatives,
and the steady attendance of a phalanx of Radicals, they have got
good, regular, steady-working majorities, and appear as strong in
the House of Commons as any Government need be.

July 4th, 1835 {p.274}

Yesterday Brougham gave judgment in the case of Swift and Kelly--a
written judgment and at great length. I thought it remarkably well
done, embracing all the points of the case, and laying down the law
and the reasons for reversing the decree of the court below in a
very forcible and perspicuous manner. He must have written this
judgment with great rapidity, for it was only on Tuesday afternoon
that it was settled to be given on Thursday, all of which is a proof
of his admirable talents. His conduct on the last day of the hearing
and this judgment in some degree made up for his previous
intemperance and violence. He said that he had shown the judgment to
Lord Lyndhurst, who entirely agreed with him. A negotiation had been
previously opened to endeavour to get the other side to concur in an
application to the court to stay the judgment and to consent to a
pecuniary compromise, but it was quite ineffectual.


A night or two ago there was a breeze at Lady Jersey's between
the Duke of Cumberland and Alava, and many stories made of it,
more than were true. The Duke, who had frequently taunted him
before, was again attacking him about his expedition and Spanish
affairs generally, when Alava got into a fury and said to him,
'Monseigneur, Don Carlos peut être roi d'Espagne, mais il ne sera
jamais le roi du général Alava.' This Lord Jersey told me, and
that the other things he is reported to have said to the Duke are
not true.

July 7th, 1835 {p.275}

I can't deny that many persons have shown a very kind disposition
to assist me in this business of my Jamaica place, of different
political persuasions, and with most of whom I have but a very
slight personal acquaintance, among these none more than Mr.
Gladstone and Lord Lincoln, neither of whom did I know to speak
to till I put myself into communication with them on this
business. On the other hand Charles Wood, who is against me in
his opinion, has been the channel of communication with Baring
and shown generally a good will towards me. These demonstrations
are agreeable enough, and contribute to put one in harmony with
mankind, but it is after all a humiliating position, and I feel
unutterable disgust, and something akin to shame, at being
compelled to solicit the protection of one set of men, and the
friendly offices of another, in order to be maintained in the
possession of that which is in itself obnoxious to public feeling
and opinion. A placeman is in these days an odious animal, and as
a double placeman I am doubly odious, and I have a secret kind of
whispering sensation that these very people who good-naturedly
enough assist me must be a little shocked at the cause they
advocate. All that can be said in my favour is not obvious, nor
can it be properly or conveniently brought forward, and all that
can be said against me lies on the surface, and is universally
evident. The funds from which I draw my means do not somehow seem
a pure source; formerly those things were tolerated, now they are
not, and my prospects were formed and destiny determined at a
remote period, while I incur all the odium and encounter all the
risks consequent upon the altered state of public feeling on the

July 15th, 1835 {p.276}


Sefton told me that a correspondence has taken place between Lord
Glenelg and Sir Herbert Taylor about that speech of the King's at
the Council on Wednesday se'nnight. Glenelg felt himself called
upon to enquire whether the blow was aimed at him, and it was
evident from the tenor of the reply that it was. I heard from
Stephen a day or two afterwards the real truth of this matter. It
was Lord Glenelg that the King intended to allude to in his
speech. Lord Melbourne spoke to his Majesty on the subject,
remonstrated, and said it was impossible to carry on the
government if he did such things. He said that he was greatly
irritated, and had acted under strong feelings in consequence of
what Glenelg had said to him. Melbourne rejoined, 'Your Majesty
must have mistaken Lord Glenelg.' 'Not at all,' said the King,
and he then went into a dispute they had had about the old
constitution of Canada--I forget what, but something the King
asserted which Glenelg contradicted. He repaired to the Colonial
Office and told Stephen, who informed him that the King was right
and he was wrong. (The King, in fact, had got it up, and had the
thing at his fingers' ends.) This was awkward; however, it ended
in the King's making a sort of apology and crying _peccavi_ for
the violence of his language, and this will probably be somewhat
of a lesson to him, though it will not diminish the bitterness of
his sentiments towards his Ministers.

I expressed my astonishment that any man could consent to stay in
office after receiving such an insult as this was, to which
Stephen replied that they were all thoroughly aware of their
position relatively to the King and of his feelings towards them;
but they had undertaken the task and were resolved under all
circumstances to go through with it, and, whatever he might say
or do, they should not suffer themselves to be influenced or
shaken. This is the truth; they do not look upon themselves as
_his_ Ministers, and perhaps they cannot do otherwise as things
now are. It is, however, a very melancholy and mischievous state
of affairs, and does more to degrade the Monarchy than anything
that has ever occurred: to exhibit the King publicly to the world
as a cypher, and something less than a cypher, as an unsuccessful
competitor in a political squabble, is to take from the Crown all
the dignity with which it is invested by that theoretical
attribute of perfection that has been so conveniently ascribed to
it. Both King and Ministers have been greatly to blame, the one
for the egregious folly which made him rush into this sea of
trouble and mortification without calculation or foresight; the
other for the unrelenting severity with which they resolved to
gratify their revenge and ambition, without considering that they
could not punish him without degrading the throne of which he is
the occupant, and that the principle involved in his impunity was
of more consequence in its great and permanent results than any
success of theirs. But it would have required more virtue,
self-denial, wisdom, and philosophy than falls to the lot of any
public man individually in these days to have embraced all these
considerations, and it would have been a miracle if a great mob
of men calling themselves a party could have been made to act
under the influence of such moral restraints. The King's present
behaviour only makes matters worse. When he found himself
compelled to take these people back, and to surrender himself a
prisoner into their hands, he should have swallowed the bitter
pill and digested it, and not kept rolling it in his mouth and
making wry faces. He should have made a very bad business as
tolerable as he could, by yielding himself with a good grace; and
had he treated them with that sort of courtesy which one
gentleman may and ought to show to all those with whom he is
unavoidably brought into contact, and which implies nothing as to
feeling and inclination, he would have received from them that
respect and attention which it would have been equally their
interest and their desire to show. This would have rendered their
relations mutually much more tolerable, a decent veil would have
been thrown over all that was humiliating and painful, and the
public service must have gained by the tacit compromise; but
extreme folly, great violence in those about the King, and hopes
of emancipation secretly cherished, together with the intensity
of his hatred of his Ministers, have conspired to keep his
Majesty in his present unwise, irksome, and degrading posture.

The night before last there was a great concert on the staircase at
Stafford House, the most magnificent assembly I ever saw, and such
as I think no crowned head in Europe could display, so grand and
picturesque. The appearance of the hall was exactly like one of Paul
Veronese's pictures, and only wanted some tapestry to be hung over
the balustrades. Such prodigious space, so cool, so blazing with
light; everybody was _comfortable_ even, and the concert combined
the greatest talents in Europe all together--Grisi, Malibran,
Tamburini, Lablache, Rubini, and Ivanhoff. The splendour, the
profusion, and the perfect ease of it all were really admirable.

Dined yesterday with the Vice-Chancellor; sixteen people whom I
never saw before, almost all lawyers and lawyeresses. He told me
that he believed Melbourne had no intention as long as he was
Minister of changing the present arrangement with regard to the
Great Seal,[12] that he was of opinion that a Chancellor was of
no use, and that it was more convenient to keep in his own hands
the law patronage of the Great Seal, that this obviated the
disputes between Ministers and Chancellors, which have generally
been very violent, as between Thurlow and Pitt, and still more
between Eldon and Liverpool, which were incessant, and that
nothing could exceed the hatred Eldon had for Lord Liverpool, as
he knew.

      [12] [The Great Seal was still in Commission.]

Tavistock told me a day or two ago that his Majesty's Ministers
are intolerably disgusted at his behaviour to them and his
studied incivility to everybody connected with them. The other
day the Speaker was treated by him with shocking rudeness at the
drawing-room. He not only took no notice of him, but studiously
overlooked him while he was standing opposite, and called up
Manners Sutton and somebody else to mark the difference by
extreme graciousness to the latter. Seymour, who was with him as
Serjeant-at-Arms, said he had never seen a Speaker so used in the
five-and-twenty years he had been there, and that it was most
painful. The Speaker asked him if he had ever seen a man in his
situation so received at Court. Since he has been Speaker the
King has never taken the slightest notice of him. It is
monstrous, equally undignified and foolish.

July 18th, 1835 {p.279}


Yesterday I sat all day at my office wondering why I heard nothing
of the Committee, till at half-past four o'clock Graham and Lord
Lincoln came in with smiling countenances, that announced good
news. They had had an angry debate of three hours' duration.
Baring moved that my holding the office of Secretary of Jamaica
was against the spirit of the Act of Parliament. Graham moved that
holding it with the leave of absence was in accordance with the
Act, and the division was nine to seven. A teller on each side and
Baring, who as chairman did not vote, made the numbers ten to
nine. They told me that Baring and Vernon Smith were furious. The
former endeavoured to turn off his defeat by proposing that the
question should be reopened on framing the report; but even Grote
opposed that, and he was forced to own that he was wrong in
proposing it. I must say that Gladstone told me that Baring
behaved very well after the division. I will not conceal the
truth, much as I have reason to complain of the man. I owe this
victory to the zealous assistance of the Conservatives, for not
one Whig or Radical voted with me; some of the former stayed away,
whether designedly or not I don't know, except Stanley, Secretary
to the Treasury, who told me he could not make up his mind to go
and vote against me. The majority consisted of Herries, Fremantle
(Sir Thomas), Gladstone, Nicholl, Graham, Lord Lincoln, Bethell,
Fector, Bramstone, and Pringle; the minority, Baring, Vernon
Smith, Pendarves, Ruthven, Scholefield, Evans, Grote, Hume, R.
Stewart. I never had any intimacy with any one of those who
supported me except with Graham, and we were friends, and very
intimate friends, twenty years ago. He dropped me all of a sudden
from caprice or calculation, and we have been on very decent but
scarcely cordial terms ever since. On this occasion I whipped up
the old friendship, and with great effect, for he has served me
very zealously throughout the business. I scarcely knew any of the
other before, Lord Lincoln and Gladstone only on this occasion,
and Fector, Nicholl, Bramstone, Bethell, and Pringle I do not know
now by sight. It is really amusing to see the joy with which the
news of Baring's defeat has been hailed by every member of his own
family, and all others who have heard of it. The goodwill of the
world (a very inert but rather satisfactory feeling) has been
exhibited towards me, and there is mixed up with it in all who are
acquainted with the surly reformer who is my adversary a lively
pleasure at his being baffled and mortified.

July 23rd, 1835 {p.280}


Dined with Bingham Baring[13] yesterday, and met Whateley,
Archbishop of Dublin, a very ordinary man in appearance and
conversation, with something of pretension in his talk, and
telling stories without point, which smelt of the Common room;
nevertheless he is a very able man, and they told me that when he
is with such men as Senior, and those with whom he is very
intimate, he shines. I was greatly disappointed with what I saw
and heard of him. The Church Bill has been in the House of Commons
these two nights. Peel introduced his motion for dividing the Bill
in a very able speech, well adapted to the purpose, if anything
was to be gained in such a House of Commons; but the fact is, both
parties look beyond the immediate question: one wants to bolster
up the present system, the other to overthrow it, and though I go
along with Peel on his _point_, I go along with his opponents on
their _principle_. He stated, however, very forcibly the dilemma
in which his opponents are placed, and said, 'Why don't you make
the Establishment Catholic at once, openly and avowedly, or
abstain from doing what has that inevitable tendency?' Melbourne
said there was no escape from this, and I replied that I would
take him at his word, and that it must come to this, and he might
immortalise himself by settling the question. It certainly would
be a glorious field for a statesman to enter upon to brush away
all the obstacles which deeply rooted prejudices and chimerical
fears founded on false reasoning throw in his way, and bend all
his energies to a direct and vigorous course of policy, at once
firm and determined, looking the real evil in the face, and
applying the real remedy to it. If I were Prime Minister I would
rather fall in the attempt than work on through a succession of
expedients none of which were satisfactory to myself, to hold
language at variance with my opinions, and to truckle to
difficulties which it is now time boldly to face. I am as
satisfied as of my existence that if the heart's core of Peel
could be laid open, it would be found that he thinks so himself.
His is not the conduct of conviction, and he has been led into
contradictions and inconsistencies which must ever beset and
entangle those who persist in the attempt to maintain positions
which have ceased to be tenable.

     [13] [Afterwards the second Lord Ashburton.]

Goodwood, July 29th, 1835 {p.281}

To Petworth on Saturday and here on Monday; a smaller party than
usual, and no women on account of the Duchess of Argyll's death;
far better not to have women at a racing party. Tavistock told me
that a man (he did not say who) had been to Lord John, evidently
commissioned, though not avowedly, to tell him on the part of
Peel and Lord Stanley that they would both support him if he
would bring forward a proposition to pay the Irish Catholic
clergy. John, however, 'timet Danaos et dona ferentes,' and
hinted that his own popularity would be sacrificed if he did.
This is curious, however. John also told him that he never saw
Peel laugh so much as during Graham's speech the other night, and
he meant (but forgot it) to ask him why he laughed so. To Peel it
is nuts to see Stanley and Graham drawing down unpopularity on
themselves and every day widening the breach between them and
their old friends; but I was somewhat struck with the apparent
intimacy which was evinced in what John Russell said about Peel,
and asked his brother if they were on very good personal terms.
He said, 'Oh, excellent'--a sort of House of Commons intimacy.
Peel told John all he meant to do in the Committee on the Church
Bill--that he should propose so and so, and when they came to the
appropriation clauses he should make his bow and leave them.
Tavistock remarked (which had escaped me) that Peel had in his
last famous speech (certainly one of extraordinary ability)
omitted all mention of the principle of appropriation, and
confined himself to the proof that there was no surplus; but what
is most remarkable perhaps of all is this: Peel said to John, 'If
you _will_ appropriate, I will show you a much better plan than
your own,' and he accordingly did show him a plan by which there
would be a considerably greater surplus, and John acknowledged
that Peel's plan would be better than his own. I wonder what the
High Tories and the King would think of all this. While he is
quarrelling with Johnny and his friends for Peel's sake, and
undergoing martyrdom in his social relations with them, there
they are hand and glove, and almost concerting together the very
measures which are the cause of all the animosities and all the
political violence which agitate and divide the world. There is
something extremely ludicrous in all this.

I hear to-day that Peel is going into the country for good, and
leaves the Lords to deal with the Bills. He probably expects them
to commit some follies, and fancies he may as well be out of the

August 4th, 1835 {p.283}


Came to town on Sunday, having slept at Winchester on Saturday
night to see the town and the cathedral, and hear the service in
the latter, which was very moderate; the cathedral, however, is
worth seeing. When I got to town I found the Tory Lords had been
worked into a frenzy by Wetherell and Knight[14] at the bar of the
House of Lords (the latter of whom is said to have made a very
able speech), and Newcastle and Winchelsea bellowed and blustered
in grand style. Lord Rosslyn had told me some time ago that the
Duke would have great difficulty in managing his people, but that
I think was _à propos_ of the Church Bill. Yesterday at two
o'clock there was a great assemblage of Peers at Apsley House to
determine what was to be done, and amazed was I when I learnt at
about five o'clock that they had resolved to move that evidence
should be heard against the principle of the Municipal Corporation
Bill, which was accordingly moved by Carnarvon last night. At
dinner I met Stuart, to whom I expressed my astonishment at the
course they had adopted, and he owned that it was 'rather
hazardous,' and said that it was adopted at the suggestion of
Lyndhurst, who had insisted upon it at Apsley House, and that the
Duke had given way. He said that this had followed as a necessary
consequence of Brougham proposing that counsel should be heard
upon the details, as it appeared that the evidence on which the
Bill was founded was not to be relied on. He owned that it was
probable Peel would disapprove of the proceedings of the Lords,
and a breach between him and them be the consequence. He told me
that at a dinner on Saturday, at which the Dukes of Wellington and
Cumberland, Peel, and Wetherell were present, the question had
been argued; that Sir Charles Wetherell had urged all the leading
arguments he had used in his speech, and Peel had contested every
part and particle of his argument, while the Duke of Cumberland
did not utter a word. Stuart added that he heard the Government
meditated something very strong, and I repeated what Hobhouse had
told me in the morning, when I met him in the Park--that Melbourne
would probably adjourn the House, that there would be a call of
the House of Commons, and some strong resolution proposed there.
Some Whigs, however, who were present last night, suggested that
it would be better to adjourn the House of Commons, and let the
Lords go on with their evidence while they pleased to hear it, and
then reassemble the Commons in case the Bill was sent back to
them. Hobhouse said, 'Depend upon it, it is the _commencement de
la fin_'. It does certainly appear to me that these Tory Lords
will never rest till they have accomplished the destruction of the
House of Lords. They are resolved to bring about a collision with
the House of Commons, and the majority in each House grows every
day more rabid and more desperate. I am at a loss to comprehend
the views by which Lyndhurst, the ablest of the party, is
actuated, or how he can (if it be so, which from Stuart's account
is probable) fancy that any object is attainable which involves in
it a breach or separation between Peel and the great body of the
Tories. I would give much to see the recesses of his mind, and
know what he really thinks of all these proceedings, and to what
consequences he believes that they will lead.

     [14] [Mr. Knight Bruce, afterwards Lord Justice in Equity.]

August 6th, 1835 {p.284}

Yesterday to Brighton, to see my horse Dacre run for the Brighton
stake, which he won, and back at night. The day before I met the
Vice-Chancellor[15] at Charing Cross, going down, to the House of
Lords. 'Well,' said he, shrugging his shoulders, 'here I am going
to the House of Lords, after hearing evidence all the morning, to
hear it again for the rest of the evening.' 'What is to happen?'
I asked him. 'O Lord, it is the greatest bore; they have heard
Coventry and Oxford; they got something of a case out of the
first, but the other was beyond anything tiresome; they are sick
to death of it, and Brougham and Lyndhurst have agreed that _it
is all damned nonsense_, and they will hear nothing more after
Saturday next.' So this is the end of all this hubbub, and here
are these two great comedians thundering against each other in
the House of Lords overnight with all imaginable vehemence and
solemnity, only to meet together the next morning and agree that
_it is all damned nonsense_. There is something very melancholy
and very ludicrous in all this, and though that great bull calf
the public does not care about such things, and is content to
roar when he is bid, there are those on the alert who will turn
such trilling and folly to account, and convert what is half
ridiculous into something all serious. Winchelsea and Newcastle
after all did not vote the other night; they said they wanted no
evidence, that they would have no such Bill, and would not meddle
with the discussion at all except to oppose it point-blank. Fools
as they are, their folly is more tolerable and probably less
mischievous than the folly of the wise ones.

     [15] The Great Seal being in Commission, the Vice-Chancellor
          of England (Sir Lancelot Shadwell) sat as one of the
          Commissioners on the Woolsack.

August 9th, 1835


On Wednesday last at the levee the King made a scene with Lord
Torrington, one of his Lords of the Bedchamber, and a very
disgraceful scene. A card was put into Torrington's hands of somebody
who was presented, which he read, 'So and so, _Deputy-Governor_.'
'Deputy-Governor?' said the King, 'Deputy-Governor of what? I
cannot tell your Majesty,' replied Torrington, 'as it is not upon
the card.' 'Hold your tongue, sir,' said the King; 'you had better
go home and learn to read;' and shortly after, when some bishop
presented an address against (I believe) the Irish Tithe Bill, and
the King was going as usual to hand over the papers to the Lord in
waiting, he stopped and said to Lord Torrington, who advanced to
take them, 'No, Lord Torrington; these are not fit documents to be
entrusted to your keeping.' His habitual state of excitement will
probably bring on sooner or later the malady of his family.
Torrington is a young man in a difficult position, or he ought to
have resigned instantly and as publicly as the insult was offered.
The King cannot bridle his temper, and lets slip no opportunity of
showing his dislike, impotent as it is, of the people who surround
him. He admits none but Tories into his private society, wherever
he goes Tories accompany him; at Windsor Tories only are his
guests. This provokes his Ministers, but it necessarily makes them
more indifferent to the cultivation of his favour, and accustoms
them to consider themselves as the Ministers of the House of
Commons and not of the Crown.

My brother writes me from Paris very interesting details of the
funeral of the victims of the assassination plot,[16] which was
an imposing and magnificent ceremony, admirably arranged, and as
it has produced a burst of enthusiasm for the King, and has
brought round the clergy to him, it will serve to strengthen his
throne. His undaunted courage ingratiates him with the French.

     [16] [The victims of the Fieschi conspiracy.]

August 15th, 1835


On Wednesday the Lords commenced proceedings on the Corporation
Bill. The Ministers were aware that they meant to throw it out,
for Lord John Russell and Lord Lansdowne both told me at the
levee that they had heard such was the intention of the Tories.
However, they never had such a design, and the second reading
passed without a division; on Thursday they went into Committee,
and the freeman's clause was carried against Government by a
majority of 93--130 to 37--the debate being distinguished by
divers sallies of intemperance from Brougham, who thundered, and
menaced, and gesticulated in his finest style. When somebody
cried, 'Question,' he burst out, 'Do you think to put me down? I
have stood against 300 of the House of Commons, and do you think
I will give way to _you_?' This was uttered with all imaginable
rage and scorn.[17] This amendment was always anticipated, and
though the Government object to it, Lord Lansdowne told me that
as the rate-paying clause had passed without opposition, he did
not care for the other alterations, but the minority appeared to
everybody bordering upon the ridiculous; a Minister who could
only muster thirty-seven present, and who was in a minority of
three to one, presented a novel spectacle. Nobody could account
for the carelessness of their muster, for many Peers were absent
who might easily have been there, and several who belong to
Government by office or connexion. It did not, however, occur to
anybody that they would feel themselves compelled to resign upon
it, except perhaps to a few Tories, who hinted their notion that
Melbourne could not go on with such a majority against him,
which, however true it may be in the long run, signifies nothing
as to any immediate change.

     [17] Brougham had some reason to be angry. Lyndhurst did not
          reply to him on Wednesday, when he might have done so,
          pleading the fatigue of late hours and his own
          indisposition, and on Thursday he attacked him when he
          was absent; he therefore gave him good ground of
          complaint. Brougham's insolence and violence have done
          great injury to the House of Lords by lowering the
          style and character of their debates and introducing
          coarseness and acrimony such as never were known there
          before. Hardly a night passes without some
          discreditable scene of squabbling and vituperation
          bandied between him and the High Tory Lords, one or
          other of them; their hatred of him and his scorn of
          them are everlastingly breaking out. He and Lyndhurst,
          though constantly pitted against each other, are great
          friends all the time, but with the others it is a rabid
          passion of hatred and contempt, mutually felt and
          continually expressed.


Last night the qualification clause was carried against Government
by an equally large majority, or nearly so, and this time
Government does not seem disposed to take it so patiently. It was
well understood that a qualification would be imposed, and many of
the supporters of the Bill said they did not object thereto, but
they had no notion of such a qualification as Lyndhurst proposed
and carried last night, and the Duke of Richmond (whom I met at
Crockford's) told me that it would be fatal to the Bill. He saw
Lord John Russell after the division, who told him so, and that
the Commons would never take the Bill with such an alteration as
this. Richmond himself goes entirely with Government in this
measure, and I was rather surprised to hear him say that 'it had
been urged that Lord Stanley was opposed to this part of the Bill,
but that if this were so a man must judge for himself in so
important a matter,' which looks a little as if he meant to back
out of the dilly, and I should not be very much surprised if he
came into office again with these people, if they stay in. I asked
him what in his opinion would happen, and he replied that he
thought the House of Lords was nearly done for, that he expected
the Commons would reject their amendments and pass some very
strong resolutions; he should not be surprised if they refused to
pass the Appropriation Bill. I said they would hardly do that,
because it would be a measure against Government, and would compel
these Ministers to resign. This he admitted, but he went on to say
that he expected it would throw the House of Commons into a
ferment, that they would adopt some violent course, and then there
would be a 'row royal.' What astonishes me most in all this is
that Lyndhurst, a man of great abilities, and certainly, if
wishing for anything, wishing for the success of the party he
belongs to, should urge these desperate courses. He it was who
proposed the fatal postponement of Schedule A, which led to such
utter ruin and confusion, and now it is he who manages this Bill,
and who ventures to mutilate the Ministerial measure in such a
manner as will in all probability bring down all the wrath of the
Commons on him and his Conservative majority. I am not at all sure
but that the Government is content to exhibit its paltry numbers
in the House of Lords, in order that the world may see how
essentially it is a Tory body, that it hardly fulfils the
conditions of a great independent legislative assembly, but
presents the appearance of a dominant party-faction which is too
numerous to be affected by any constitutional process and too
obstinate to be turned from its fixed purpose of opposing all the
measures which have a tendency to diminish the influence of the
Conservative party in the country. It is impossible to look at the
disposition exhibited by this great majority and not admit that
there is very small chance of its acting harmoniously with the
present House of Commons, and that some change must take place in
order to enable Government and legislation to go on at all. It is
anything but clear that the nation desires the destruction of the
House of Lords, nor is it clear that the nation cares for its
preservation. It is, I think, exceedingly probable that a majority
of those who return members to Parliament, and in whom collectively
the supreme power really resides, though they might be content to
retain the House of Lords, if it could be made to act in harmony
with, and therefore necessarily in subordination to, the House of
Commons, would not hesitate for an instant to decree its downfall
if it became clear that there was no other way of crushing the
Tory faction which now rules triumphant in that House. At all
events the Lords are playing a desperate game; if it succeeds,
they who direct the energies of the party are great and wise men;
but what if it fail? They seem to have no answer to this but that
if they

            Screw their courage to the sticking place,
            It will _not_ fail.

                          CHAPTER XXIX.

Resistance of the Lords--Duke of Richmond--Happiness--Struggle
  between Lords and Commons--Peel keeps aloof--Inconsistency of
  the Whigs on the Irish Church Bill--Violent Language in the
  Lords--Lord John Russell and Peel pass the Corporation Bill--
  Dissolution of the Tory Party foreseen--Meeting of Peers to
  consider the Amendments--King's Speech in Council on the
  Militia--Lord Howick's Bitterness against the Lords--Lord
  Lyndhurst's Opinion of the Corporation Bill--The King's
  Language on the Regency--Talleyrand's View of the English
  Alliance--Comparison of Burke and Macintosh--The St. Leger--
  Visit of Princess Victoria to Burghley--O'Connell's Progress
  through Scotland--Mackintosh's Life.

August 19th, 1835 {p.290}


Yesterday the Lords finished the Committee on the Corporation
Bill. Their last amendment (which I do not very well understand
at present), by which certain aldermen elected for life are to be
taken in the first instance from the present aldermen, has
disgusted the authors of the Bill more than all the rest. In the
morning I met Duncannon and Howick, both open-mouthed against the
amendments, and this in particular, and declaring that though the
others might have been stomached, this could not go down, as it
was in direct opposition to the principle of the Bill. Howick
talked of 'the Lords being swept away like chaff' and of 'the
serious times that were approaching.' Duncannon said there would
be a conference, and if the Lords insisted on these amendments
the Bill would be lost. I asked if a compromise was not feasible,
the Lords abandoning this and the Commons taking the other
amendments, which he said would not be undesirable, but difficult
to effect. The continual discussions about this Bill have made me
perforce understand something of it towards the end of them. I am
too ignorant of the details and of the tendency of the Bill to
have an opinion of the comparative merits of its present and its
original shape, but I am sure the Lords are bound in prudence not
to mutilate it more than is absolutely necessary to make it a
safe measure, and to have a good, and moreover a popular, case to
go to the country with, if eventually such an appeal is to be
made. On the other hand the House of Commons, powerful as it is,
must not assert its power too peremptorily, and before the
Ministers determine to resign, for the purpose of making their
resignation instrumental to the consolidation of their power and
the destruction of the House of Lords; they also must have a good
case, and be able to show that the amendments made by the Lords
are incompatible with the object proposed, that they were made in
a factious spirit and for the express purpose of thwarting the
principle contended for, and that their conduct in this matter
forms part of a general system, which can only be counteracted by
some fundamental change in the constitution of the Upper House
itself. These are violent conclusions to come to, and when one
reflects calmly upon the possible and probable consequences of a
collision, and the manner in which the interests of the
antagonistic parties collectively and individually are blended
together, it is difficult to believe that both will not pause on
the brink of the precipice and be influenced by a simultaneous
desire to come to a decent and practicable compromise. This would
probably be easy if both parties were actuated by a sincere
desire to enact a law to reform corporations in the safest, best,
and most satisfactory manner; but the reformation of the
corporations is not the first object in the minds of either. One
wants to save as much as possible of the Tory influence, which is
menaced by the Bill, and the other wants to court the democratic
spirit, which vivifies its party, and erect a new and auxiliary
influence on the ruins of the ancient establishments. Any mere
looker-on must perceive through all their wranglings that these
are the _arrière-pensées_ of the two antagonistic parties.

Brougham made a very clever speech (I am told) on Monday night,
and the contest between him and Lyndhurst through the whole
Committee has been remarkable for talent and for a striking
display of the different qualities of the two men. The Duke of
Richmond had a squabble with Lyndhurst last night, 'impar
congressus,' and he has wriggled himself almost back among the
Whigs; nothing but the appropriation clause in the Church Bill
prevents his being First Lord of the Admiralty, and he may be
considered as having dropped off the dilly with so many others.
The Whigs are dying to have him back among them. I must confess I
do not see why, but it is impossible to deny that he contrives to
make himself desired by those with whom he has acted, and as they
must know best what they are about and what he is capable of, it
is reasonable to suppose that he has some talents or some
qualities which are developed in the graver affairs of life, but
which do not appear in its ordinary relations and habitudes. I
thought what he said to me the other night looked like a
severance of his Stanley connexion, and his strenuous support of
this Bill and his pettish attacks upon Lyndhurst show that he at
least is not likely to ally himself with the Conservatives.

August 21st, 1835 {p.292}

Yesterday I fell in with Lyndhurst, just getting out of his
carriage at his door in George Street. He asked me to come in and
look at his house, which I did. I asked him what would happen
about the Bill. He said, 'Oh, they will take it. What can they
do? If they choose to throw it out, let them do so, I don't care
whether they do or not. But they will take it, because they know
it does their business, though not so completely as they desire.'
He said he would alter the qualification, though he did not think
it objectionable. I told him I hoped there might be some
compromise, and that he and his friends would give way on some of
their amendments, and that the Commons would take the rest. Even
the 'Times,' which _goes the whole hog_ with the Opposition,
won't swallow this (the aldermen), and suggests that it should be
withdrawn. Nothing ever was like the outrageous indecency of the
attacks upon the House of Lords in the Ministerial papers, and it
is not clear that they won't overdo the thing; this kind of fury
generally defeats its own object.

August 25th, 1835


At Hillingdon from Saturday till Monday last; began the Life of
Mackintosh, and was delighted with Sydney Smith's letter which is
prefixed to it; read and walked all day on Sunday--the two things
I do least, viz. exercise my mind and body; therefore both grow
gross and heavy. Shakespeare says fat paunches make lean pates,
but this is taken from a Greek proverb. I admire this family of
Cox's at Hillingdon, and after casting my eyes in every direction,
and thinking much and often of the theory of happiness, I am
convinced that it is principally to be found in contented
mediocrity, accompanied with an equable temperament and warm
though not excitable feelings. When I read such books as
Mackintosh's Life, and see what other men have done, how they have
read and thought, a sort of despair comes over me, a deep and
bitter sensation of regret 'for time misspent and talents
misapplied,' not the less bitter from being coupled with a
hopelessness of remedial industry and of doing better things. Nor
do I know that such men as these were happy; that they possessed
sources of enjoyment inaccessible to less gifted minds is not to
be doubted, but whether knowledge and conscious ability and
superiority generally bring with them content of mind and the
sunshine of self-satisfaction to the possessors is anything but
certain. I wonder the inductive process has not been more
systematically applied to the solution of this great philosophical
problem, _what is happiness_, and _in what it consists_, for the
practical purpose of directing the human mind into the right road
for reaching this goal of all human wishes. Why are not
innumerable instances collected, examined, analysed, and the
results expanded, explained, and reasoned upon for the benefit and
instruction of mankind? Who can tell but what these results may
lead at last to some simple conclusions such as it requires no
vast range of intellect to discover, no subtle philosophy to
teach--conclusions mortifying to the pride and vanity of man, but
calculated to mitigate the evils of life by softening mutual
asperities, and by the establishment of the doctrine of
_humility_, from which all charity, forbearance, toleration, and
benevolence must flow as from their source? These simple
conclusions may amount to no more than a simple maxim that
happiness is to be found 'in the pursuit of truth and the practice
of virtue.'

           Semita certe
           Tranquillæ per virtutem patet unica vitæ.

The end of the tenth Satire of Juvenal (which is one of the
finest sermons that ever was composed, and worth all the homilies
of all the Fathers of the Church) teaches us what to pray for--

          Orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano.

Healthy body, healthy appetite, healthy feelings, though
accompanied by mediocrity of talent, unadorned with wit and
imagination, and unpolished by learning and science, will
outstrip in the race for happiness the splendid irregularities of
genius and the most dazzling successes of ambition. At the same
time this general view of the probabilities of happiness must be
qualified by the admission that mere vegetation scarcely deserves
the name of happiness, and that the highest enjoyment which
humanity is capable of may be said to consist in the pleasures of
reason and imagination--of a mind expatiating among the wonders
of nature, and ranging through all the 'changes of many-coloured
life,' without being shaken from its equilibrium by the
disturbing causes of jealousy, envy, and the evil passions of our
nature. The most galling of all conditions is that of him whose
conscience and consciousness whisper to him perpetual reproaches,
who reflects on what he might have been and who feels and sees
what he is. When such a man as Macintosh, fraught with all
learning, whose mind, if not kindled into a steady blaze, is
perpetually throwing out sparks and coruscations of exceeding
brightness, is stung with these self-upbraidings, what must be
the reflections of those, the utmost reach of whose industry is
far below the value of _his_ most self-accused idleness, who have
no self-consolation, are plunged in entire darkness, and have not
only to lament the years of omission, but those of commission,
not only the opportunities neglected, but the positive mischief
done by the debasement of the faculties, the deterioration of the
understanding, the impairing of the power of exertion consequent
upon a long devotion to low, despicable, unprofitable habits and

August 27th, 1835 {p.295}


Melbourne has thrown up the Tithe Bill in the Lords, because the
Opposition expunged the appropriation clauses. In the Corporation
Bill Lyndhurst made still further alterations, such as the Commons
will not take (the town clerks and the exclusion of Dissenters
from the disposal of ecclesiastical patronage), and as it is the
general opinion that they will make no compromise and surrender
none of their amendments, that Bill will probably be lost too.
What then? asks everybody, and nobody can tell what then, but
there is a sort of vague apprehension that _something_ must come
of it, and that this collision (for collision it is) between the
Lords and the Commons will not be terminated without some violent
measures or important changes; if such do take place, they will
have been most wantonly and wickedly brought about, but it is a
lamentable thing to see the two great parties in the country,
equally possessed of wealth and influence, and having the same
interest in general tranquillity, tearing each other to pieces
while the Radicals stand laughing and chuckling by, only waiting
for the proper moment to avail themselves of these senseless
divisions. There is something inconceivable, a sort of political
absurdity, in the notion of a country like this being on the eve
of a convulsion, when it is tranquil, prosperous, and without any
grievance; universal liberty prevails, every man's property and
person are safe, the laws are well administered and duly obeyed;
so far from there being any unredressed grievances, the
imagination of man cannot devise the fiction or semblance of a
grievance without there being a rush to correct it. The only real
evil is that the rage for correction is too violent, and sweeps
all before it. What is it, then, which menaces the existence of
the constitution we live under? It is the fury of parties, it is
the broad line of separation which the Reform Bill has drawn, the
antagonist positions into which the two Houses of Parliament have
been thrown, and the Whigs having identified themselves with the
democratic principle in one House, in order to preserve their
places, and the Conservative principle having taken refuge in the
other House, where it is really endangered by the obstinate and
frantic violence of its supporters. What was the loud and eternal
cry of the Lords, and of all the Conservatives, when the Reform
Bill was in agitation? That it was a revolution, that it would
place all political power in the hands of the people, that it
would establish an irresistible democratic force; and the great
body of them justified their refusal to go into Committee on the
ground that the Bill was so vicious in principle, so irremediably
mischievous, that no alterations could diminish its evil tendency.
It is now as clear as daylight that if they had gone into
Committee and amended the Bill, they might have obviated all or
nearly all the evils they apprehended, for even after the passing
of the 'whole Bill,' with all its clauses perfect and untouched,
parties are so nearly balanced that the smallest difference would
turn the scale the other way. They would, however, listen to
nothing, and now they feel the consequences of their _ruat coelum_
policy; but what I complain of is, that after the verification of
their predictions, and the realisation of their fears, in the
establishment of a democratic power of formidable strength, they
do not act consistently with their own declared opinions; for if
it be true, as they assert, that their legitimate authority and
influence have been transferred to other hands, and that the just
equilibrium of the Constitution has been shaken, it is mad and
preposterous in them to act just as if no such disturbing causes
had occurred, as if they were still in the plenitude of their
constitutional power, and to provoke a collision which, if their
own assertions be true, they are no longer in a condition to
sustain. The answer to such arguments as this invariably is, Are
the Lords, then, to be content to yield everything, and must they
pass every Bill which the House of Commons thinks fit to send to
them purely and simply? Certainly they are not; no such thing is
expected of them by any man or any set of men, but common prudence
and a sense of their own condition and their own relative strength
under the new dispensation demand that they should exercise their
undoubted rights with circumspection and calmness, desisting from
all opposition for opposition's sake, standing out firmly on
questions involving great and important principles, and yielding
with a good grace, without ill-humour, and without subserviency on
minor points. They ought, for example, to have followed in the
footsteps of Peel in this Irish Corporation Bill, and to have
satisfied themselves with making those amendments which he strove
for without success in the House of Commons, and no more. As it
is, he wholly disapproves of the course they have taken, and so I
believe did the Duke of Wellington in the beginning of the
discussions, but Lyndhurst took the lead with the violent party,
overruled the Duke, neglected Peel, and dealt with the Bill in the
slashing manner we have seen.


I was talking to Lord John Russell yesterday at Court on this
subject, and he said that he had no doubt Peel highly disapproved
of their proceedings, and that it was evident he did not pretend
to guide them; for one day in the House of Commons he went over to
Peel, and said that he meant to recommit (or some such thing, no
matter what the particular course was) the Bill that night, and he
supposed he would not object. Peel said, 'Oh, no, I don't object,'
and as he was going away Peel called him back and said, 'Remember
I speak only for myself; I can answer for no other individual in
the House.' He went out of town about a fortnight ago, has never
returned, and will not; his own friends think he ought, but it is
evident that he prefers to wash his hands of the matter. He knows
well enough that the Conservatives hate him in their hearts;
besides having never cordially forgiven him for his conduct on the
Catholic question, they are indignant at his Liberal views and
opinions, and when they adopted him as their leader it was in the
fond hope that he would restore the good old days of Tory
Government, than which nothing could be farther from his thoughts.
John Russell said of him yesterday 'that he was, in fact, a great
lover of changes and innovations;' and so he is. It often occurs
to me that he would not care very much if the House of Lords did
go to the wall, and that though he is the acknowledged head of the
Conservative party, he doesn't in his heart care much for
Conservative principles. He may possibly calculate that no change
can take place in this country by which property will be menaced;
that personally he is safe, and politically his vast superiority
in all the requisites for public life must, under all possible
circumstances, make him the most eminent performer on the great
stage. I do not know that he has any such thoughts as these, but
it appears to me far from improbable, and the more so from his
keeping aloof at this moment and abstaining (as far as we know)
from any attempt to restrain the indiscretion and impetuosity of
his party.


But if on the one hand the conduct of the Tories with respect to
the Corporation Bill has been violent and rash, that of the
Government with respect to the Tithe Bill has been unspeakably
wicked. I cannot recollect an instance of so complete a sacrifice
of the interests of others, of their own principles, and of
national tranquillity to mere party objects, and the more I
reflect upon the course they have taken the more profligate and
disgraceful it appears. These Ministers have recorded their
opinion that the question of appropriation ought not to be mixed
up with that of commutation; that they are essentially distinct,
and ought to remain so. At the beginning of this session the
united Whigs and Radicals considered only one thing--how to drive
Peel out, and though they had a choice of means to accomplish this
end, the famous resolution about appropriation was the one which
they finally selected for the purpose. In so doing they were
altogether regardless of future consequences,[1] and never stopped
to calculate what would be the effect of saddling the measure of
relief (in which all parties concurred) with this impossible
condition. Now how stands the case? They declare that Ireland (as
all the world knows) is a scene of disorder and bloodshed, of
which the Tithe system is the principal cause, and that the Tithe
Bill will afford an effectual remedy to the evil. It is therefore
their imperative and paramount duty, as it ought to be their
earnest and engrossing desire, to secure the application of their
remedy, and, whether in office or out of office (with the
expectation and intention of coming in), to take care that nothing
should be mixed up with it by which it can be endangered, and that
it should be proposed merely for what it is, and not made
subservient to any object but that for which it has been
professedly framed. Having committed the first error of employing
this resolution to drive out the Government, they then considered
themselves obliged to adopt it as an integral part of the Bill,
and accordingly they did so, with a full knowledge that by so
doing they should ensure the rejection of the Bill itself and that
Ireland would continue in the same state of anarchy and confusion,
only aggravated by the furious contests of parties here and by the
failure of all schemes of remedial legislation. Nothing can be
more certain than this, that if the state of Ireland had been
taken into consideration with the simple, straightforward view of
tranquillising the country, and that no party object had been
mixed up with it, the framers of the Tithe Bill would sedulously
have avoided introducing the appropriation clause; but during the
great battle with Peel the establishment of this principle (not
only the principle of _appropriation_, but that _no relief_ should
be afforded without its recognition) was made the condition of
Radical support and the bond of Radical connection, and having as
the result of this compact pledged the House of Commons to the
principle, they refuse to retrace their steps, and offer the House
of Lords the alternative of its recognition (knowing that they
cannot in sincerity, honour, or conscience recognise it) or that
of an irreparable injury to the Irish Church, which it is the
grand object of the Lords to uphold. But the question must not be
considered as one merely affecting the interests of the clergy of
Ireland. If that were all, there might be no such great harm in
these proceedings. Entertaining very strong (and as I think very
sound) opinions with respect to the expediency of dealing with its
revenues, and for purposes ultimately to be effected which they
cannot yet venture to avow, they might be justified, or think
themselves justified, in coping with the difficulties which
embarrass this question in the best mode that is open to them, and
deem it better that the Irish clergy should suffer the temporary
privations they undergo than that the final settlement of the
ecclesiastical question should be indefinitely postponed. But they
do not pretend to be actuated by any such considerations; their
declared object is to restore peace to Ireland, to terminate the
Tithe quarrel, to raise the Protestant clergy from their fallen
state, and to assert the authority of the law by taking away the
inducements which now exist for setting the law at defiance. Those
who undertake to govern the country are above all things bound to
see that the laws are obeyed, and they do not deserve the name of
a Government if they submit to, much less if they connive at, a
permanent state of anarchy in any part of the country. They know
that the law in Ireland is a dead letter, that neither to statute
nor common law do the lower orders of Irish Catholics (the bulk of
the nation) pay the slightest obedience, and that they are
countenanced and urged on in their disobedience by those agitators
with whom the Government act in political fellowship, and in
deference to whom their measures have been shaped. Granting that
after the adoption of the resolution by the House of Commons they
were bound to insert it in their Bill, what justification is there
for their refusal to receive the Bill back from the Lords with no
other alteration than the omission of the appropriation clause? In
so refusing they destroy their own measure; they publish to the
world that it is the principle of appropriation, and not the Tithe
composition, that they really care for; and in thus strangling
their own Bill, because they cannot tack that principle on to it,
they make themselves accomplices of the outrages and violence
which are perpetrated in the Tithe warfare, and abettors of the
regular and systematic violation of the law. The King's Government
exhibits itself in a conspiracy with Catholic agitators and
Protestant republicans against the clergy of the Established
Church and against the laws of the land. If they are sincere in
their own statements and declarations they must of necessity deem
no object commensurate with this in point of urgency and
importance; and what is the object to which this is postponed?
That of maintaining their own consistency; because they turned the
late Government out on this question they must now adhere to it
with desperate tenacity; their interests as a party demand that
they should; O'Connell and the Radicals will not forgive them if
they give it up. They might if they would declare their unchanged
opinion in favour of the principle of appropriation, and their
determination to press the adoption of it at all times and by all
means, and never to desist till they had accomplished its
recognition, but at the same time announce that the perilous state
of Ireland--the magnitude of the evil resulting from the Tithe
system--would not allow them to reject the Tithe Bill though
denuded of the appropriation clauses, as all the rest of its
provisions (all those by which the Tithe system was to be
determined) had been passed by the Lords. I cannot conceive how a
conscientious Minister can take upon himself the responsibility of
quashing this measure, and contentedly look forward to the
probability--almost certainty--of a fresh course of outrage and
disorder, and a new catalogue of miseries and privations, which he
all the time believes it is in his power to avert. But these
Ministers think that they could not avert these evils (by
accepting the Bill) without giving umbrage to their task-masters
and allies, and they do not scruple to sacrifice the mighty
interests at stake in Ireland to the paltry and ephemeral
interests of their party--interests which cannot outlive the
present hour and party, which the slightest change in the
political atmosphere may sweep away in an instant. There is also
another reason by which they are determined; they cannot face the
accusation of inconsistency--the question that would be put, Why
did you turn out Peel's Government? You turned him out on this
very principle which you are now ready to abandon. There is no
doubt that this question would be put with a very triumphant air
by their opponents, but they might easily answer it, without
admitting in so many words--what everybody well knows without any
admission--that the resolution was brought forward for the express
purpose of turning Peel out. They might say that they moved that
resolution because it is a principle that they wished to
establish, and that they still think ought to be established; that
Peel's resignation on that particular question was of his own
choice, and that if they are not irrevocably bound by the
resolution itself, they are not the more bound by that circumstance;
that they sent the Bill to the House of Lords in what they
consider the best form, but that after the Lords had agreed to the
whole measure, with the exception of the appropriation clauses, it
was their duty to take the matter again into their serious
consideration, and to determine whether it was on the whole more
advantageous to Ireland and to the Empire that the Bill should be
rejected (with all the consequences of its rejection apparent) or
that it should be passed without these clauses. There was no
necessity for their abandonment of any opinion or principle, nor
any obstacle to the appropriation clauses being brought forward
again and again in a substantive independent shape. Besides this,
it is not pretended that these clauses were to produce any
immediate perhaps not even any remote, effect, and they not only
acknowledge that the state of Ireland calls for an immediate
remedy, but they assert that unless the remedy is applied without
loss of time it will come too late; that the Tithe Bill, which
this year would accomplish its object, will in all probability
next year be wholly inoperative. To my mind this reasoning is so
conclusive that I can come to no other than the harsh judgment
which I have passed upon their conduct, and I think I have made
good my charges against both Whigs and Tories.

      [1] The Whigs were not, probably, the Radicals. O'Connell,
          without doubt, had very good reasons for pinning the
          Government to this, and foresaw all the consequences of
          the compact by which he bound them.

August 29th, 1835 {p.303}


The House of Lords has become a beargarden since Brougham has
been in it; there is no night that is not distinguished by some
violent squabble between him and the Tories. Lord Winchelsea
directly accused him of cowardice the night before last, to which
he replied, 'As to my being _afraid_ to say elsewhere what I say
here, oh, that is too absurd to require an answer.' It is
nevertheless true. Melbourne does very well; his memory served
him happily on this night. Brougham had lashed the Lords into a
fury by calling them a _mob_, and Melbourne quoted Lord
Chesterfield, who said that _all_ deliberative assemblies were
_mobs_. The other day Lord Howick was inveighing passionately
against the Lords for their mutilations of the Corporation Bill,
when Melbourne said, with his characteristic _nonchalance_, 'Why,
what does it matter? We have gone on tolerably well for 500 years
with these corporations, and we may contrive to go on with them
for another year or so.'

On the King's birthday his Majesty had Lord Lansdowne and Lord
Melbourne to dine with him at Windsor, and he made some
extraordinary speeches, of which various versions are about the
town. By-the-bye, I was turning over the 'Annual Register' the
other day, and hit upon his speech last year to the bishops, and
I was astonished at the eloquence of it. It is said that
Phillpotts composed it for him, but there are some internal marks
of its emanating from himself. It is certainly remarkably good of
the kind, and I think it more probable that he spoke what he
thought and felt, and that Phillpotts reported it and made the
best of it.

September 1st, 1835 {p.303}

Lord John Russell assembled his Whigs and Radicals at the Foreign
Office yesterday morning, and announced to them the course he
proposed to adopt with regard to the Corporation Bill, the
amendments he would accept, those he would modify, and those he
would decline. Hume made a violent speech, deprecating any
concessions, but O'Connell made a very moderate one, recommending
a compromise, and saying that great alarm prevailed among many
well-meaning and conscientious persons lest Reform should proceed
too far; that it was highly expedient to quiet these apprehensions,
and upon every account therefore he recommended a moderate and
conciliatory course. There were between two and three hundred
present at this meeting. Accordingly in the afternoon John Russell
stated over again in the House of Commons pretty much what he had
said in the morning, and made a very temperate and conciliatory
speech. Peel, who had arrived suddenly and unexpectedly in
town,[2] rose after him, and, as everybody said (some with joy,
others with rage), 'threw over the Lords.' He declared his
concurrence in those amendments which John Russell agreed to, and
his acquiescence in most of the other provisions without the
amendments of the Lords; to the aldermen for life he objected, and
to some other particulars, as his speech shows. The only amendment
to which he subscribed (and that was objected to by Government)
was the exclusion of Dissenters from the disposal of Church
patronage, and I was very much surprised to hear him stand out for
this upon (as I think) very insufficient grounds. Nothing could
exceed the dismay and the rage (though suppressed) of the
Conservatives at his speech. He was not a bit cheered by those
behind him, but very heartily by those opposite. One silly, noisy
fellow, whose principal vocation in the House of Commons is to
bellow, came near me under the gallery, and I asked him why they
did not cheer, when he sulkily answered, 'he was so well cheered
by the other side that it was not necessary.' Lord Harrowby was
under the gallery. I asked him what he said to Peel's speech. 'I
did not hear it,' he tartly replied, 'but he seems to have given
up the aldermen. I have a great affection for the aldermen.' At
the 'Travellers' I met Strangford, and asked him the same
question. He said, 'I say, Not content.' 'But,' said I, 'you must
take the Bill.' 'Not I, for one; the Lords cannot take it, and if
we are to be ruined I think we had better be ruined by real
Radicals than by sham Tories.' Afterwards I saw Lord Londonderry,
who talked in the same strain, not denying that the Duke of
Wellington had unwillingly come into the measures which Lyndhurst
had adopted, but talking of Lyndhurst's Conservative scruples as a
constitutional lawyer, and such stuff as this. The manner in which
the Duke has been ousted from the leadership, and the alacrity
with which the Lords have followed Lyndhurst, because he led them
into violent courses, is not the least curious part of this
business. (It seems they only meant to make Lyndhurst their leader
_pro hac vice_.)

      [2] Peel gave no notice of his intention to come to town.
          Hardinge, who is more intimate with him than most of
          his political associates, was so sure he would not come
          that he told Bradshaw, who asked him, that he certainly
          would not be here, and that he (Bradshaw) might go into
          the country when he pleased.


Bingham Baring and I walked away together, and I went with him to
Lord Ashburton's house, who was not a little astonished at what we
told him, and asserted that Peel was quite wrong about the
aldermen. The violent Whigs were rather provoked at the turn
things took, and Howick, whom I saw under the gallery, said with
great bitterness (mixed with pleasure at Peel's abandonment of the
Lords) that he, for one, 'only consented to these alterations,
which made the Bill so much worse, with a view to obtain future
compensation, and _with interest_.' The English Radicals were very
indignant, and Hume, Grote, and Roebuck spoke one after another
against the Government concessions, but there was no disposition
to listen to them, and an evident satisfaction at the prospect of
an amicable termination of the rising dispute. Nobody apprehends
any other termination, for though the Lords will bluster, and
fume, and fret, and there will be no small fermentation of
mortified pride and vanity, there must be some difference of
opinion at least, and the Duke of Wellington is quite sure to
exert his influence to bring the majority to adopt Peel's views.
It has always been considered by the Tories an object of paramount
importance to keep their party together (this was the pretext of
Wharncliffe and Harrowby for joining in that fatal postponement of
Schedule A), and if after Peel's speech they were to refuse to
accept the fair compromise which is tendered to them, it is
impossible to suppose that he would consider himself as belonging
to them, or that they could pretend to acknowledge him as their
leader, and the Tory party would by this schism be effectually
broken up.

I have long considered the breaking up of the Tory party as a
grand desideratum, and though I earnestly desire to see a powerful
Conservative party in the country and in Parliament, it must be
one reconstructed out of materials more various and more Liberal
than that which now calls itself Conservative, but which in its
heart clings to the narrow notions and loves the exclusive system
of bygone days. The dissolution of the Tory party in the House of
Lords, by a division of them into a high and a low section, would
in itself be a reform of that House, and it is to such a
dissolution and fresh modification of parties that we must look
for a reform, which without any violent change will redress the
balance and enable the machine of government to move without
obstruction. I sat next to Senior in the House of Lords, and he
was talking of the necessity of a reform of the House of Peers,
and he said, 'I can see the steps of it very plainly.' 'What, by
making Peers for life, as you suggest in your pamphlet?' 'No, it
is too late for that now, but by the election of representatives.
When Scotland was united she sent representative Peers elected
from the body; Ireland the same. Now fifty years of Tory rule have
given such a preponderance to the Tory interest in the House of
Lords, that the balance cannot be redressed but by a creation
which would make the House of Peers too numerous for a legislative
assembly. I would therefore begin by creating, in order to
equalise the strength of the opposite parties, and then the Peers
should elect representatives.' I said, 'All this will be
unnecessary, for the Tory party will be broken up, and without a
change so startling and extensive the balance will be quietly
redressed, and in the natural order of things.' The Duc de Nemours
was under the gallery in the House of Commons, but he soon went
away, and in the middle of Peel's speech.

September 3rd, 1835 {p.306}


Nothing could be better than the temper and disposition of the
House on Tuesday night, as well as on Monday, nothing more
flattering to Peel. John Russell said 'he was anxious that the
clause (I forget which) should go forth with the sanction of the
right honourable baronet's approbation.' Peel said he spoke only
for himself; Lord John said that made no difference, indicating in
fact that his opinion was worth more than those of all his
followers put together. The Lords in the meantime are tremendously
sulky, and though it is impossible to believe they will have the
frantic folly to refuse the accommodation that by God's mercy is
offered to them, it is not quite safe, and they are now in grand
conclave at Apsley House to determine upon their course. Lord
Lansdowne told me at Court yesterday that the day before he went
up to Lyndhurst in the House of Lords, to speak to him about some
Bill, when Lyndhurst said, 'I was in hopes you were coming to
speak to me about the amendments.' 'No; it will be time enough to
talk about them when they are again before the House.' 'Well, and
what do they say now?' 'They say that the lives of your aldermen
are not at a premium.' 'Do they? But they will rise in the market
to-morrow, I can tell you.' What satisfies me most in all this is
the conduct of the Government, and even that of many of the
Radicals--of Hume, for instance--and the general temper and
disposition evinced by the House, symptomatic of a more healthy
feeling than I ever expected to see displayed. In the division the
Radical numbers were contemptible, showing that the Conservative
interest, if not broken up by party divisions, and if ever it was
roused and connected by the acknowledgment of a common danger,
would crush the Radical force in an instant. These are valuable
manifestations, and worth a hundred clauses in the Corporation
Bill; for what matters it whether aldermen and town clerks are
perpetuated or suppressed? and it really is grotesque to fight for
these puerilities as if it was a contest _pro aris et focis_, and
to hesitate one instant whether a collision should be provoked
between the two Houses of Parliament, and the advantages both
direct and collateral flowing from Peel's mediation be thrown
away, for the sake of maintaining these secondary and questionable

September 6th, 1835 {p.307}

On Thursday there was a great meeting at Apsley House; eighty
Peers present, and four hours' deliberation. They kept their
resolutions a profound secret, but as I knew what they were on
Friday morning, I went to Melbourne and told him, in order that
the Government might be prepared, and turn over in their minds
how matters might be accommodated. The Tories adhered to the
justices and wards, and abandoned the rest. I found Melbourne and
Lord John together; the latter said there would be no difficulty
about the justices, but the amendment about the wards was


The debate at night was carried on with extraordinary temper and
calmness; Brougham complimented Lyndhurst in very glowing terms.
The matter now stands over till Monday, when the Commons must
determine whether to accept the Bill with these alterations or
reject it on account of them. There is great division of opinion
as to the result, but I cannot bring myself to believe that they
will let the Bill drop for such trifles. I asked Wharncliffe last
night to explain to me in what manner these things would operate
_politically_, and he owned that he thought their political
importance was greatly overrated, but that the division proposed
by Government gave greater influence to numbers, while that
substituted by the Peers gave more to property, and that the
constitution of the town councils, whether they were more or less
Radical or Conservative, would have a political effect in this
way; that in every borough little democracies would be established,
which would be continually exercising a democratic influence and
extending democratic principles, and that the greater the infusion
of Conservative interest you could make in these new bodies the
more that tendency would be counteracted. In my opinion a fallacy
lurks under this argument; they assume the certain democratic,
even revolutionary, character of the new town councils without any
sufficient reason, but if this be so, and if they are correct in
their anticipations, I doubt whether the guards and drawbacks with
which they are endeavouring to counteract the pernicious influence
they dread will be found efficacious. I do not despair of the
prevalence of sound Conservative principles _upon a Liberal
basis_, and it appears to me that the Peers have committed a great
blunder in expressing such violent suspicion and distrust of the
new corporations; that nothing is so likely to make them Radical
as to insist that they must and will be so, or to render them
inimical to the aristocracy and to aristocratic institutions as to
exhibit a violent hostility on the part of the aristocracy towards
them. I apply this observation generally to their way of dealing
with the question rather than to the particular words of the
disputed clause, which is probably on the whole fairer and better
as the Peers amended it than as the Commons framed it, so much so
that I do not understand the tenacity with which the Government
cling to it. One thing is very clear, that neither for this nor
for the justices clause is it worth while (to either party) that
the prevailing harmony should be broken and the Bill be lost. If
both parties were sincerely desirous of an accommodation, and
there was any common interest, any common ground on which they
could meet, there would be no difficulty in an adjustment; but
this is not the case. Not only are the interests and wishes of the
two parties at variance, but the desires of the moderate and the
violent in each party are so too. The moderate in both probably do
wish for an accommodation. The Bill is the Bill of the Whigs, and
with all the amendments it does in point of fact accomplish their
object, though not, as Lyndhurst said, so completely as without
them. They wish the Bill to pass, therefore, but the Tories detest
the Bill even as it is, and it is no concern of theirs _quoad
Bill_ that it should pass; on the contrary, they would rejoice at
its failure, but its failure would place the two Houses in a state
of collision, and though each party would throw the blame on the
other (on very plausible grounds either way), it is more the
interest of the Lords than of the Commons to avert this, because
the danger of collision attaches exclusively to the Lords. The
violent of the Commons would rather like it; the violent of the
Lords would doggedly encounter it. There are many who desire that
the dispute should not be settled, in order to push matters to
extremities and involve the Houses in a contest, in order to
extirpate the House of Lords. What renders it more desirable on
account of the Lords that the Bill should not be lost, and a cry
got up against them, is the circumstance of their having thrown
out so many other Bills, and some on very unjustifiable
grounds--the Dublin Police Bill, for example. Not a word was said
against its merits; on the contrary, it was not denied that the
case was urgent, and it was only thrown out because the Lord Mayor
and Corporation of Dublin had not been consulted. Now it might
have been very proper to consult these functionaries; it may even
be a culpable omission to have neglected them; but this is not a
time, nor is the House of Lords in circumstances, to be so
fastidious and to stickle for such formalities. Their character
with the nation is at stake, and it is of far greater consequence
that they should do nothing calculated to throw suspicion on their
motives, or odium on their proceedings, than to provide for a
punctilious observance of respect and deference to the Dublin
Corporation. They seem to me to have made a great mistake in
throwing out this Bill, and I am much deceived if they do not hear
more of it hereafter.

September 8th, 1835 {p.310}

Lord John called another meeting at the Foreign Office yesterday
morning, when he proposed, and they agreed to take the Lords'
amendments and finish the business; so this famous Corporation
Bill has got through at last. O'Connell and Warburton concurred
in accepting it. The only man who violently opposed its being
accepted was Tom Duncombe, who made a furious harangue, and
boldly asserted that _he knew_ to a positive certainty that if
the Commons would hold out the Peers would abandon the justices
and wards, and he offered _privately_ to give John Russell a list
of Peers sufficient to carry this, and who, he would answer for
it, were ready to make the concession. Lord John, however, was
too wise to listen to such impudent nonsense, and, though very
reluctantly, it was settled that the Commons should give way.
Both parties probably overrate the value of the disputed clauses,
and it is to be regretted that the two Houses will not part
_amicably_. Government takes the Bill under a sort of engagement
to consider it as an instalment, and that they shall try and get
the difference next year. This is mere humbug, and a poor sop
thrown to the Radicals, but as it answers the immediate purpose
it is very well.

September 9th, 1835 {p.311}


To-day at Court, when his Majesty made one of his most
extraordinary harangues, and much more lengthy than usual. It was
evidently got up with great care and previous determination. The
last article on the Council list was one for the reduction of the
militia, and it was upon this that he descanted with great
vehemence. He gave a historical account of the militia from the
year 1756, when he said it was increased against the inclination
of George II., who was not so well acquainted with the country as
his successors have been, 'when there was a Whig Administration,
as there is now.' He declared his conviction that the safety of
the country demanded a numerous and effective militia, that
nothing should have induced him to consent to the present
reduction but the necessity of making some changes which had
become indispensable owing to the culpable conduct of colonels of
the militia who had neglected their duty, but whose names he
would not expose; that agitators in Ireland and political
economists here wished to reduce this force, in order, under the
pretext of economy, to leave the country defenceless; but he
never would consent to this, and only agreed to the present
measure upon a clear understanding that early in the next session
the matter was to be brought forward in Parliament with a view to
render the militia more efficient; that nothing but the militia
justified the smallness of our military establishments as
compared with those of other nations; and he finished by saying
that the state of our relations with Russia made the maintenance
of this force of paramount importance, as it was impossible to
say what dangers we might not be menaced with from that quarter,
or how soon we might be called upon to face them, and that the
advisers of the Crown would incur a deep responsibility if any
mischief arose from the undue reduction of this force. He ended a
very long speech (of which I can only put down an outline) with
this strange denunciation against Russia, and then said, 'One
word more. I have spoken thus in the presence of many Lords who
are connected with the militia, either immediately or through
their friends, because I wish that my sentiments should be
thoroughly and extensively promulgated.' This is a very brief
outline of his oration, which was delivered with great energy.

At the levee I had some talk with Hobhouse, who expressed himself
well satisfied with the termination of the Corporation contest;
he said that the King was delighted, and added (in which I think
he flatters himself) that he was in high good-humour in
consequence, and that though he disliked them politically, he
liked them very well personally, and that if the Irish Church
question could be arranged, he would be quite content with them,
and they should be excellent friends.

Lord Howick, who is the bitterest of all that party, and
expresses himself with astonishing acrimony, talked in his usual
strain, and I could not refrain from giving him a bit of my mind.
He talked of 'the Lords having played their last trump,' of 'the
impossibility of their going on, of the hostility towards them in
the country, and the manner in which suggestions of reforming the
House of Lords were received in the House of Commons,' and
expressed his conviction that 'that House as an institution was
in imminent danger.' I told him I did not believe that such
sentiments pervaded the country, that I had not yet seen
sufficient evidence of it, and asked if such a spirit really was
in activity, did he not think he was bound to set about resisting
and counteracting it? He talked of 'its not being resistible;' he
said that 'the Lords must give way or a collision would be the
consequence,' and 'he knew who would go to the wall.' I said that
'it was such sentiments as those, uttered by such men as himself,
which most contributed to create the danger the existence of
which he deplored.' To this he made no answer; but who can feel
secure when a Minister of the Crown, in the palace of the King,
within three yards of his person, while he is there present
exercising the functions of royalty, holds language the most
revolutionary, and such as might more naturally be uttered at
some low meeting in St. Giles's or St. Pancras' than in such a
place? In spite of my disposition to be sanguine, it is
impossible to shake off all alarm when I hear the opinions of men
of different parties (opinions founded on different data and
biassed by opposite wishes) meeting at the same point, and
arriving by different roads at the same conclusion.


Lyndhurst (who called on me the day before yesterday about some
business) talked over the Corporation Bill, which he considers to
be nearly as important as the Reform Bill. He says it must give
them all the corporate boroughs, for he assumes as an undoubted
fact that the new councils will be Radical, and that their
influence will radicalise the boroughs. He said there was no
chance of the House of Lords surviving ten years, that power must
reside in the House of Commons, as it always had, and that the
House of Commons would not endure the independent authority of
the other House; so that Howick and Lyndhurst are not far apart
in their calculations. It is certainly true, what Lyndhurst said
to me the other day in George Street, that 'they know the Bill
accomplishes their purpose.' Melbourne said to me at Court that
'it was a great _bouleversement_, a great experiment, and we must
see how it worked.' I met him in St. James's Park afterwards, and
walked with him to the Palace. He told me the King was in a state
of great excitement, especially about this militia question, but
that the thing which affected him most was the conduct of the
Duchess of Kent--her popularity-hunting, her progresses, and
above all the addresses which she received and replied to. He
told me what the King had said at dinner on his birthday about
her. 'I cannot expect to live very long, but I hope that my
successor may be of full age when she mounts the throne. I have
great respect for the person upon whom, in the event of my death,
the Regency would devolve, but I have great distrust of the
persons by whom she is surrounded. I know that everything which
falls from my lips is reported again, and I say this thus
candidly and publicly because it is my desire and intention that
these my sentiments should be made known.' Melbourne told me that
he believed Lord Durham is not in favour with the Duchess of
Kent, who has discovered that he had made use of her for his own
ends, and she has now withdrawn her confidence from him. I asked
him who her confidants were, but he either did not know or would
not tell me.

Doncaster, September 15th, 1835 {p.314}

Left London on Saturday morning with Matuscewitz; I had a good
deal of conversation with him about the state and prospects of
this country, in the course of which he told me that Louis
Philippe had consulted Talleyrand about the maintenance of his
intimate connection with England, and that Talleyrand had
replied, 'When you came to the throne four years ago, I advised
you to cultivate your relations with England as the best security
you could obtain. I now advise you to relinquish that connection,
for in the present state of English politics it can only be
productive of danger or embarrassment to you.' Having omitted to
put it down at the time, I can't recollect the exact words, but
this was the sense, and _I think_ Matuscewitz said that Louis
Philippe had told him this himself.


We dined at Burghley on the way, and got here at two on Sunday;
read Mackintosh's Life in the carriage, which made me dreadfully
disgusted with my racing _métier_. What a life as compared with
mine!--passed among great and wise men, and intent on high
thoughts and honourable aspirations, existing amidst interests
far more pungent even than those which engage me, and of the
futility of which I am for ever reminded. I am struck with the
coincidence of the tastes and dispositions of Burke and
Mackintosh, and of something in the mind of the one which bears
an affinity to that of the other; but their characters--how
different! their abilities--how unequal! yet both, how superior,
even the weakest of the two, to almost all other men, and the
success of each so little corresponding with his powers, neither
having ever attained any object of ambition beyond that of fame.
All their talents, therefore, and all their requirements, did not
procure them content, and probably Burke was a very unhappy, and
Mackintosh not a very happy, man. The suavity, the indolent
temperament, the 'mitis sapientia' of Mackintosh may have warded
off sorrow and mitigated disappointment, but the stern and
vindictive energies of Burke must have kept up a storm of
conflicting passions in his breast. But I turn from Mackintosh
and Burke to all that is vilest and foolishest on earth, and
among such I now pass my unprofitable hours. There seems to me
less gaiety and bustle here than formerly, but as much villany as
ever. From want of money or of enterprise, or from greater
distrust and a paucity of spectators, there is very little
betting, and what there is, spiritless and dull. There are vast
crowds of people to see the Princess Victoria, who comes over
from Wentworth to-day, and the Due de Nemours is here. I am going
to run for the St. Leger, which I shall probably not win, and
though I am nervous and excited, I shall not care much if I lose,
and I doubt whether I should care very much if I won; but this
latter sensation will probably be for ever doubtful. There is
something in it all which displeases me, and I often wish I was
well out of it.

Burghley, September 21st, 1835 {p.315}

I did lose the St. Leger, and did not care; idled on at Doncaster
to the end of the week, and came here on Saturday to meet the
Duchess of Kent. They arrived from Belvoir at three o'clock in a
heavy rain, the civic authorities having turned out at Stamford
to escort them, and a procession of different people all very
loyal. When they had lunched, and the Mayor and his brethren had
got dry, the Duchess received the address, which was read by Lord
Exeter as Recorder. It talked of the Princess as 'destined to
mount the throne of these realms.' Conroy handed the answer, just
as the Prime Minister does to the King. They are splendidly
lodged, and great preparations have been made for their

London, September 27th, 1835 {p.315}

The dinner at Burghley was very handsome; hall well lit; and all
went off well, except that a pail of ice was landed in the
Duchess's lap, which made a great bustle. Three hundred people at
the ball, which was opened by Lord Exeter and the Princess, who,
after dancing one dance, went to bed. They appeared at breakfast
the next morning at nine o'clock, and at ten set off to Holkham.
Went to Newmarket on Tuesday and came to town on Wednesday; found
it very empty and no news. Lord Chatham died the day before
yesterday, which is of no other importance than that of giving
some honours and emoluments to Melbourne to distribute.

The papers are full of nothing but O'Connell's progress in
Scotland, where he is received with unbounded enthusiasm by
enormous crowds, but by no people of rank, property, or
character. It is a rabble triumph altogether, but it is made the
most of by all the Ministerial papers. The Opposition papers pour
torrents of invective upon him, and he in his speeches is not
behindhand with the most virulent and scurrilous of them; he is
exalted to the bad eminence at which he has arrived more by the
assaults of his enemies than by the efforts of his friends. It is
the Tories who are ever insisting upon the immensity of his
power, and whose excess of hatred and fear make him of such vast
account that 'he draws the rabble after him as a monster makes a
show.' However mean may be his audiences in Scotland, he has
numbers to boast of, and that will serve his purpose; he will no
doubt render this reception instrumental to the increase of his
authority in Ireland. He now avows that he has abandoned Repeal,
and all other projects, in order to devote himself to the great
task of reforming the House of Lords.


I have finished Mackintosh's Life with great delight, and many
painful sensations, together with wonder and amazement. His
account of his reading is utterly incomprehensible to me; he must
have been endowed with some superhuman faculty of transferring the
contents of books to his own mind. He talks in his journals of
reading volumes in a few hours which would seem to demand many
days even from the most rapid reader. I have heard of Southey, who
would read a book through as he stood in a bookseller's shop; that
is, his eye would glance down the page, and by a process partly
mechanical, partly intellectual, formed by long habit, he would
extract in his synoptical passage all that he required to know.
(Macaulay was, and George Lewis is, just as wonderful in this
respect.) Some of the books that Mackintosh talks of, philosophical
and metaphysical works, could not be so disposed of, and I should
like much to know what his system or his secret was. I met Sydney
Smith yesterday, and asked him why more of the journals had not
been given. He said because the editors had been ill advised, but
that in another edition more should be given; that Mackintosh was
the most agreeable man he had ever known, that he had been
shamefully used by his friends, and by none more than by Brougham.
So, I said, it would appear by what you say in your letter. 'Oh
no,' he said, laughing and chuckling, and shaking his great belly,
'you don't really think I meant to allude to Brougham?'
'Mackintosh's son,' he said 'is a man of no talents, the
composition (what there is of it) belongs to Erskine, his
son-in-law, a sensible man.' To be sure there are some strange
things said by Mackintosh here and there; among others, that Lord
Holland only wanted voice--not to be impeded in his utterance--to
be a greater orator than Canning or Brougham! If he had not been a
man 'whom no sense of wrongs could rouse to vengeance,' he would
have flung the India Board in Lord Grey's face when he was
insulted with the offer of it.[3] What are we to think of the
necessary connection between intellectual superiority and official
eminence, when we have seen the Duke of Richmond invited to be a
member of the Cabinet, while Mackintosh was thrust into an obscure
and subordinate office--Mackintosh placed under the orders of
Charles Grant! Well might he regret that he had not been a
professor, and, 'with safer pride content,' adorned with unusual
glory some academical chair. Then while he was instructing and
delighting the world, there would have been many regrets and
lamentations that such mighty talents were confined to such a
narrow sphere, and innumerable speculations of the greatness he
would have achieved in political life, and how the irresistible
force of his genius and his eloquence must have raised him to the
pinnacle of Parliamentary fame and political power. Perhaps he
would have partaken in this delusion, and have bitterly lamented
the success which had deprived him of a more brilliant fortune and
a loftier fame; for it may reasonably be doubted whether all his
laborious investigations of the deepest recesses of the human
mind, and his extensive acquaintance with the theory of mental
phenomena, would have enabled him accurately to ascertain the
practical capabilities of his own mind, and to arrive at those
just conclusions which should indicate to him that path of life on
which it was most expedient for him to travel, with reference to
the strength of his understanding, and the softness, not to say
feebleness, of his character.

      [3] Sir James Mackintosh was a member of the Board of
          Control under Lord Grey's Government. He never held any
          other office in England.

                           CHAPTER XXX.

Emperor Nicholas's Speech at Warsaw--His respect for opinion in
  England--Burdett proposes the expulsion of O'Connell from
  Brookes's--Club law--George Villiers at Madrid--Lord Segrave
  Lord-Lieutenant of Gloucestershire--Dispute between France and
  America--Allen's account of Mackintosh and Melbourne--
  Prolongation of a Patent--Should Dr. Arnold be made a Bishop?--
  Frederic Elliot--O'Connell's mischievous influence--Bretby--
  Chesterfield MSS.--The Portfolio--Lord Cottenham and Lord
  Langdale--Opening of Parliament--The Judicial Committee--
  Poulett Thomson at the Board of Trade--Mr. Perceval's
  interviews with the Ministers--Prospects of the Tories--Lord
  Stanley's relations to them--Holland House Anecdotes--
  Mischievous Effects of the division on his Address--The youth
  of Macaulay--Brougham and Macaulay--Lord William Bentinck--
  Review of Sir R. Peel's conduct--Dr. Hampden's appointment--The
  Orange Lodges.

November 17th, 1835 {p.319}

Since I have been in London, on my return from the Newmarket
meetings, I have had nothing to note. The O'Connell and Raphael
wrangle goes on, and will probably come before Parliament. It
appears to make a greater sensation at Paris than here; there,
however, all other sensations are absorbed in that which the
Emperor of Russia's speech at Warsaw has produced, and which
indicates an excitement, or ferocity, very like insanity.[1]
Melbourne mentioned at dinner on Sunday that it was not only
quite correctly reported--rather _under_stated--but that after
he had so delivered himself, he met the English Consul in the
street, took him by the arm, walked about with him for an hour,
and begged him not to be _too hard_ upon him in his report to his
Government. I was not present, but Henry de Ros was, who told it
me. I am thus particular from, as it seems to me, the exceeding
curiosity of the anecdote, evincing on the part of the autocrat,
in the midst of the insolence of unbridled power, a sort of
consciousness of responsibility to European opinion, and a
deferential dread of that of England in particular.

      [1] [This was the first time the Emperor Nicholas had
          visited Poland since the Revolution of 1830, and he
          took the opportunity to express himself in language of
          excessive severity to the municipality of Warsaw,
          threatening to lay the city in ruins if the Poles
          rebelled again.]

November 22nd, 1835 {p.320}

My brother Algy showed me a few days ago a letter from the Duke
of Wellington to the Duke of Cumberland--a gossiping letter about
nothing, but in which there was this which struck me as odd. He
said that he was informed that the English who had been to the
reviews at Kalisch had been very ill received, and that even
those to whom _he_ had given letters of introduction had
experienced nothing but incivility, and that he regretted having
had the presumption to imagine that any recommendation of his
would be attended to by the Sovereigns or their Ministers--a
curious exhibition of pique, for what I believe to be an
imaginary incivility. It is a strange thing that he is very
sensitive, and yet has no strong feelings; but this is after all
only one of the forms of selfishness.

[Page Head: SOCIAL LAW.]

Burdett has written a letter to the managers of Brooks's, to
propose the expulsion of O'Connell. It will do no good; these
abortive attempts do nothing towards plucking him down from his
bad eminence, and their failure gives him a triumph. So it was in
Alvanley's case; there a great deal of very proper indignation
was thrown away, and O'Connell had the satisfaction of baffling
his antagonists, and obtaining a sort of recognition of his
assumed right to act as he does. It is a case which admits of a
good argument either way. On the one side is the perilous example
of any club taking cognizance of acts of its members, private or
political, which do not concern the club, or have no local
reference to it--a principle, if once admitted, of which it would
be next to impossible to regulate and control the application,
and probably be productive of greater evils than those it would
be intended to remedy. On the other hand, the case of O'Connell
is altogether peculiar; it is such a one as can hardly ever occur
again, and therefore may be treated as deserving an exception
from ordinary rules, because it not only cannot be drawn into a
precedent, but the very circumstance of its being so treated must
prevent the possibility of its recurrence. There exists a code of
social law, which is universally subscribed to, as necessary and
indispensable for the preservation of social harmony and decorum.
One man has given public notice that he is self-emancipated from
its obligations; that he acknowledges none of the restraints, and
will submit to none of the penalties, by which the intercourse of
society is regulated and kept in order; and having thus
surrounded himself with all the immunities of irresponsibility,
'out of the reach of danger he is bold, out of the reach of shame
he is confident.' Instead of feeling that he is specially bound
to guard his language with the most scrupulous care, and to
abstain religiously from every offensive expression, he mounts
into regions of scurrility and abuse inaccessible to all other
men, and he riots in invective and insult with a scornful and
ostentatious exhibition of his invulnerability, which renders him
an object of execration to all those who cherish the principles
and the feelings of honour.

November 29th, 1835 {p.321}

There are gloomy letters from George Villiers at Madrid; he
attributes the Spanish difficulties more to the conduct of Louis
Philippe than anything else, who, he says, is playing false
diabolically. Mendizabal is very able, but ill surrounded; no
other public man of any merit. Parties are violent and individuals
foolish, mischievous, and corrupt; the country poor, depopulated,
ignorant--out of such elements what good can come? His letters (to
his mother and brothers) are very interesting, very well written,
clever, lively; he seems a little carried away by the vanity and
the excitement of the part he plays, and I observe a want of
steadiness in his opinions and a disposition to waver in his views
from day to day; whereas it does not appear to me as if the state
of Spain depended upon diurnal circumstances and events, but more
upon the workings of great causes interwoven with, and deeply
seated in, the _positive_ state of society and the moral and
political condition of the nation.

December 4th, 1835 {p.322}

A letter I wrote the other day about O'Connell appeared on
Tuesday in the 'Times.' It rather took, for the evening (Tory)
papers all copied it, and I heard it was talked of. Yesterday
there appeared an answer of O'Connell's to Burdett's letter--very
short, but very clever; and those who know Burdett say, well
calculated to mortify and annoy him. I called on Stanley
yesterday, who said that he thought the Raphael case ought to and
would be made something of in the House of Commons, and that
Spring Rice, whom he had lately seen, had told him he thought it
a clear case of bribery. Lord Segrave has got the Gloucestershire
Lieutenancy, and this appointment, disgraceful in itself,
exhibits all the most objectionable features of the old
boroughmongering system, which was supposed to be swept away. (He
turned out a good Lord-Lieutenant.) He was in London as soon as
the breath was out of the Duke of Beaufort's body, went to
Melbourne, and claimed this appointment on the score of having
three members, which was more than any other man in England now
returned. 'My brothers,' he said, 'the electors do not know by
sight; it is my influence which returns them.' The appeal was
irresistible, and 'We are three' was as imperative with Melbourne
as 'We are seven' was with the Duke of Newcastle. The scarcity of
the commodity enhances its value, and now that nominations are
swept away, the few who are still fortunate enough to possess
some remnants are great men; and Segrave's three brothers, thrown
(as they would without scruple have been) into the opposite
scale, would have nearly turned it. There is a very respectable
Whig (Lord Ducie) in the county, whom everybody pointed out as
the fittest successor to the late Duke; but he has not three
members, and if he had, he would not shake them _in terrorem_
over Melbourne's head.

December 10th and 11th, 1835 {p.322}


Our Government are in a great alarm lest this dispute between the
French and Americans should produce a war, and the way in which we
should be affected by it is this:[2]--Our immense manufacturing
population is dependent upon America for a supply of cotton, and
in case of any obstruction to that supply, multitudes would be
thrown out of employment, and incalculable distress would follow.
They think that the French would blockade the American ports, and
then such obstruction would be inevitable. A system like ours,
which resembles a vast piece of machinery, no part of which can be
disordered without danger to the whole, must be always liable to
interruption or injury from causes over which we have no control;
and this danger must always attend the extension of our
manufacturing system to the prejudice of other interests; so that
in case of a stoppage or serious interruption to the current in
which it flows the consequences would be appalling; nor is there
in all probability a nation on the Continent (our good ally Louis
Philippe included) that would not gladly contribute to the
humiliation of the power and diminution of the wealth of this

      [2] [This dispute arose from the detention of American
          ships by the Emperor Napoleon under the Continental
          system. The Americans claimed large damages, and the
          negotiation lasted twenty years. At length General
          Jackson, the American President, insisted on payment,
          and the French Government settled the matter for
          twenty-five millions of francs; but the question led to
          a change in the French Ministry.]

December 16th, 1835 {p.323}

Dined with Sefton the day before yesterday to meet the Hollands;
sat between Allen and Luttrell. Melbourne was there in roaring
spirits; met me very cordially, and after dinner said, 'Well, how
are you? I had a great deal to say to you, but I forget what it
was now.' To which I replied, 'Oh, never mind now; we are here to
amuse ourselves, and we won't talk of other things.' I could not
have _settled_ anything with him there, so there was no use in
beginning; and this put him at his ease, instead of making him
hate the sight of me, and fancying wherever he met me that I
should begin badgering him about my affairs.[3] In the world men
must be dealt with according to what they are, and not to what
they ought to be; and the great art of life is to find out what
they are, and act with them accordingly.

      [3] [This referred to some private affairs of Mr.
          Greville's which were then under discussion, and on
          which Lord Melbourne's influence was important.]

Allen talked of Mackintosh, and of his declaration of religious
belief on his deathbed, when he had never believed at all during
his life. He said that Mackintosh was not very deeply read in
theology. Melbourne, on the contrary, is, and being a very good
Greek scholar (which Mackintosh was not), has compared the
Evidences and all modern theological works with the writings of
the Fathers. He did not believe that Melbourne entertained _any
doubts_, or that his mind was at all distracted and perplexed
with much thinking and much reading on the subject, but that his
studies and reflections have led him to a perfect _conviction_ of
unbelief.[4] He thought if Mackintosh had lived much with
Christians he would have been one too. We talked of Middleton,
and Allen said that he believed he really died a Christian, but
that he was rapidly ceasing to be one, and if he had lived would
probably have continued the argument of his free enquiry up to
the Apostles themselves. He urged me to read Lardner; said he had
never read Paley nor the more recent Evidences, the materials of
all of which are, however, taken from Lardner's work. Luttrell
was talking of Moore and Rogers--the poetry of the former so
licentious, that of the latter so pure; much of its popularity
owing to its being so carefully weeded of everything approaching
to indelicacy; and the contrast between the _lives_ and the
_works_ of the two men--the former a pattern of conjugal and
domestic regularity, the latter of all the men he had ever known
the greatest sensualist.

      [4] [John Allen was himself so fierce an unbeliever, and so
          bitter an enemy to the Christian religion, that he was
          very fond of asserting that other men believed as
          little as himself. It was almost always Allen who gave
          an irreligious turn to the conversation at Holland
          House when these subjects were discussed there.]

Yesterday Lyndhurst and Brougham both came to the Council Office
to hear the first application for the renewal of a patent, and
though there was no opposition, they scrutinised the petition and
evidence with the utmost jealousy, which they did in order to
intimate that the granting a prolongation of the patent, even
when unopposed, was not to be a matter of course. It was a
pianoforte invention, and the instrument was introduced into the
Council Chamber, and played upon by Madame Dülcken for the
edification of their Lordships.

December 18th, 1835 {p.325}

Melbourne told me (the other night at Sefton's) that he had been
down to Oatlands to consult F. and H. about Dr. Arnold (of
Rugby), and to ascertain if he could properly make him a bishop;
but they did not encourage him, which I was surprised at,
recollecting the religious correspondence which formerly passed
between them and him. Arnold, however, shocks the High Churchmen,
and is not considered orthodox; and Melbourne said it would make
a great uproar to put him on the Bench, and was out of the
question. He had been reading his sermons, which he thought very

December 20th, 1835 {p.325}


The Treasury have sent a proposed draft of a minute in my case. When
it is over I shall not much care, for I have long since abandoned
all expectation of being rich, and there are none of my expensive
pursuits which I could not resign very cheerfully. Up to a certain
point riches contribute largely to the happiness of life, but no
farther. To be free from the necessity of daily self-denial and
continual calculation is indispensable to happiness, but the major
luxuries--ostentatious superfluities--contribute little or nothing
to rational enjoyment. I have just seen an excellent letter from
Frederic Elliot to Taylor, with a description of the state of
parties and politics in Lower Canada, which has been shown to the
Ministers, who think it the ablest _exposé_ on those heads that has
been transmitted from thence. I have very little doubt that he will
_go far_; he has an admirable talent for business, a clear head,
liberal and unprejudiced opinions, and he writes remarkably well.[5]

      [5] [This prediction was fulfilled. Mr. Frederic Elliot was
          the youngest son of the Rt. Hon. Hugh Elliot, and
          nephew of the first Earl of Minto. He went to Canada in
          1835 with Lord Gosford, entered the Colonial Office on
          his return to England, rose to be Assistant-Under-Secretary
          in that department, and is now (1873) Sir T. Frederic
          Elliot, K.S.M.G.]

December 24th, 1835 {p.326}

The Northamptonshire election has greatly elevated the spirits of
the Conservatives, and though the Whigs affect to hold it cheap,
they are not a little disconcerted by the magnitude of the
majority, so unexpected by both parties. Impartial moderate men
(such, for example, as the judges who sit in my Court) attribute
it to a strong prevailing feeling against O'Connell; and it would
appear to be so, because Hanbury, and even Vernon Smith, were
compelled to hold language very adverse to him on the hustings.
This O'Connell connection will, after all, probably end in
destroying the Government; his last letter against the Peers is a
very despicable performance, and he will be more injured by his
own than by Burdett's productions.

December 26th, 1835 {p.326}

The adherents of Government are certainly alarmed at the present
aspect of things. Lord William Bentinck, who is as Radical as
need be, wrote to his wife at Paris, 'Tory matters are certainly
looking up here; that senseless cry against O'Connell has
produced a great effect.' Nevertheless they affect at Brooks's to
hold it all very cheap.

December 30th, 1835 {p.326}

Wednesday at Roehampton--since Monday; for the first time since
Lord Dover's death. Luttrell, Poodle Byng, Baring Wall; Lady
Dover still in weeds. Lord Clifden not a jot altered from his
usual gaiety; such is the difference between the feelings of
youth and age.

The exultation of the Tories at the Northamptonshire election has
been woefully damped by the result of the Corporation elections,
nine out of ten of which have gone for the Radicals, and in many
places all the persons elected are of that persuasion. The
constituency is certainly different, and a desire to make _maison
nette_ of these dens of corruption is not unnatural; but it
affords a plausible subject for triumph on the Radical side, and
has a formidable appearance.

                *       *       *       *       *


Melton Mowbray, January 20th, 1836 {p.327}


I went with Henry de Ros from London to Middleton last Saturday
fortnight, stayed till the Thursday following, and then to
Badminton--eighteen years since I had been there. Last Thursday
to Bretby; slept at Worcester on Thursday night, stopped to see
the Cathedrals at Gloucester, Worcester, and Lichfield, and the
Church at Tewkesbury--all well worth seeing, and containing
curious monuments, especially that of Bishop Hough at Worcester
by Roubiliac, exceedingly grand; and in Lichfield Cathedral a
chapter-house of surpassing beauty. At Bretby the Duke of
Wellington had been, and Peel still was, but he departed early
the next morning. I had been anxious to go there to look over the
Chesterfield MSS., but I was disappointed; there were only three
large volumes of letters come-at-able out of thirty, the other
twenty-seven being locked up, and the key was gone to be mended.
These three I ran over hastily, but though they may contain
matter that would be useful to the historian of that period (from
1728 to about 1732), there was little in any way attractive, as
they consisted wholly of diplomatic letters to Lord Chesterfield
during his Embassy at the Hague. As this correspondence occupied
twenty volumes (for the three I found were the second, third, and
twentieth), I fear the others may not contain anything of greater
general interest.

I was desirous of seeing the Duke to hear what he says to the
Portfolio,[6] which makes so much noise here. Peel told me that
the Duke was not at all annoyed by it, and that he did not see
why Matuscewitz need be either; that Matuscewitz wrote what he
thought and believed at the time, as he was bound to do, and long
before his intimacy with the Duke began. He said that the letters
are certainly authentic, though possibly there may be some
omissions. But the Duke's women endeavour to stir up his
resentment, and to make him think himself ill-used, though he is
disposed to treat the matter with great good-humour and
indifference. Of politics I have heard little, and learnt
nothing; the Tory houses I have successively been at are all on
the alert, and fancy they are to do great things this next
session, but I expect it will all end in smoke.

      [6] [A collection of diplomatic papers and correspondence
          between the Russian Government and its agents,
          published about this time by Mr. Urquhart, which was
          supposed to throw light on the secret policy of the
          Cabinet of St. Petersburg. They were, in fact, copies
          of the original documents which had been sent to Warsaw
          for the information of the Grand Duke Constantine when
          Viceroy of Poland, and they fell into the hands of the
          insurgents at the time of the Polish Revolution of
          1830. Prince Adam Czartoryski brought them to England,
          where the publication of them excited great attention.]

The law appointments of Pepys[7] and Bickersteth are reckoned
very good, and they have certainly been made with especial
reference to the fitness of the men to preside over their
respective Courts. Pepys's is perhaps one of the most curious
instances of elevation that ever occurred: a good sound lawyer,
in leading practice at the Bar, never heard of in politics, no
orator, a plain undistinguished man, to whom expectation never
pointed, and upon whom the Solicitor-Generalship fell as it were
by accident, finds himself Master of the Rolls in a few months
after his appointment, by the sudden death of Leach, and in
little more than one year from that time a peer and Chancellor. I
fancy there were considerable difficulties in settling these
appointments, and in satisfying disappointed expectants, but of
the details of the difficulties I know nothing. They will
probably confer some strength on the Government. We came here
yesterday, and are comfortably lodged at Wilton's.

      [7] [Sir Christopher Pepys, Master of the Rolls, was raised
          to the Peerage as Lord Cottenham, and received the
          Great Seal. Mr. Bickersteth succeeded him as Master of
          the Rolls, and was raised to the Peerage with the title
          of Lord Langdale. These appointments were much
          discussed, and at last decided by a vote of the
          Cabinet, several of the Ministers being in favour of
          making Bickersteth Lord Chancellor, because he promised
          more as a Law Reformer.]

London, January 30th, 1836 {p.328}


Dinner yesterday for the Sheriffs.[8] The plan I had adopted
(which was not completely executed, owing to the absence of some
of the judges from the Exchequer on 'the morrow of St. Martin's')
did very well, and we had few difficulties with the English
counties. There was Lord Cottenham, for the first time, and
Howick and Poulett Thomson, their first appearances as Cabinet
Ministers. Parliament opens on Thursday, and as far as I can
judge with a favourable prospect for the present Government.
Stanley has openly expressed his opinion that no changes are
desirable, and Peel will not be anxious to thrust himself in,
with a doubtful chance of keeping his place if he can get it; so
the hot and sanguine Tories, who have been vastly elevated at the
prospect they thought was before them, will have to fret and fume
and chew the cud of disappointment. There was a great Tory
gathering at Drayton the other day, but I have not heard what
they resolved upon. Lord Lansdowne told me yesterday that Stanley
has declared openly the opinion above stated, and he seems to
think they are pretty safe. Tavistock wrote me word that the
Government meant to be moderate, and that any concessions would
be made by, and not to, the violent section. The great questions
likely to be discussed are the Appropriation clause and the Irish
Corporation Bill. The Government and O'Connell are not likely to
differ on anything but this, and if a strong measure passes the
House of Commons, the Lords will throw it out, and probably
Government will not in their hearts be sorry for it. In the
balanced state of parties, the tranquillity and prosperity that
prevail, possession is everything, and I am therefore quite
satisfied that nothing but some unforeseen circumstance or event
will disturb these people. Brougham is seriously ill at Brougham.
Melbourne has been in correspondence with him, and these
arrangements are by way of having been made with his concurrence.
Nothing whatever is settled as to ulterior law matters; the
Vice-Chancellor told me so yesterday, and the Chancellor told
him. They talk of a permanent judge in the Privy Council, which
would be a virtual repeal of the principal part of Brougham's
famous Bill; for if there was one permanent judge with a casual
_quorum_, the permanent judge would in point of fact be the real
administrator of the law, as he used to be under the old system.

      [8] The Lord President of the Council gives an annual
          dinner to his colleagues, at which the list of Sheriffs
          for the ensuing year is settled. The arrangements are
          made by the Clerk of the Council, after the nomination
          of the Sheriffs by the Judges.

I had a great deal of conversation with Poulett Thomson last night
after dinner on one subject or another; he is very good-humoured,
pleasing, and intelligent, but the greatest coxcomb I ever saw,
and the vainest dog, though his vanity is not offensive or
arrogant; but he told me that when Lord Grey's Government was
formed (at which time he was a junior partner in a mercantile
house, and had been at most five years in Parliament), he was
averse to take office, but Althorp declared he would not come in
unless Thomson did also, and that, knowing the importance of
Althorp's accession to the Government, he sacrificed a large
income, and took the Board of Trade; that when this was offered to
him, he was asked whether he cared if he was President or
Vice-President, as they wished to make Lord Auckland President if
he (Poulett Thomson) had no objection. He said, provided the
President was not in the Cabinet, he did not care; and accordingly
he condescended to be Vice-President, knowing that all the
business must be done in the House of Commons, and that he must be
(as in fact he said he was) the virtual head of the office. All
this was told with a good-humoured and smiling complacency, which
made me laugh internally. He then descanted on the inefficiency of
his subordinates; that Auckland did not like writing, that nobody
else could write, and consequently every paper had been drawn up
by himself since he first entered the office. To do him justice I
believe he is very industrious. When he got into the Cabinet he
said he could no longer go on in this way, and accordingly he has
superannuated Lack, and is going to appoint the best man he can
find in his place. This operation has led to the removal of Hay,
whom Stephen replaces at the Colonial Office.


February 1st, 1836 {p.330}

Howick gave me an account yesterday of Spencer Perceval's
communications to the Ministers, and other Privy Councillors. He
called on Howick, who received him very civilly. Perceval began,
'You will probably be surprised when you learn, what has brought
me here.' Howick bowed. 'You are aware that God has been pleased
in these latter times to make especial communications of His will
to certain chosen instruments, in a language not intelligible to
those who hear it, nor always to those by whom it is uttered: I
am one of those instruments, to whom it has pleased the Almighty
to make known His will, and I am come to declare to you, &c...'
and then he went off in a rhapsody about the degeneracy of the
times, and the people falling off from God. I asked him what
Perceval seemed to be driving at, what was his definite object?
He said it was not discoverable, but that from the printed paper
which he had circulated to all Privy Councillors (for to that
body he appears to think that his mission is addressed), in which
he specifies all the great acts of legislation for the last five
years (beginning with the repeal of the Test and Corporation
Acts), as the evidences of a falling off from God, or as the
causes of the divine anger, it may perhaps be inferred that he
means they should all be repealed. It is a ridiculous and
melancholy exposure. His different receptions by different people
are amusing and characteristic. Howick listened to him with
patient civility. Melbourne argued with and cross-questioned him.
He told him 'that he ought to have gone to the Bishops rather
than to him,' to which Perceval replied, that one of the brethren
(Henry Drummond) was gone to the Archbishop. Stanley turned him
out at once. As soon as he began he said, 'There is no use, Mr.
Perceval, in going on this way with me. We had, therefore, better
put an end to the subject, and I wish you good morning.' He went
to Lord Holland, and Lady Holland was with great difficulty
persuaded to allow him to go and receive the Apostles. She
desired Lord John Russell (who happened to be in the house) to go
with him, but John begged to be excused, alleging that he had
already had his interview and did not wish for another. So at
last she let Lord Holland be wheeled in, but ordered Edgar and
Harold, the two pages, to post themselves outside the door, and
rush in if they heard Lord Holland scream. Perceval has been with
the King, and went to Drayton after Sir Robert Peel, but he
complains that he cannot catch the Duke of Wellington.

February 3rd, 1836 {p.332}


A meeting at the Council Office yesterday on another patent case,
a gun--Baron Heurteloup, the famous lithotritic doctor and
inventor--which was clicked off for the information of their
Lordships. Since this Patent Bill, we have got very noisy between
percussion guns and pianofortes. I walked away with Lyndhurst to
hear what he had to say. He said that he understood Peel was come
to town with the intention of being very active, but that the Duke
talked of staying at Strathfieldsaye till after Easter; and if the
Duke did not attend the House of Lords, no more would he; he said
it was impossible to turn out the Government--what could they do?
that it would never do for them to come in again without a
considerable majority, and _that_ they had not, nor would have.
What would a dissolution do for them? Not, I said, anything
considerable, if the new Corporations were to have the influence
he always attributed to them, and I asked him whether the working
of the Municipal Bill promised to be as mischievous as he had
expected. He said, 'Yes, I think so;' but I could see that he does
not think so very badly of it as he once told me. However, I
gather from him that the leaders are aware that the time is not
come for attempting to push out the Government, and that they will
not try; their difficulty will be to deal with their own rash and
impatient followers, who are always for desperate courses.
Lyndhurst told me that he thought Peel felt very bitterly towards
Stanley, and that it must end in their decided opposition to each
other. I confess I never had much faith in any union between them
which was likely to be durable or satisfactory. Stanley has been
living constantly with the Whigs, and probably looks forward to
joining them again, when the settlement, or some settlement, of
the Church question will allow him; and it will be much more
congenial to his tastes and character to be the rival of Peel than
his subordinate. I told Lyndhurst that I hoped the House of Lords
would be moderate, confine their opposition to certain great
measures, and not thwart the Government without necessity. He said
he was desirous so to do, to deal with great measures of
legislation as they might see fit, but no more. I asked him why
they threw out certain Bills last year, among others the Dublin
Police Bill, to which there really had seemed to be no objection.
He said, for two reasons; one was that they did not choose to
admit the practice that after Parliament had been sitting many
months, during which Bills might have been sent up, and plenty of
time afforded for their consideration, they should be laid upon
the table of the House of Lords just at the end of the session,
when they were to be hurried over, and passed without that mature
deliberation which they required; and particularly as to the
Dublin Police Bill, that they well knew it was a mere job to
provide for certain of O'Connell's friends. He then mentioned a
fact in justification of the first of the above reasons--that, in
discussing with Duncannon one of the Irish Bills of which he had
the management, he alluded to one particular clause. Duncannon
asserted that there was no such clause in the Bill. He repeated
that there was, when Duncannon went away, and soon afterwards
returned and acknowledged that he had been in error, that the
clause was there, though he was not aware of it, nor had it been
inserted in the copy with which he had been first furnished.

I heard a great deal more about Perceval's proceedings, and those
of his colleagues yesterday; they continue to visit the Privy
Councillors. Lyndhurst told me he had been with him for an hour,
Lord Lansdowne the same. When he gave Lord Lansdowne his book, as
he glanced over it, Perceval said, 'I am aware it is not well
written; the composition is not perfect, but I was not permitted
to alter it; I was obliged to write it as I received it.'
Drummond went in a chaise and four to the Archbishop of York at
Nuneham, who endeavoured to stop his mouth with a good luncheon,
but this would not do. He told the Archbishop the end of the
world was approaching, and that it was owing to the neglect of
himself and his brethren that the nation was in its present awful
state. Perceval told Lord Lansdowne that their sect was
increasing greatly and rapidly; they have several congregations
in London, two clergymen of the Church of England have joined
them, and two men who still occupy their pulpits are only waiting
for the call which they daily expect to receive.

February 5th, 1836 {p.334}

Parliament met yesterday; the King received with great apathy.
The Tories have not begun very well. After boasting of their
increased numbers, and of the great things they had accomplished
by elections during the recess, they got beaten on a division by
41--a greater number than they were ever beaten by last year on
any great question. The speech was a very milk-and-water
production, and scarcely afforded a peg to hang an amendment
upon. It is true that on the point on which the amendment was
made (not pledging the House to adopt the principle of the
English Corporation Act in the Irish Bill) the Duke was probably
right, but a protest would have done just as well, and there was
no need to press an amendment on such a trifle. The other side
felt this in the House of Lords, and gave it up, though there
were so many Ministerial peers in the House that the division
would have been very near; but in the House of Commons Lord John
Russell would not give way, and what is more, Peel never had any
intention of moving any amendment, for there was a great meeting
in the morning at his house, and there it was resolved that none
should be moved; and certainly very few people expected any. At
last he moved it, because it had been moved in the House of
Lords, but it seems to have been a foolish, bungling business
altogether. The Tories are always hot for dividing, and the silly
idle creatures who compose the bulk of the party apologise for
their continual absence by saying, 'Oh, you never divide, so
what's the use of coming up,' as if divisions must be got up for
them when it suits their convenience to quit their hunting and
shooting and run up to town. Stanley made a strong speech against
the Government, to my great amazement, and, having been
ironically cheered by the Treasury bench, he got angry. He sat,
too, on the Opposition bench (the same on which Peel sits),
nearer the Speaker; still I do not believe that he will join the
Opposition; however, they are surprised and pleased at the tone
he took. Some fancy that the division and majority last night
will be useful to the Government, and make it out to be very
important, which, however, I think is making much more of it than
it deserves. The debate was very bad; everybody spoke wretchedly.

February 6th, 1836 {p.335}

I only heard last night what passed at Peel's meeting; for he
desired it might not be repeated, and that the meeting should be
considered confidential; he made them a speech, in which he
indicated in pretty plain terms, but without mentioning names,
that it was of great consequence to shape their proceedings so as
to get the support of Stanley, and that they never would be sure
what line he would take; so that he does look to Stanley,
notwithstanding what Lyndhurst says of his real sentiments
concerning him, which, no doubt, is correct.

February 7th, 1836 {p.335}


Last night I went to Holland House; found my Lord and my Lady
sitting _tête-à-tête_. About twelve she went to bed, and Standish
and I stayed with him till two o'clock, hearing his accounts of
speeches and speakers of old times, and anecdotes, some of which
I had heard before, and some not, but they bear repeating. He is
marvellously entertaining in this way; the stories so good, so
well told, his imitations of the actors in the events which he
narrates giving you such a conviction of their fidelity. If Lord
Holland has prepared any memoirs, and put down all he remembers,
as well as all he has been personally concerned in, it will make
a delightful book. I asked him if his uncle and Pitt were in
habits of communication in the House of Commons, and on terms of
mutual civility and good-humour, and he said, 'Oh yes, very; I
think they had a great respect for each other; latterly I think
my uncle was more bitter against him'--I enquired whether he
thought they would have joined? He thought they might have done
so. He thinks the finest speeches Fox made (if it were possible
to select out of so many fine ones) were on the war, on the
Scrutiny, and on Bonaparte's overtures. Grattan complimenting him
on his speech on the war, he said, 'I don't know if it was good,
but I know I can't make a better.' Fox never wrote his speeches,
was fond of preparing them in travelling, as he said a postchaise
was the best place to arrange his thoughts in. Sheridan wrote and
prepared a great deal, and generally in bed, with his books, pen,
and ink, on the bed, where he would lie all day. Brougham wrote
and rewrote, over and over again, whole speeches; he has been
known to work fifteen hours a day for six weeks together.

It is inconceivable the effect the division on the address has
had. Holland said last night he thought it had given them a new
lease, and Hobhouse, whom I met in the morning in high glee,
talked with great contempt of the tactics and miserable
composition of the Tory party. He said that he knew to a vote
what their numbers would be on the Church question, and _on
everything else_ they should beat them hollow (he did not mean,
of course, to include the Irish Corporation Bill in this). The
sensible Tories admit it to have been a great blunder, but the
authors of the folly affect to bluster and put a good face on it,
though it is easy to see that they are really in doleful dumps.
But of all bad hits Stanley certainly made the worst. He went on
to the last moment living with the Ministers with the utmost
cordiality, and giving them to understand that he was generally
friendly to them; talked strong anti-Tory language, and impressed
on them the conviction that he was with them on everything but
the Church. (Exactly like his conduct to Peel and his former
colleagues on the matter of Free Trade when he separated from
them--1847.) If he had contented himself with declaring that he
did not mean to be committed to any particular course by the
address, and deprecated a division, he would not only have
prevented it, but he would have at once placed himself in a
respectable position as a sort of mediator and arbiter between
the two parties, and would have had the satisfaction of showing
the world that both were disposed to treat him with deference and
respect. A word from Stanley would have made Peel abstain from
moving his amendment or withdraw it. I met Graham the day before
yesterday in the Park, but only exchanged a few words with him.
He said the division was a very bad business.

February 9th, 1836 {p.337}


I was talking yesterday with Stephen about Brougham and Macaulay.
He said he had known Brougham above thirty years, and well
remembers walking with him down to Clapham, to dine with old
Zachary Macaulay, and telling him he would find a prodigy of a boy
there of whom he must take notice. This was Tom Macaulay. Brougham
afterwards put himself forward as the monitor and director of the
education of Macaulay, and I remember hearing of a letter he wrote
to the father on the subject, which made a great noise at the
time; but he was like the man who brought up a young lion, which
finished by biting his head off. Brougham and Macaulay disliked
each other. Brougham could not forgive his great superiority in
many of those accomplishments in which he thought himself
unrivalled; and being at no pains to disguise his jealousy and
dislike, the other was not behind him in corresponding feelings of
aversion. It was unworthy of both, but most of Brougham, who was
the aggressor, and who might have considered the world large
enough for both of them, and that a sufficiency of fame was
attainable by each. Stephen said that, if ever Macaulay's life was
written by a competent biographer, it would appear that he had
displayed feats of memory which he believed to be unequalled by
any human being. He can repeat all Demosthenes by heart, and all
Milton, a great part of the Bible, both in English and (the New
Testament) in Greek; besides this his memory retains passages
innumerable of every description of books, which in discussion he
pours forth with incredible facility. He is passionately fond of
Greek literature; has not much taste for Latin or French. Old Mill
(one of the best Greek scholars of the day) thinks Macaulay has a
more extensive and accurate acquaintance with the Greek writers
than any man living, and there is no Greek book of any note which
he has not read over and over again. In the Bible he takes great
delight, and there are few better Biblical scholars. In law he
made no proficiency, and mathematics he abominates; but his great
forte is history, especially English history. Here his superhuman
memory, which appears to have the faculty of digesting and
arranging as well as of retaining, has converted his mind into a
mighty magazine of knowledge, from which, with the precision and
correctness of a kind of intellectual machine, he pours forth
stores of learning, information, precept, example, anecdote, and
illustration with a familiarity and facility not less astonishing
than delightful. He writes as if he had lived in the times and
among the people whose actions and characters he records and
delineates. A little reading, too, is enough for Macaulay, for by
some process impossible to other men he contrives to transfer as
it were, by an impression rapid and indelible, the contents of the
books he reads to his own mind, where they are deposited, always
accessible, and never either forgotten or confused. Far superior
to Brougham in general knowledge, in fancy, imagination, and in
the art of composition, he is greatly inferior to him in those
qualities which raise men to social and political eminence.
Brougham, tall, thin, and commanding in figure, with a face which,
however ugly, is full of expression, and a voice of great power,
variety, and even melody, notwithstanding his occasional prolixity
and tediousness, is an orator in every sense of the word.
Macaulay, short, fat, and ungraceful, with a round, thick,
unmeaning face, and with rather a lisp, though he has made
speeches of great merit, and of a very high style of eloquence in
point of composition, has no pretensions to be put in competition
with Brougham in the House of Commons. Nor is the difference and
the inferiority of Macaulay less marked in society. Macaulay,
indeed, is a great talker, and pours forth floods of knowledge on
all subjects; but the gracefulness, lightness, and variety are
wanting in his talk which are so conspicuous in his writings;
there is not enough of alloy in the metal of his conversation; it
is too didactic, it is all too good, and not sufficiently
flexible, plastic, and diversified for general society. Brougham,
on the other hand, is all life, spirit, and gaiety--'from grave to
gay, from lively to severe'--dashing through every description of
folly and fun, dealing in those rapid transitions by which the
attention and imagination are arrested and excited; always
amusing, always instructive, never tedious, elevated to the height
of the greatest intellect, and familiar with the most abstruse
subjects, and at the same moment conciliating the humble
pretensions of inferior minds by dropping into the midst of their
pursuits and objects with a fervour and intensity of interest
which surprises and delights his associates, and, above all, which
puts them at their ease.

[_Quantum mutatus!_ All this has long ceased to be true of
Brougham. Macaulay, without having either the wit or the _charm_
which constitutes the highest kind of colloquial excellence or
success, is a marvellous, an unrivalled (in his way), and a
delightful talker.--1850.]

February 12th, 1836


Lord William Bentinck has published an address to the electors of
Glasgow which is remarkable, because he is the first man of high
rank and station who has publicly professed the ultra-Radical
opinions which he avows in this document. It is by no means well
done, and a very silly address in many respects. He is a man
whose success in life has been greater than his talents warrant,
for he is not right-headed, and has committed some great blunder
or other in every public situation in which he has been placed;
but he is simple in his habits, popular in his manners, liberal
in his opinions, and magnificently hospitable in his mode of
life. These qualities are enough to ensure popularity. Here is
the inscription for the column, or whatever it be, that they have
erected to his honour in India, written by Macaulay:--

    who during seven years ruled India with eminent prudence,
                   integrity, and benevolence;
 who, placed at the head of a great empire, never laid aside the
         simplicity and moderation of a private citizen;
    who infused into oriental despotism the spirit of British
   who never forgot that the end of government is the happiness
                         of the governed;
                    who abolished cruel bites;
              who effaced humiliating distinctions;
      who gave liberty to the expression of public opinion;
whose constant study it was to elevate the intellectual and moral
        character of the nations committed to his charge;
                          THIS MONUMENT
                        was erected by men
who, differing in race, in manners, in language, and in religion,
           cherish with equal veneration and gratitude
  the memory of his wise, upright, and paternal administration.

February 20th, 1836 {p.340}


I walked home with Lord Sandon last night, and had much talk
about the state of parties, particularly about Peel and the
events at the close of the last session. He talked upon the usual
topic of Peel's coldness, uncommunicative disposition, want of
popular qualities, and the consequent indifference of his
followers to his person. With respect to last year, he said that
Peel had arranged with the Duke of Wellington and Lyndhurst the
course that it would be advisable to adopt with regard to the
Corporation Bill, and that he was put exceedingly out of humour
by the House of Lords adopting a different line; that the leaders
of the Lords found their party impracticable, and they were
compelled (or thought themselves so) to give way to the
prejudices of the majority. But Peel did not understand this
_knocking under_ to violence and folly, and his pride was
mortified, because it was a sort of renunciation of his authority
as leader and chief of the whole party. Accordingly it was with
reference to these proceedings that Peel spoke with great
bitterness to Sandon, and said that 'he never would be the tool
of the Lords,' He left town in high dudgeon, and was probably not
sorry to display his resentment at the same time with his power,
when he suddenly returned and made his speech on the Lords'
amendments. Sandon confirmed the statement of his having done
this without any communication with the Duke and Lyndhurst, in
which he thinks he was to blame. I think he ought to have seen
the Duke, and have imparted to him his intentions and his
motives; but with Lyndhurst he probably felt very angry for the
part he took. He has now, however, put himself more openly and
decidedly at the head of the party, and Sandon considers that
Stanley already virtually belongs to it, inasmuch as they sit
together and consult together, and the other day when he went to
Peel's house he found Stanley there.

February 21st, 1836 {p.341}

There is a mighty stir about the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the
Regius Professorship of Divinity at Oxford, on the ground of his
having put forth doctrines or arguments of a Socinian tendency.
The two Archbishops went to Melbourne with a remonstrance, but he
told them the appointment was completed, and that he had not been
aware of any objections to Dr. Hampden, and had taken pains to
ascertain his fitness for the office. It will give the Churchmen a
handle for accusing Melbourne of a design to sap the foundations
of the Church and poison the fountain of orthodoxy; but he
certainly has no such view.

February 23rd, 1836 {p.341}

Had some conversation with Lord Wharncliffe the other day, who
has always been a great alarmist. I asked him if he was so still.
He said yes; that he was convinced the House of Lords and the
House of Commons could not go on, that the Lords would not pass
their Bills; a ferment would be produced, which would finish by
an open dissension. 'What, then, would be the result?' I asked.
'Why, the Lords would be beaten.' He then complained bitterly of
the Government, and of their conduct and language, and said he
was convinced Lord John Russell had originally introduced that
clause for the purpose of effecting a permanent quarrel between
the two Houses. I told him I was satisfied there was no danger if
their party would act a prudent, temperate, and honourable part;
if they would not aim at office, but be satisfied to exert the
strength they possessed not for party, but for Conservative
purposes; and on this I dilated, showing what they ought to do.
He said that the Tories never would be contented so to act.
'Then,' I said, 'I certainly won't pretend to answer for the
consequences, but I am sure you have a good game enough in your
hands, if you choose to play it; if you will throw it away, that
is another thing.' He told me one thing of Melbourne rather
droll. Wharncliffe gave notice of a motion (which comes on
to-night) about Lord John Russell's appointment of magistrates
under the new Act, which he declares to have been very partially
and improperly done. After speaking to Melbourne about it,
Melbourne came over to him (Wharncliffe) and said, 'Now tell me,
have we been very bad in our appointments?'


Last night I sat next to Poulett Thomson at dinner, who told me a
great deal about Dr. Hampden's appointment,[9] which makes such an
uproar among the Tories and High Churchmen. He declares that
Melbourne consulted various authorities, and the Archbishop of
Canterbury among the rest, who made no objection to the
appointment; that when the Oxford remonstrance was sent up the
Archbishop wrote a very Jesuitical letter, in which he endeavoured
to reconcile his former approbation of the appointment with his
present concurrence in the remonstrance. Melbourne sent for him,
and asked whether he had any charge to make against Hampden; he
replied that he had none; when Melbourne said that he could not,
then, cancel the appointment, which had been already notified to
him. [This account of Poulett Thomson's was, however, untrue.
William Cowper, Melbourne's private secretary and nephew, gave me
another, which I doubt not is more correct, and puts the matter in
a very different point of view. Melbourne sent to the Archbishop
and desired him to give him a list of six names, which he
accordingly did; but Melbourne would not take any of them, and
without consulting the Archbishop about Hampden, appointed him. He
did consult Coplestone and some others, but not the Archbishop. I
believe the cry against Hampden to be a senseless cry, and that it
is raised by mere bigotry and spite, but I think Melbourne behaved
neither prudently nor properly. When he desired the Archbishop to
give him a list of six, the latter must certainly have conceived
that he would select one out of the number, and would not have
divined that he would pass them all over and appoint another man
without consulting him at all.--February 28th.] I have read the
pamphlet written against Hampden, and though some of his
expressions are perhaps imprudent as giving occasion to malicious
cavil, it contains no grave matter, and nothing to support an
accusation of heterodoxy. If he had been a Tory instead of a
Liberal in politics, we should probably have heard nothing of the

      [9] [This was the appointment of Dr. Hampden to be Regius
          Professor of Divinity at Oxford. He was raised to the
          See of Hereford in 1848.]

I was surprised to hear Poulett Thomson talk in great indignation of
Lord William Bentinck's address to Glasgow, which he characterised
as very disgraceful, and asserted that such miserable truckling to
the will of his constituents would not avail him anything, but
rather diminish their respect for him--very good sentiments. The
Government are very angry at what took place about the Orange Lodge
resolutions. Mr. Jervis moves an address to the Crown to-night, and
Perceval proposed to Lord John Russell to draw up some resolution
condemning these associations, which he said they would agree to if
not violent and offensive, and that it was very desirable the
sentiments of the House of Commons should be expressed unanimously,
or by a very large majority, because in that case the Orangemen
would see the necessity of yielding obedience to them, and would do
so. Accordingly John Russell sent him the copy of a resolution (on
Saturday) which he proposed to bring forward, but which he said he
had not yet submitted to the Cabinet. This was communicated to Peel
and Stanley as well, and all parties agreed to it; but John Russell
was much surprised and disgusted when this resolution (which was
communicated quite privately to Perceval, and which he told him his
colleagues had not been as yet consulted about) appeared yesterday
morning in the 'Times.'

February 25th, 1836 {p.344}


Lord John Russell immortalised himself on Tuesday night. After a
speech from Hume of three hours, in which he produced a variety of
the most inconceivable letters from Kenyon, Wynford, Londonderry,
and other Orangemen, but made the most miserable hash of his whole
case, and instead of working up his ample materials with dexterity
and effect stupidly blundering and wasting them all--after this
speech John Russell rose, and in a speech far surpassing his usual
form, dignified, temperate, and judicious, moved a resolution of a
moderate and inoffensive character. The speech actually drew tears
from the Orangemen, enthusiastic approbation from Stanley, a
colder approval from Peel, and the universal assent of the House.
It was a night of harmony; the Orangemen behaved very well, and
declared that after this speech they would abandon their
association; they only objected to the Orange Lodges being
mentioned by name, and urged that the resolution should be only
general in expression; and in this Stanley and Peel supported
them; Lord John declined, and properly; the others would have done
better to advise the Orangemen not to cavil at this, but to
swallow the whole pill handsomely, and not mar the effect of their
really meritorious conduct by making any trivial difficulties.
Peel's and Stanley's speeches were characteristic; the latter with
a generous enthusiasm of praise and congratulation to his old
friend, which evinced feeling and was sincere; Peel colder in his
expressions, and showing a great interest in the Orangemen, for
the purpose evidently of conciliating them towards himself, and
even incurring some risk of disturbing the general harmony by his
warmth and sympathy towards them; but I have no doubt that he is
as glad as any man at the dissolution of the confederacy, which
now appears likely really to take place, for though they will
probably not actually dissolve themselves, when the chiefs abandon
the lodges their existence will be but a lingering one, and must
come to an end or cease to be dangerous. In accomplishing this by
moderate and healing counsels, by a conciliatory tone and manner,
Lord John Russell deserves the name of a statesman. His speech is
worth a thousand flowery harangues which have elicited the shouts
of audiences or the admiration of readers, and he has probably
conferred a great and permanent benefit upon the country. I do not
mean that peace will be by these means restored to Ireland, or
rather be bestowed on her, for when was she ever at peace? but
until this object was accomplished, till the way was cleared,
peace was unattainable. O'Connell behaved wisely; he made a short
speech, and fell in cordially with the general feeling of the
House. This has strengthened the Government in reality, as it
ought. So Lord Stanley said, and it is true.

                          CHAPTER XXXI.

Moore and O'Connell--Defeat of the Opposition--The Carlow
  Election--Lord Alvanley's Speech to the Tory Peers--Norton _v._
  Lord Melbourne--Catastrophe after Epsom--Mendizabal and Queen
  Christina--Lord John Russell's Moderation in the Ecclesiastical
  Commission--Theatricals at Bridgewater House--Irish Church--
  Ministerial Difficulties--Deplorable State of Spain--What was
  thought of Lord Palmerston in 1836--Weakness of Government--
  Lord Lyndhurst's Summary of the Session--Balance of Parties--
  Lady Augusta Kennedy's Marriage--King's Speech to Princess
  Victoria--Revolution of La Granja--Rudeness of the King to
  Ministers--Irritation of the King at the Duchess of Kent--Scene
  at Windsor on the King's Birthday--Prince Esterhazy's View of
  the Affairs of Europe--Emperor Nicholas at Vienna--A Crisis in
  Trade--State of the Court at Vienna--Duc de Reichstadt.

March 8th, 1836 {p.346}

It is impossible to conceive anything like the stagnation in the
political world--the Government secure in their seats, the
Opposition aware of the helplessness of their efforts. I met
Moore[1] at dinner a day or two ago, not having seen him for a
long time. He told us some amusing anecdotes of his own reception
in Ireland, which was very enthusiastic, in spite of his having
quarrelled with O'Connell. Of this quarrel he likewise narrated
the beginning and the end. He was indignant at O'Connell's
_manner_ of prosecuting his political objects, and resolved to
put his feelings on record. This he did, and he afterwards wrote
some letters to a mutual friend explanatory of his sentiments and
motives, and these were shown (intentionally) to O'Connell. Moore
declined to retract or qualify, and a rupture consequently took
place. When they met at Brookes' O'Connell averted his face. So
things remained till a short time ago, when the editor of a new
quarterly review, which has been established for Catholic and
Irish objects, wrote to Moore for his support, and O'Connell,
whom he told of it, said, 'Oh, pray let me frank the letter to
Mr. Moore.' This was repeated, and when Moore met O'Connell the
other day at Brookes', he went up to him and put out his hand. He
said O'Connell was mightily moved, but accepted the proffered
reconciliation, and they are again on good terms.

      [1] [Thomas Moore, the poet.]

March 10th, 1836 {p.347}


Majority of 64 for Government on Tuesday night; unexpected by the
public, but not, I take it, by the Whig managers, who make their
people attend. It is an irrecoverable blow to the other side, and
shows that the contest is hopeless there. O'Connell and Stanley
made good speeches. It is remarkable that the Tory numbers are
precisely what they were last year (243). At the levee yesterday
they were all very gay at this victory; and Hobhouse said to me,
'What fools they are; they don't know their own interest; they
are beaten in the House of Commons, their people won't attend,
they won't see that they can't resist these questions and that it
is for their own interest they should be carried; why, when the
appropriation clauses and these Bills are carried there will
remain no difference between Peel and us. As for me, I care not
who is in, or whether I am in or out of office; I care for peace
and quietness, and that the country should go on. The Tories have
rung the changes on this O'Connell cry till they can do no more,
and it has failed them entirely; they have had every chance, and
must now give it up;' and a good deal more he said, till we were
interrupted. I agree about the O'Connell cry; the subject is worn
threadbare, it has been argued and ranted upon _usque ad
nauseam_, and in spite of the mistakes O'Connell has made, the
anti-Popery prejudices which prevail, and the blots upon his
personal character, I doubt if he is as much hated in England as
the Tories would have him. They have overdone their attacks on
him, and as it has unluckily been their sole _cheval de
bataille_, they have ridden it till it has not a leg to stand

March 12th, 1836 {p.347}

Fell in with Lyndhurst in the street yesterday returning from
Philips', where he had been sitting for his portrait. 'Well,' he
said, in his laughing, off-hand way, 'we are done, entirely
done.' 'What do you mean to do?' 'Oh, we shall pass Peel's Bill,
and they will be very glad of it; it will give the Government all
the power which O'Connell would otherwise obtain, and they don't
want to see his power increase, and will prefer the augmentation
of their own.'

March 13th, 1836 {p.348}

It was only yesterday that I read the report of the Committee and
O'Connell's complete acquittal.[2] It is very singular that he
does not seem to have known his own case, or he might have
rebutted the accusations in the first instance; but it has turned
out lucky for him, as it has afforded him a great triumph and his
adversaries an equally great mortification. It is now time for
the Tories to give up attacking him--that is, making him their
grand political butt. They do not lower him; on the contrary,
they raise his importance everywhere, and make his sway in
Ireland more absolute. They are abominably sulky at this result
of the Committee, which, however, was fairly constituted and
unanimous in its decision. I must say I never expected they would
make out much of a case. Yesterday I dined with Ben Stanley in
Downing Street, and met Lytton Bulwer and Fonblanque, the latter
a very agreeable man.

      [2] [The proceedings of the Committee on the Carlow
          election are here referred to. A Mr. Raphael had been
          returned for Carlow, chiefly by the influence of
          O'Connell. He was unseated on petition, and it was
          supposed that the evidence taken by the Committee would
          incriminate O'Connell, but the reverse was the case.
          O'Connell was wholly acquitted of any illegal or
          improper practices.]

May 2nd, 1836 {p.348}


Many weeks without a single line. I have been at Newmarket, and
have known nothing of any sort or kind. All seems quieter in the
political world than for a long time past. There was a meeting of
Peers at Apsley House a week or ten days ago, to consider the
course they should adopt about the Corporation Bill. After the
discussion Alvanley rose and asked the Duke if there would be any
more meetings. He said he was not aware that there would be, when
Alvanley said that he was of opinion that the majority of the
House of Lords, while dealing with the Government measures, were
bound to give notice to the country of the measures of relief
that they were themselves prepared to offer to Ireland, that in
his opinion the only real relief that could be given was some
system of poor law, and the payment of the Catholic clergy,
bringing that body under the control of the Government, and
making it penal to draw contributions from their flocks, and that
he trusted their Lordships would be prepared to go so far. He
describes the effect of this suggestion to have been most
ludicrous. The Duke of Newcastle, who sat by him, was ready to
bounce off his chair; all sorts of indistinct noises, hems,
grunts, and coughs of every variety of modulation and expressive
intonation were heard, but no answer and no remark. He told me
that he had intended on Tuesday last to repeat the same thing in
the House of Lords, and asked me to go down and hear him, but
they would not allow him. The Duke said it was out of the
question, and overruled him. I am very sorry he did not, for
these are the true remedies, and I wish to see them put forth,
and a beginning made of bringing such principles into action; but
the Duke is not the man to let others have the credit of such
measures. I expect to see the day when he will bring them forward
himself; it is a pig not yet fit for killing, and he will not let
anybody stick it but himself.

May 11th, 1836 {p.349}

Great talk about the adjournment of Parliament on the 20th, and
about Melbourne's affair with Mrs. Norton, which latter, if it is
not quashed, will be inconvenient. John Bull fancies himself
vastly moral, and the Court is mighty prudish, and between them
our off-hand Premier will find himself in a ticklish position. He
has been served with notices, but people rather doubt the action
coming on. I asked the Duke of Wellington a night or two ago what
he had heard of it, and what he thought would be the result. He
said he had only heard what everybody said, and that nothing would
result. I said, 'Would Melbourne resign?' 'O Lord, no! Resign? Not
a bit of it. I tell you all these things are a nine-days' wonder;
it can't come into court before Parliament is up. People will have
done talking of it before that happens; it will all blow over, and
won't signify a straw.' So spoke his Grace. I doubt not prime
ministers, ex and in, have a fellow-feeling and sympathy for each
other, and like to lay down the principle of such things _not
mattering_. I hope, however, that it _will_ blow over, for it
would really be very inconvenient and very mischievous. The Tories
would fall on the individual from political violence, the Radicals
on his class or order from hatred to the aristocracy. I believe
the adjournment is principally on account of the affairs of
Canada, regarding which the Government is in a difficulty that
appears inextricable. I have heard a great deal on the subject,
enough to show the magnitude of the embarrassment, but not enough
to describe the state of things.

May 25th, 1836 {p.350}

The Epsom races being over, which always absorb every other
interest, I have leisure to turn my mind to other things. This
year there has been a miserable catastrophe. Berkeley Craven
deliberately shot himself after losing more than he could pay. It
is the first instance of a man of rank and station in society
making such an exit. He had originally a large landed estate,
strictly entailed, got into difficulties, was obliged to go
abroad, compromised with his creditors and returned, fell into
fresh difficulties, involved himself inextricably in betting, and
went on with a determination to shoot himself if his speculations
failed, and so he did. He was very popular, had been extremely
handsome in his youth, and was a fellow of infinite pleasantry
and good-humour.

Lord Melbourne's affair after all is likely to come before a
court of law. He is very much annoyed at it, and so are his
relations, but nobody expects him to resign. The Low Tories, the
herd, exult at this misfortune, and find a motive for petty
political gratification in it, but not so the Duke of Wellington
or any of them who are above the miserable feelings of party
spite. I am sorry for it, because it is a bad thing to see men in
high places dragged through the mire.

I have heard a curious fact connected with the dismissal of
Mendizabal from his post of Prime Minister. He made an attempt on
the person of the Queen, which she resented with the greatest
aversion and rage. He afterwards wrote an apology, and then,
aware of the blunder of so committing himself, endeavoured to get
his letter back, which she refused to part with. The consequence
was that she availed herself of the first opportunity to get rid
of him.

June 9th, 1836 {p.351}

Dined at St. James's yesterday with the Jockey Club. The King
made a speech about himself and the Queen and the turf; he told
us 'the Queen was an excellent woman, as we all knew, and that of
all the societies which he had to entertain (which in his
capacity were many and various) we were the most truly British.'
He was very tired, and withdrew early. Wharncliffe said he was
weary and dejected.

June 27th, 1836 {p.351}


The town has been full of Melbourne's trial;[3] great exultation
at the result on the part of his political adherents, great
disappointment on that of the mob of Low Tories, and a creditable
satisfaction among the better sort; it was in point of fact a
very triumphant acquittal. The wonder is how with such a case
Norton's family ventured into court, but (although it is stoutly
denied) there can be no doubt that old Wynford was at the bottom
of it all, and persuaded Lord Grantley to urge it on for mere
political purposes. There is pretty conclusive evidence of this.
Fletcher Norton, who was examined on the trial, is staying in
town with a Mr. Lowe, a Nottinghamshire parson, and Denison, who
is Norton's neighbour, called on him the other day; Denison
talked to Lowe, who told him that Fletcher Norton had shown him
the case on which they were going to proceed, and that he had
told him he thought it was a very weak one, to which he had
replied so did he, but he believed they expected it would produce
a very important _political_ effect. The King behaved very
civilly about it, and expressed his satisfaction at the result in
terms sufficiently flattering to Melbourne.

      [3] [The trial of the cause Norton _v._ Lord Melbourne,
          which ended in a verdict for the defendant.]

To-night is the great night in the House of Lords, when they are
to deal with the Commons' amendments of the Municipal Bill. Lord
Grey is expected to speak, and he told his old colleagues that if
he did he should say what they would not like. The fact is, he is
out of humour. First he doesn't like being laid aside, though he
would not own this even to himself, and as he and Howick disagree
on many points, Howick tells him nothing, and consequently he
knows nothing, and this provokes him; then he is indignant at the
O'Connellism of the Government, and abhors the attacks on _his
order_. Tavistock talked to me a great deal yesterday about Lord
John Russell, who he declares is by no means the Radical he is
accused by his adversaries of being, that he is opposed tooth and
nail to the reform of the House of Lords, much disagreeing with
O'Connell, that he has constantly and firmly refused to comply
with the demands of the Dissenters in the matter of Church rates,
and that in the Ecclesiastical Commission he and the bishops are
on the best terms, and they are abundantly satisfied with him,
that the greatest Reformer there is Lord Harrowby, and John
Russell has had to act as mediator between him and the bishops.
The prelates, it seems, have grasped at patronage with all their
might, and have taken to themselves that which appertained to the
chapters, much to the disgust of the latter; they likewise
endeavoured to get hold of that which belongs to the Chancellor,
and on this occasion John wrote on a slip of paper (which he
threw across the table to the Archbishop of York), 'I don't
object to your robbing one another, but I can't let you rob the
Crown.' The Archbishop wrote back, 'That is just what I expected
from you.' This shows at least the good-humour that prevails
among them.


There has been such a stagnation in politics lately that I have
heard nothing, and having been laid up with the gout for a
fortnight, have seen scarcely anybody. The greatest interest I
have had has been in the dramatic representation at Bridgewater
House, to the rehearsals of which I ventured to go. They were
very brilliant and successful. As the space was limited, the
invitations necessarily were so, and everybody was wild to be
there. There were one or two _tracasseries_ growing out of the
thing, agitating for the moment, but very uninteresting in
themselves. The pieces were 'Glenfinlas,' taken from Walter
Scott's ballad, and 'Lalla Rookh,' from Moore's poem; the
principal performers were James Wortley, my brother Henry,
Mitford, Mrs. Bradshaw, Miss Kemble (Mrs. Sartoris); and the
chorus was composed of Mrs. Baring, Mrs. Hartopp, Miss Gent, Miss
Paget, Lady Mary Paget (Lady Sandwich), Lady Wallscourt, Lady
Georgiana Mitford, my sister, Lord Compton, Messrs. Westmacott,
Holford, James Macdonald, Baynton Lushington. Grieve painted
beautiful scenery, and the dresses were magnificent; all the
ladies were covered with diamonds, which the great jewellers lent
to them for the occasion. Mrs. Bradshaw's acting was perfection
itself, and altogether it was singular, striking, and eminently
successful, especially 'Glenfinlas,' which was very ingeniously
managed, and went off to the amazement of those who were
concerned in it, who did not expect such success.

July 1st, 1836 {p.353}

At Stoke for three days; divine weather, profusion of flowers and
shade, and every luxury; nobody there of any consequence. On
Tuesday night at the House of Lords to hear the debate, which was
worth hearing. Lyndhurst spoke very ably, by far the finest style
of speaking, so measured, grave, and earnest, nothing glittering
and gaudy, but a manly and severe style of eloquence. Lord Grey
spoke very becomingly, but was feeble compared with what he used
to be. He endeavoured to effect a compromise, and said nothing
offensive to anybody or any party, spoke strongly in favour of
the Ministerial measure, and I think took the sound view. I have
no doubt the Tory Lords are all in the wrong in taking the course
they do, and their arguments are very frivolous and inefficient.
O'Connell was not in the House during Lyndhurst's philippic, but
came in soon after, and his arrival made a great bustle.

July 9th, 1836 {p.353}

Since Monday (4th) at De Ros's villa. The division on the
appropriation clause and the majority of only twenty-six was
hailed with great triumph by the Tories, and was a grievous
disappointment to the Government. This, with the Warwickshire
election at the same moment, has made them very down in the mouth,
and raised the _Conservative stock_ pretty considerably. There was
very sharp work between Stanley and John Russell, who left off
_noble friending_ and took to _noble lording_ him, to show that
they were quite two. The fact is that they are in a huge
difficulty with this appropriation clause, which served their turn
for a while (when it turned out Peel and cemented their alliance
with the Radicals), and now it hangs like a millstone round their
necks, and is not unlikely to produce the dissolution of the
Government. Strange that this Irish Church in one way or another
is the insuperable obstacle to peace and tranquillity in Ireland,
and to the stability of any Administration here; and yet it is
fought for as if the prosperity or salvation of the State depended
on it--

             Tantum _religio_ potuit suadere malorum.

As far as the Whig Ministers are concerned it serves them right,
for it was a wicked and foolish proceeding; their conduct will
tell against them in the country, and when the House of Lords is
accused of stopping legislation, people will not fail to ask,
What else is the House of Commons doing, or rather how much more?
They assert that tithes are the great bane of Ireland, and the
cause of the disorder which prevail, and they propose a Tithe
Bill as the remedy, but they clog it with a condition which they
know, with as much certainty as human knowledge can attain, will
prevent its passing into a law, and in this shape they persist in
producing it. Lord John Russell and his colleagues, it is said,
are pledged not to pass a Tithe Bill without this clause; but
what cares the public for their pledges, and what is their
consistency compared with the great interests at stake, and which
are involved in the settlement of this question?

They acted 'Genfinlas' for the last time on Thursday, with
greater success than ever. The Queen was invited, but did not
come. All London is intent upon morning amusements--morning
parties, which are extended into the night. The Duchess of
Buccleuch gave entertainments on Monday and Wednesday; De Ros on
Friday--dinners, tents, illuminations, and dancing; all very gay
for those who can find amusement in it, which I have ceased to

July 18th, 1836 {p.355}


On Thursday night, almost as soon as I got back from Newmarket, I
heard that it was strongly suspected that the Cabinet were in
great embarrassment about the Irish Church question, and of course
the Tories were proportionably elated at the visions of return to
office which are always ready to dance before their eyes. This
report was confirmed to me the next day (Friday) by Lord
Tavistock, who told me what really was the case. The late division
seems to have made a considerable impression, and several of the
supporters of Government have represented that matters cannot
continue in their present state, and that the resistance to
payment of tithe on the one hand and the threats of rebellion on
the other render it of paramount necessity to settle the question,
and that it is better after all to take the Bill without the
appropriation clause than to let it be again lost. This difference
of opinion has of course particularly embarrassed Lord John
Russell, and they do not know what to do. With respect to Lord
John himself the question is, Can he continue in office and let
the Bill pass without the clause? If he cannot, are his colleagues
as completely committed as he is, or may not they elect some other
leader on his migration, and take the Bill in that state? I told
Tavistock that he well knew what my opinions had always been with
respect to the introduction of that clause, which seemed to be
more fully justified by the event; that I did not think any
difference could be made between John and his colleagues, and they
must stand or fall together. With respect to their taking the Bill
without the clause, they, and Lord John in particular, must make
up their minds, if they did so, to have every species of abuse
poured upon them from their Tory enemies and their Radical
friends; but they were in a scrape, and had, in fact, got the
country into a scrape too, and their duty now was to take that
course which on the whole seemed to promise the best results,
whatever it might personally cost them and to whatever reproaches
they might render themselves liable. If they were satisfied that
no other Government would at present be formed, and that the Irish
Church question could be settled in no other way, they ought to
swallow the pill. He said he thought they were not indisposed to
face the obloquy, if it must be so, and that all depended upon the
conduct of the Lords, and upon their affording the Government a
decent pretext for taking the Bill. I asked how. He said that what
he thought of was this--earnestly conjuring me not to commit him
and his friends by saying he had suggested any such thing (which
satisfied me that it was not only his own idea, but that of others
also belonging to the Government)--that last year the Lords had
thrown out the Bill, because the appropriation clause being a
money clause, they could not touch it, but that now this objection
was removed as to form, and they were at liberty to cut it out if
they pleased, and return the Bill without it to the Commons; that
if they would at the same time pass a resolution declaring that if
any surplus was reported such surplus should be at the disposal of
Parliament, without expressing any opinion as to the way in which
Parliament should deal with it, this, he thought, would be
sufficient to enable the Whigs _salvo honore_ to take the Bill;
neither party would be compromised or committed to anything at
variance with the principles they had already professed, and the
alteration in the state of the question produced by the discovery
of that legal process to which the clergy had had recourse would,
together with such a resolution, be a sufficient warrant to them
to pass the Bill. I told him that I would not commit him, and I
would endeavour (if I had an opportunity) to ascertain if there
was any chance of the Lords taking such a course, to which I could
see no objection.

Petworth, July 24th, 1836 {p.356}


Came here yesterday from Hillingdon, the day before from London.
In the morning (Friday) there was a meeting of the Ministerialists
at the Foreign Office; called by Lord John Russell, to talk to
them about the Church Bill. After the skirmish in the House of
Commons between him and Charles Buller a deputation, headed by
Hume, waited on Melbourne to remonstrate, and they reported that
the interview was on his part very civil and good-natured, but
very unsatisfactory. Lord John Russell therefore called them
together and harangued them. He is said to have spoken very well,
stating that Government could not and would not give way with
respect to this measure, and reminding Hume that in a former
speech he had already assented to the principle of the Bill. The
English Radicals were, however, not to be appeased, spoke
strongly, and declared they would oppose the Bill in every stage.
O'Connell rose, and said that he would support Government, that it
was of vital consequence to Ireland that there should be no
appearance of disunion in the party, and that no idea should
prevail there that there was a chance of its being broken up; and
for this reason Government should have his support.

I met them all coming away, and fastened on Tom Duncombe, who
told me what had passed, and how angry they (the English
Radicals) were. I asked him whether their resentment would induce
them to desert Government on the appropriation clauses and stay
away, because, if so, they must go out; and he said that it would
not push them to that length. It may be presumed that O'Connell's
behaviour at this meeting will have bound the Government still
more not to give way on this clause, and that whatever the Lords
may do, they will fight the battle.

The Lords in the meantime have gone quietly into Committee, and
the second reading passed off with tolerable harmony. Melbourne
made a good speech, and produced a surplus, but which the Duke of
Wellington will take very good care to reduce again to _nil_.
This is very easily done on one side, and the contrary on the
other; redistribution can accomplish either desideratum--surplus
or no surplus. However, the Government seems to be in a pretty
state between their moderate and their violent adherents, and
though they may scramble through this session, and hustle
Parliament to an end, it is difficult to see how they will ever
pass the ordeal of another, for they can neither continue in
their present course nor adopt any other with safety.

I met old Denison (the member for Surrey)--a strong supporter of
the Government and an old Whig--coming from the meeting on Friday,
and suggested to him what a scrape his friends were in. He owned
that it was so, but said that parties were so balanced that Peel
could not go on if he came in. I said Peel could not go on if the
King turned out the Government as he had done before, or if Peel
was instrumental in compelling them to resign; but that if they
resigned of their own accord, and because they were themselves
conscious that they could not go on, I thought Peel would be
supported by a majority even of this House of Commons; for, after
all, the country must have a Government, and if Peel took it
because it was vacant, and nobody else could be found to occupy
it, he could not be refused the trial, which he had in vain asked
for before. He owned this was true, and such an admission from
such a man was a great deal. The King is evidently waiting with
the greatest impatience for the moment when his Ministers must
resign. He complained bitterly of my brother-in-law's[4] going
abroad, and said it was a time when every Conservative ought to be
at his post, which means that every opponent of his Ministers
should strive with ceaseless zeal to drive them to the wall. He is
a true king of the Tories, for his impatience fully equals theirs.

      [4] [Lord Francis Egerton.]

August 7th, 1836 {p.358}


After the meeting at the Foreign Office there seems to have been
an end of all notion of any compromise, or any giving way on the
part of the Government about the clauses in the Tithe Bill, and
Lord John Russell held very strong language. The debate presented
nothing remarkable. Sheil came over from Ireland on purpose to
speak, not being able to vote, as he had paired. Great exertions
were made on both sides, and the Tories dragged up Sir Watkin
Williams Wynn from Wales, very infirm; and had a blind man in the
House, led about by Ross. The majority of twenty-nine ought to
have been twenty-six, just the same as the last division. Sir
Charles Cockerell (Whig) was shut out, whilst on the other side
Lord Arthur Hill's[5] vote was lost by his mother's death, which
made him a Peer, and the Lennoxes and Poyntz stayed away. The
whole thing went off tamely enough; everybody in Parliament knew
what was to happen, and out of doors people don't care. While the
revenue presents an excess of two millions, and everything
flourishes, political excitement is impossible. The Lords continue
to throw out Bills, and many complaints are made of their evident
determination to reject as many of the Commons' measures as they
can. Some of them have been opposed, particularly the Stafford
Disfranchisement Bill, by the Ministers themselves. The Lords,
however, no doubt evince a very imprudent disposition to exercise
their power of rejection without grave and sufficient cause, and
needlessly to expose themselves to the charge of wanton and
intemperate opposition to the measures of the Commons. It is the
height of folly to make the line between the two Houses as broad
as possible, and to publish to the world on every occasion that
the one House is Whig and the other Tory; not but what (in the
present rage for legislation, and the careless and hurried way in
which measures are bustled through the House of Commons) the
revision and watchful superintendence of the House of Lords are
more than ever necessary.

      [5] [Lord Arthur Hill became Baron Sandys on the death of
          his mother, the Marchioness of Downshire, who was
          Baroness Sandys in her own right.]

There was a report of General Evans' death the other day, which
was believed for some time, and long enough to show that there
would have been a contest for Westminster if it had been true.

The accounts from Spain are deplorable, and it is curious enough
that while Palmerston was proclaiming in the House of Commons his
conviction of the ultimate success of the Christino cause he must
have had letters from Villiers in his pocket telling him that it was
almost hopeless. I saw one from him a few days ago, written in the
greatest despondency. He said that he had been stopped on his road
to St. Ildefonso by intelligence that the Carlists were approaching
the place, and that the Queen had taken flight. He found all the
relays of mules ready for her Majesty, and he returned to Madrid. It
turned out to be a false alarm, and the Queen stayed where she was;
but he said that he could only compare the progress of the Carlists
to water spreading over table-land. It will be a severe blow to
Palmerston if this cause is overthrown, though perhaps no fault of
his policy. Had France acted fairly, the result of the Quadruple
Alliance would have answered the expectation of its authors, but
France, instead of co-operating according to the spirit of that
treaty, has thrown every impediment in its way. It is surprising to
hear how Palmerston is spoken of by those who know him well
officially--the Granvilles, for example. Lady Granville, a woman
expert in judging, thinks his capacity first-rate; that it
approaches to greatness from his enlarged views, disdain of
trivialities, resolution, decision, confidence, and above all his
contempt of clamour and abuse. She told me that Madame de Flahault
had a letter written by Talleyrand soon after his first arrival in
England, in which he talked with great contempt of the Ministers
generally, Lord Grey included, and said there was but one statesman
among them, and that was Palmerston. His ordinary conversation
exhibits no such superiority; but when he takes his pen in his hand
his intellect seems to have full play, and probably when engaged
exclusively in business.

August 13th, 1836 {p.360}

On Monday last I was riding early in the Park and met Lord
Howick. We rode together for some time. He said that 'he supposed
they should be out after this session, and they ought to be out,
as they could carry none of their measures, and the Lords
rejected Bill after Bill sent up from the other House; that since
the Tories chose to go on in this way, they must make the
experiment and carry on the Government if they could, but they
must look for every opposition from his friends and his party. It
was quite impossible things could go on upon their present
footing; the country would not stand it, and the Lords must look
to those changes which their own conduct rendered indispensable.'
I said to Howick that the appropriation clause made the great
difficulty of the Whigs; that I believed they were, on the whole,
a very Conservative Government, but why struggle for this
absurdity, and why not bring forward a measure at once of real
relief and pay the Catholic clergy? He said they could not do it;
their own friends would not support them; that the Tories might
have done it, but that the Whigs could not. 'So,' I replied,
'both parties are in such a position that no Conservative
measures can be carried but by the Whigs, and no Liberal ones but
by the Tories.'

Since this there has been a free conference, and the Lords have
been bowling down Bills like ninepins. This certainly cannot go
on; either the Tories must come into power again, or the Whigs
must do something to control the House of Lords, or the Lords
must lower their tone and adopt more moderate counsels. The
latter would be the best, as it is the least probable, of the
three alternatives.

His Majesty was pleased to be very facetious at the Council the
other day, though not very refined. A new seal for the Cape of
Good Hope was approved, and the impression represented a Caffre,
with some ornaments on his head which resembled _horns_. The King
asked Lord Glenelg what these _horns_ meant, but Glenelg referred
his Majesty to Poulett Thomson, to whom he said, 'Well, Mr.
Thomson, what do you say to this? I know you are a man of
gallantry, but if you choose to be represented with a pair of
horns I am sure I have no objection;' at which sally their
lordships laughed, as in duty bound.

August 21st, 1836 {p.361}


Yesterday the King prorogued Parliament with a very moderate,
inoffensive Speech. The Tories had spread a report that the
Ministers wanted to thrust into the Speech some allusions to the
conduct of the House of Lords, but no such thing was ever

The session was wound up by an oration of Lyndhurst's in the House
of Lords, introduced with a considerable note of preparation. It
was announced a day or two before that he was going down to
deliver a vindication of the majority of the Lords and of himself
for their conduct during the session, and the expectation which
was raised was not disappointed. It seems to have been a great
display, and sufficiently well answered by Melbourne. As his
opponents universally admit that Lyndhurst's speech was of
consummate ability, while his friends confess that it was not
discreet and well judged, we may safely conclude that it deserves
both the praise and the blame; and as the Duke of Wellington rose
afterwards and made a speech of remarkable moderation, it would
certainly appear as if he thought it necessary to temper the
violence of Lyndhurst by a more conciliatory tone. When I say _his
friends_ have expressed the opinions above stated, I should say
that I have conversed with only two--Lords Bathurst and Ripon--and
they both expressed themselves to this effect. Lord Holland, who
endeavoured to answer it, said he thought Lyndhurst's one of the
best speeches he had ever heard in Parliament.

If he had confined himself to a temperate and dignified
vindication of the proceedings of the House of Lords (that is, of
his own), and had abstained from any attack on the Government,
and especially from any language reflecting on the Commons,
perhaps it would have been a wise measure, but it cannot be wise
to widen the differences which already exist between the two
Houses, and to render all the animosities of public men more
bitter and irreconcilable than they were before. The Tories are
convinced that they are becoming more and more popular, and that
the country approves of the daring behaviour of the Lords. The
Whigs insist that the apathy of the country (which they mistake
for approbation) is nothing but the imperturbability resulting
from prosperity and full employment, but that if adverse
circumstances arise a storm will burst on the Lords, and they
will see how miserably deceived they are. I think the Lords have
gone too far, and though a vast deal of crude legislation comes
up from the Commons, requiring much supervision, and often great
alteration, they have shown an animus and adopted a practice
quite foreign to the usual habits of the House of Lords, and
which is in itself an important innovation. The truth is, it is
not (as has been represented) a contest between _the two Houses_,
but between the two great _parties_ very nearly balanced, of
which the stronghold of one is in the Lords, and that of the
other in the Commons. It can scarcely cross the minds of either
party, or of any individual of either, that the substantive power
of Government can or ought to be transferred from the House of
Commons to the House of Lords, and Lyndhurst and the Tories would
not venture to make the havoc which they do in the Government
Bills if they were not persuaded that if ever a crisis is
produced by the collision their party will succeed in obtaining
the sanction of the country and an ascendency in the other House.
If they have estimated correctly their own strength and the real
disposition of the country, their Parliamentary tactics have been
skilful, but the game which they play is a very desperate one,
for if it fails the House of Lords can hardly avoid suffering
very materially from the conflict. However, much is to be said on
the subject when considered in all its bearings.

The King at his last levee received Dr. Allen to do homage for
the see of Ely, when he said to him, 'My Lord, I do not mean to
interfere in any way with your vote in Parliament except on one
subject, _the Jews _, and I trust I may depend on your always
voting against them.'

August 30th, 1836 {p.363}


At Hillingdon from Saturday to Monday. There were great festivities
at Windsor during the Egham race week, when the King's daughter Lady
Augusta was married at the Castle[6]. It was remarked that on the
King's birthday not one of the Ministers was invited to the Castle,
and none except the Household in any way connected with the
Government. At the Queen's birthday a short time before not one
individual of that party was present. Nothing can be more
undisguised than the King's aversion to his Ministers, and he seems
resolved to intimate that his compulsory reception of them shall not
extend to his society, and that though he can't help seeing them at
St. James's, the gates of Windsor are shut against them. All his
habitual guests are of the Tory party, and generally those who have
distinguished themselves by their violence or are noted for their
extreme opinions--Winchilsea and Wharncliffe, for example, of the
former, and the Duke of Dorset of the latter sort. At the dinner on
his birthday the King gave the Princess Victoria's health rather
well. Having given the Princess Augusta's he said, 'And now, having
given the health of the oldest, I will give that of the youngest
member of the Royal Family. I know the interest which the public
feel about her, and although _I have not seen so much of her as I
could have wished_, I take no less interest in her, and the more I
do see of her, both in public and in private, the greater pleasure
it will give me.' The whole thing was so civil and gracious that it
could hardly be taken ill, but the young Princess sat opposite, and
hung her head with not unnatural modesty at being thus talked of in
so large a company.

      [6] [Lady Augusta Fitzclarence, fourth daughter of King
          William IV. by Mrs. Jordan, married first, on the 5th
          of July, 1827 to the Hon. John Kennedy Erskine, and
          secondly, on the 26th of August, 1836, to Lord John
          Frederick Gordon. She died in 1865.]

While London is entirely deserted, and everything is quiet and
prosperous here, there is a storm raging in Spain which has
already had an effect in France, by producing the dissolution of
Thiers's Ministry,[7] and may very likely end by creating
disturbances in that country and embroiling Europe. The
complication of French politics, the character and designs of the
King, his relations with the great Powers of Europe, and the
personal danger to which he is exposed from the effects of a
demoralised mass of floating hostility and disaffection, rendered
doubly perilous from the mixture of unnatural excitement and
contempt of life which largely enter into it, present a very
curious and very interesting subject of political observation and
speculation for those who have the means of investigating it

      [7] [M. Thiers came into power for the first time as
          Minister of Foreign Affairs and head of the Government
          on the 22nd of February, 1836. He had boasted that he
          should be able to engage the King in a more active
          intervention in Spain in favour of the young Queen--'Nous
          entraînerons le Roi' was his expression--but in
          this he was deceived, and his Administration came to a
          speedy termination. Lord Palmerston proposed on the
          14th of March that some of the ports on the coast of
          Biscay should be occupied by British seamen and
          marines, and that Passages, Fontarabia, and the valley
          of Bartan should be occupied by the French. This scheme
          was strenuously opposed by the King, though M. Thiers
          was willing to assent to it. The Revolution of La
          Granja in August only increased the repugnance of Louis
          Philippe to interfere actively in Spain, and early in
          September the Thiers Cabinet was dissolved. Mr.
          Villiers's narrative of the revolution of La Granja is
          alluded to in the passage next following.]

September 7th, 1836 {p.365}


Mrs. Villiers sent me to-day the copies of two despatches of
George Villiers's to Palmerston, containing a narrative of the
events which took place at St. Ildefonso on the 12th, 13th, and
14th of last month; these he sent to her, because he had not time
to write the details all over again. Nothing can be more curious,
nothing more interesting, nothing more admirably described, all
the details given with great simplicity, extreme clearness, and
inimitable liveliness of narration. It reminds one of the scenes
enacted during the French Revolution; but as these despatches
will probably be published, I shall not be at the pains to give
an analysis of them here. It is remarkable how courageously and
prudently the Queen seems to have behaved. What energies a
difficult crisis called forth! How her spirit and self-possession
bore up in the midst of danger and insult, and how she contrived
to preserve her dignity even while compelled to make the most
humiliating concessions! No romance was ever more interesting
than this narrative. George Villiers's correspondence will some
day or other make one of the most valuable and entertaining
publications that ever appeared, though I shall not live to see
it. He writes incomparably well, with a mixture of vivacity and
energy peculiarly his own.

September 21st, 1836 {p.365}

I have recorded nothing about the revolutions at Madrid and
Lisbon, because I know nothing besides what has appeared in all
the newspapers, and it would be very useless to copy facts from
their columns. As to private matters, and the exploits or
interests of individuals, I only note them as the fancy takes me,
and the fancy has not taken me of late. I cannot keep a
_journal_--that is, a day by day memorial--and I have an
invincible repugnance to making my MS. books the receptacles of
scandal, and handing down to posterity (if ever posterity should
have an opportunity of seeing and would take the trouble to read
these pages) the _private_ faults and follies of my friends,
acquaintance, and associates.

To-day we had a Council, the first since Parliament was
prorogued, when his most gracious Majesty behaved most
ungraciously to his confidential servants, whom he certainly does
not delight to honour. The last article on the list was a
petition of Admiral Sartorius praying to be restored to his rank,
and when this was read the King, after repeating the usual form
of words, added, 'And must be granted. As Captain Napier was
restored, so must this gentleman be, for there was this
difference between their cases: Admiral Napier knew he was doing
wrong, which Admiral Sartorius was not aware of.' Lord Minto
said, 'I believe, sir, there was not so much difference between
the two cases as your Majesty imagines, for Admiral Sartorius--'
Then followed something which I could not catch, but the King
did, for he said, with considerable asperity, 'Unless your
Lordship is quite sure of that, I must beg leave to say that I
differ from you and do not believe it to be so, but since you
have expressed your belief that it is so, I desire you will
furnish me with proofs of it immediately. The next time I see you
you will be prepared with the proofs of what you say, for unless
I see them I shall not believe one word of it.' Minto made no
reply to this extraordinary sortie, and the rest looked at each
other in silence.


This, however, was nothing compared with what took place at
Windsor with the Duchess of Kent, of which I heard something a
long time ago (August 30th), but never the particulars till last
night. It is very remarkable that the thing has not been more
talked about. The King invited the Duchess of Kent to go to
Windsor on the 12th of August to celebrate the Queen's birthday
(13th), and to stay there over his own birthday, which was to be
kept (_privately_) on the 21st (the real day, but falling on
Sunday) and _publicly_ the day following. She sent word that she
wanted to keep her own birthday at Claremont on the 15th (or
whatever the day is), took no notice of the Queen's birthday, but
said she would go to Windsor on the 20th. This put the King in a
fury; he made, however, no reply, and on the 20th he was in town
to prorogue Parliament, having desired that they would not wait
dinner for him at Windsor. After the prorogation he went to
Kensington Palace to look about it; when he got there he found
that the Duchess of Kent had appropriated to her own use a suite
of apartments, seventeen in number, for which she had applied last
year, and which he had refused to let her have. This increased his
ill-humour, already excessive. When he arrived at Windsor and went
into the drawing-room (at about ten o'clock at night), where the
whole party was assembled, he went up to the Princess Victoria,
took hold of both her hands, and expressed his pleasure at seeing
her there and his regret at not seeing her oftener. He then turned
to the Duchess and made her a low bow, almost immediately after
which he said that 'a most unwarrantable liberty had been taken
with one of his palaces; that he had just come from Kensington,
where he found apartments had been taken possession of not only
without his consent, but contrary to his commands, and that he
neither understood nor would endure conduct so disrespectful to
him.' This was said loudly, publicly, and in a tone of serious
displeasure. It was, however, only the muttering of the storm
which was to break the next day. Adolphus Fitzclarence went into
his room on Sunday morning, and found him in a state of great
excitement. It was his birthday, and though the celebration was
what was called private, there were a hundred people at dinner,
either belonging to the Court or from the neighbourhood. The
Duchess of Kent sat on one side of the King and one of his sisters
on the other, the Princess Victoria opposite. Adolphus Fitzclarence
sat two or three from the Duchess, and heard every word of what
passed. After dinner, by the Queen's desire, 'His Majesty's
health, and long life to him' was given, and as soon as it was
drunk he made a very long speech, in the course of which he poured
forth the following extraordinary and _foudroyante_ tirade:--'I
trust in God that my life may be spared for nine months longer,
after which period, in the event of my death, no regency would
take place. I should then have the satisfaction of leaving the
royal authority to the personal exercise of that young lady
(pointing to the Princess), the heiress presumptive of the Crown,
and not in the hands of a person now near me, who is surrounded by
evil advisers and who is herself incompetent to act with propriety
in the station in which she would be placed. I have no hesitation
in saying that I have been insulted--grossly and continually
insulted--by that person, but I am determined to endure no longer
a course of behaviour so disrespectful to me. Amongst many other
things I have particularly to complain of the manner in which that
young lady has been kept away from my Court; she has been
repeatedly kept from my drawing-rooms, at which she ought always
to have been present, but I am fully resolved that this shall not
happen again. I would have her know that I am King, and I am
determined to make my authority respected, and for the future I
shall insist and command that the Princess do upon all occasions
appear at my Court, as it is her duty to do.' He terminated his
speech by an allusion to the Princess and her future reign in a
tone of paternal interest and affection, which was excellent in
its way.


This awful philippic (with a great deal more which I forget) was
uttered with a loud voice and excited manner. The Queen looked in
deep distress, the Princess burst into tears, and the whole
company were aghast. The Duchess of Kent said not a word.
Immediately after they rose and retired, and a terrible scene
ensued; the Duchess announced her immediate departure and ordered
her carriage, but a sort of reconciliation was patched up, and
she was prevailed upon to stay till the next day. The following
morning, when the King saw Adolphus, he asked him what people
said to his speech. He replied that they thought the Duchess of
Kent merited his rebuke, but that it ought not to have been given
there; that he ought to have sent for her into his closet, and
have said all that he felt and thought there, but not at table
before a hundred people. He replied that he did not care where he
said it or before whom, that 'by God he had been insulted by her
in a measure that was past all endurance, and he would not stand
it any longer.'

Nothing can be more unaccountable than the Duchess of Kent's
behaviour to the King, nothing more reprehensible; but his
behaviour to her has always been as injudicious and undignified
as possible, and this last sortie was monstrous. It was his duty
and his right to send for her, and signify to her both his
displeasure at the past and his commands for the future; but such
a gross and public insult offered to her at his own table,
sitting by his side and in the presence of her daughter, admits
of no excuse. It was an unparalleled outrage from a man to a
woman, from a host to his guest, and to the last degree
unbecoming the station they both of them fill. He has never had
the firmness and decision of character a due display of which
would have obviated the necessity of such bickerings, and his
passion leads him to these indecent exhibitions, which have not
the effect of correcting, and cannot fail to have that of
exasperating her, and rendering their mutual relations more
hopelessly disagreeable.

November 7th, 1836 {p.369}

An interval of above six weeks. I went to Newmarket on the 3rd of
October, returned to town for a Council on Wednesday in the first
October week; after the first October meeting I went to
Buckenham, after the second to Euston, and after the third came
to town. At Buckenham I met Adolphus Fitzclarence, who told me
over again the particulars of the scene with the Duchess of Kent,
which did not differ materially from what I have put down. He
added one item, that the day following the Queen was not ready
for dinner, and when dinner was announced and he was waiting he
asked, 'Where's the Queen?' They told him she was waiting for the
Duchess of Kent, when he said, loud enough for everybody to hear,
'That woman is a nuisance.' He was very angry at King Leopold's
coming here, received him very coldly at Windsor, had no
conversation with him on business, and on one occasion exhibited
a rudeness even to brutality. It seems he hates water-drinkers;
God knows why. One day at dinner Leopold called for water, when
the King asked, 'What's that you are drinking, sir?' 'Water,
sir.' 'God damn it!' rejoined the other King; 'why don't you
drink wine? I never allow anybody to drink water at my table.'
Leopold only dined there, and went away in the evening. All this
is very miserable and disgraceful.

Of politics during this period I have heard little or nothing,
except that while the Conservatives are feasting and spouting in
all parts of the country, and rallying their forces, there is a
split among their opponents, an event which was inevitable,
considering the different shades of opinion prevailing amongst
them, though they hope to reconcile all their differences by the
time Parliament meets, which they will probably do, in order to
baffle their common enemy. It is, however, a good thing that
these differences should arise amongst them. I wish I could see a
party formed upon really Conservative principles, determined to
maintain the Constitution and steer clear of Tory nonsense and
bigotry; but this I doubt to be practicable.

November 8th, 1836 {p.370}


I dined on Sunday with Cunningham, and met Prince Esterhazy, with
whom I had a long conversation. He talked a great deal about the
state of Europe, of the bickerings between Palmerston and Louis
Philippe on the Spanish question, between England and Russia in
the East, and of the position of Austria in the midst of it all;
that he had conversed often and at great length with the Emperor
of Russia at Prague and with Louis Philippe at Paris, both having
talked in the most open manner, and that he was endeavouring (he
thought successfully) to bring Palmerston to an amicable tone and
feeling, and to effect some sort of compromise with respect to the
debated points. Both sovereigns have the same desire to avoid war,
and Louis Philippe told him that his object was 'de rendre la
guerre impossible,' that no Power could be so much interested as
Austria was in restraining the power and ambition of Russia within
reasonable bounds, and that the Emperor had held the most moderate
language, as he believed with sincerity; that our prejudices
against Russia were unreasonably violent, and they arose in some
degree from mortification at our own misconduct in letting
opportunities slip out of our hands, and throwing advantages and
influence into those of Russia, which we were now angry that she
availed herself of; but that if we continued to act frankly and
firmly in conjunction with Austria and France (France and Austria
being perfectly agreed) we should have nothing to fear from
Russia. They (the northern Powers) were content that we should
exercise an especial influence in the Peninsula; they were aware
that these questions were the peculiar concern and interest of
France and England, and they did not want to interfere. But for
the escape of Don Carlos, which altered the aspect of affairs in
Spain, and some trifling points of etiquette which might easily
have been adjusted, the Spanish question would have been settled
among the Powers long ago, and the Queen recognised by them all.
He said that for a long time past the affairs of Europe had been
extensively influenced by personal feelings and individual
interests and passions, greatly so on Palmerston's own part and
very much during the embassy of the Lievens, Madame de Lieven
having been so much influenced by partisanship and by her
fluctuating friendships and connections. The Emperor told
Esterhazy that it was impossible for him to leave Lieven there,
that he was not represented by him as he ought to be, that they in
some respects fell short of, and in others went beyond, the line
which their duty and his interests demanded. He said that the
Emperor Nicholas was a very remarkable man--absolute master, his
own Minister, and under no other influence whatever--that his
perceptions were just and his ideas remarkably clear, although his
views were not very extensive, and the circle within which these
ideas ranged was limited, Nesselrode not having a particle of
influence; his Ministers and Ambassadors were clerks; and while
his ease and affability to foreigners (to him--Esterhazy--in
particular) were excessively striking, he treated his Russians
with a loftiness that could not be conceived, and one and all
trembled in his presence with the crouching humility of slaves.
When he was at Prague he on a sudden set off and travelled with
amazing rapidity to Vienna, without giving any notice to anybody.
His object was to visit the Dowager Empress and the tomb of the
late Emperor. He alighted at Tatischef's (his Ambassador's),
where, as soon as his arrival was known, the Russian ladies who
were at Vienna full-dressed themselves and hurried off to pay
their _devoirs_. They were met in all their diamonds and feathers
on the staircase by Benkendorf, who said, 'Allez-vous en bien
vite; l'Empereur ne veut pas voir une seule de vous,' and they
were obliged to bustle back with as much alacrity as they had
come. Though the best understanding prevailed between the French
and Austrian Governments, and the latter is cordially allied with
Louis Philippe, there is some sourness and disappointment at the
failure of the project of marriage with which the Duke of Orleans
went to Vienna. Esterhazy said that it had failed in great measure
through an imprudent precipitation; that the Duke had given
universal satisfaction, but there were great prejudices to
surmount, and the recollection of Marie Antoinette and Marie
Louise. He thought the advantages of the match were overrated at
Paris, but they were so anxious for it there that the disappointment
was considerable; he said he thought that it might still be
brought about. These are the few fragments I have retained from
the talk we had.

November 13th, 1836 {p.372}


Nomination of the sheriffs yesterday. Two of the judges--old Park
and Alderson--would not send me their lists, nonsensically
alleging that it was unconstitutional; all the others did.[8] Old
Park is peevish and foolish. The Ministers are come to town,
having enough upon their hands; the war in Spain, and approaching
downfall of the Christino cause, will be a blow which will shake
Palmerston's credit severely, and many think will force him to
retire, which, however, I do not expect. Then the nervousness in
the City about the monetary state, the disappearance of gold, the
cessation of orders from America, and the consequent interruption
to trade, and dismissal of thousands of workmen who have been
thrown out of employment, present the prospect of a disquieting
winter. It is remarkable that all accounts agree in stating that
so great is the improvidence of the artisans and manufacturing
labourers, that none of those who have been in the receipt of the
highest wages have saved anything against the evil days with
which they are menaced. Rice affected to be very cheerful
yesterday, and said it would all come right. A good deal of
alarm, however, prevails in what are called practical quarters.
Then there is a split among the Radicals, some of whom are
dissatisfied that Government will not take up their views, and
others are affronted at the personal neglect or incivility which
they have experienced. As the Ministers disclaim any connection
with the Radicals, while existing upon their support, they think
it necessary in proof of the first to exclude them from any
participation in those social civilities which Ministers usually
dispense to their adherents, and as these patriots are not free
from the same stirrings of pride and vanity which are found in
other men, they are mortified and disgusted, as well as
indignant, at such unworthy usage; they will, however, smooth
their ruffled plumage before Parliament meets, for they must
support the present Government, and Government will perhaps be a
little more cordial, as they can't do without these allies.

      [8] [The lists of sheriffs for the ensuing year are
          commonly handed in by the judges to the Clerk of the
          Council in the Court of Exchequer on the morrow of St.

November 17th, 1836 {p.373}

I have had two other conversations with Esterhazy at different
times. He went to Brighton and saw the King, whom he thought much
_baissé_, but I do not know whether it is a proof of it that he
could not prevail upon his Majesty to enter upon foreign politics
with him. He repeated to me what he had said before of the
necessity of a strict and cordial union between Austria and
England, and the disposition of the former not to contest our
supremacy and influence in the Peninsula, but he harps upon the
_mode_ of doing this, which I don't quite understand. I gathered
from him, and have heard from other quarters, that Metternich's
influence is much diminished, and that the Austrian Cabinet is no
longer ruled by him as heretofore, and that there is not the same
union: but there would appear to be a very complete union in the
Austrian Imperial Family, who cling together from a sense of
their common interest, and in great measure from the respect and
attachment which they all feel for the memory of the late
Emperor. Esterhazy said it was remarkable, considering the
condition of the Imperial House--the Emperor[9] in a state
bordering on idiocy, not likely to live above four or five years
at the outside, and his uncles all men of talent and energy; the
next heir, the brother of the Emperor,[10] is a man of competent
sense, but the late Emperor's brothers he describes to be all
superior men.

      [9] [The Emperor Ferdinand, here described, filled the
          throne until 1848, when he abdicated in the great
          convulsion of that year; he spent the rest of his life
          in retirement at Prague, but he survived this
          prediction nearly forty years.]

     [10] [The Archduke Franz Joseph, father of the present
          Emperor. But this Archduke never filled the throne.]


He told me a great deal about the Duke of Reichstadt, who, if he
had lived, would have probably played a great part in the world.
He died of a premature decay, brought on apparently by over-exertion
and over-excitement; his talents were very conspicuous, he was
_pétri d'ambition_, worshipped the memory of his father, and for
that reason never liked his mother; his thoughts were incessantly
turned towards France, and when he heard of the days of July he
said, 'Why was I not there to take my chance?' He evinced great
affection and gratitude to his grandfather, who, while he
scrupulously observed all his obligations towards Louis Philippe,
could not help feeling a secret pride in the aspiring genius and
ambition of Napoleon's son. He was well educated, and day and
night pored over the history of his father's glorious career. He
delighted in military exercises, and not only shone at the head of
his regiment, but had already acquired the hereditary art of
ingratiating himself with the soldiers. Esterhazy told me one
anecdote in particular, which shows the absorbing passion of his
soul overpowering the usual propensities of his age. He was to
make his first appearance in public at a ball at Lady Cowley's (to
which he had shown great anxiety to go), and was burning with
impatience to amuse himself with dancing and flirting with the
beauties he had admired in the Prater. He went, but there he met
two French marshals--Marmont and Maison. He had no eyes or ears
but for them; from nine in the evening to five the next morning he
devoted himself to these marshals, and conversed with them without
ceasing. Though he knew well enough all the odium that attached to
Marmont, he said to him that he was too happy to have the
opportunity of making the acquaintance of one who had been among
his father's earliest companions, and who could tell him so many
interesting details of his earlier days. Marmont subsequently
either did give or was to have given him lessons in strategy.

                          CHAPTER XXXII.

Crisis in the City--The Chancellor of the Exchequer--A Journey to
  Paris--Lord Lyndhurst in Paris--Princess Lieven--Parties in
  France--Berryer--The Strasburg Conspirators--Rotten state of
  France--Presentation at the Tuileries--Ball at the Tuileries--
  Bal Musard--Lord Granville--The Duc de Broglie--Position of the
  Duc d'Orleans--Return to England--Conservative reaction--
  Sheil's tirade against Lord Lyndhurst--Lyndhurst as a Tory
  leader--Angry Debates on Church Rates--The Government on the
  brink of resignation--Sir R. Peel's prospects--The King and
  Lord Aylmer--Death of Mrs. Fitzherbert--Ministerial
  Compromise--Westminster Election--Majority of the Princess
  Victoria--The King's illness--The King's letter to the
  Princess--Preparations for the Council--Sir R. Peel on the
  prospects of the New Reign--Prayers ordered for the King's
  Recovery--Affairs of Lord Ponsonby--Death of King William IV.--
  First Council of Queen Victoria--The Queen proclaimed--
  Character of William IV.

                *       *       *       *       *


January 6th, 1837 {p.376}


I met Robarts at dinner yesterday, who gave me an account of the
alarm which has recently pervaded the City about monetary
matters, from the low state of the exchanges, the efflux of gold,
and the confusion produced by the embarrassments of the Great
Northern and Central Bank. These financial details are not
peculiarly interesting in themselves, and are only worth noticing
from the light they throw upon the capacity of our rulers, and
the estimation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is held
among the great moneyed authorities.[1] Nothing can in fact be
lower than it is. Robarts, a staunch Whig and thick and thin
supporter of Government, told me that he was quite unequal to the
situation he held; that these embarrassments had been predicted
to him, and the remedy pointed out long ago by practical men;
that the most eminent bankers in the City--Patterson the Governor
of the Bank, Grote, Glyn, himself, and others--had successively
been consulted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they had
all expressed the same opinion and given the same advice; but
that he had met their conclusions with a long chain of reasoning
founded upon the most fallacious premises, columns of prices of
stocks and exchequer-bills in former years, and calculations and
conjectures upon these data, which the keen view and sagacious
foresight of these men (whose wits are sharpened by the magnitude
of their immediate interest in the results, and whose long habits
make them so familiar with the details) detected and exposed, not
without some feelings both of resentment and contempt for the
Minister who clung to his own theories in preference to their
practical conclusions. What they originally advised Rice to do
was to raise the interest on exchequer-bills, which he refused,
and afterwards was compelled to do. Robarts said he had no doubt
that if Peel had been in office he would have shown himself equal
to cope with the difficulty which Rice had proved himself so
incompetent to meet. The raising of the siege of Bilbao will have
given Palmerston a lift, but between our foreign and our
financial affairs the Ministers will not have an easy session of
the next.

      [1] Mr. Spring Rice was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord
          Melbourne's second Administration until 1839, when he
          was raised to the peerage under the title of Lord
          Monteagle of Brandon.

Dover, January 12th, 1837 {p.377}

Having resolved, after many struggles, to go to Paris, here I am
on my way, and on arriving find that it blows a hurricane, and
there is little or no chance of being able to cross to-morrow;
for all I know I may be kept here for the next three days.

January 13th, 1837 {p.377}

I might have gone very well this morning, but was persuaded not
to start by the mate of the Government packet, and, like a fool,
I listened to him. It was a fine calm morning.

Paris, January 17th, 1837 {p.377}

Arrived here last night at five, having left Dover at a quarter
to one the day before; three hours to Boulogne, twenty-two to

I made a very prosperous journey; went to the Embassy in the
evening, and found a heap of people--Molé, Montalivet, Lyndhurst,
Madame de Lieven, Madame de Dino, Talleyrand, &c.

Paris, January 19th, 1837 {p.378}


On Tuesday went about visiting; found nobody but Madame Alfred de
Noailles and Raikes; was to have gone to the Chamber, but the
ticket did not arrive in time; dined at the Embassy. Wednesday, in
the morning, to the gallery of the Louvre; dined with Talleyrand;
to Madame de Lieven's and Madame Graham's. Talleyrand as well as
ever, except weaker on his legs; asked me to dine there whenever I
was not engaged. In the morning called at the Tuileries, and left
a note for the Duke of Orleans's aide-de-camp, asking to be
presented to his Royal Highness; and at night my mother went to
Court, and begged leave to bring me there to present me to the
Royal family. Lyndhurst sets off to London this morning, and I had
only an opportunity of exchanging a few words with him. He told me
he had never passed such an agreeable time as the last four
months; not a moment of _ennui_; had become acquainted with a host
of remarkable people of all sorts, political characters of all
parties, and the _littérateurs_, such as Victor Hugo, Balzac, &c.,
the latter of whom, he says, is a very agreeable man. He told me
that 'Le Père Goriot' is a true story, and that since its
publication he had become acquainted with some more circumstances
which would have made it still more striking. He has been leading
here 'une vie de garçon,' and making himself rather ridiculous in
some respects. He said to me, 'I suppose the Government will get
on; I'm sure I shall not go on in the House of Lords this year as
I did the last. I was induced by circumstances and some little
excitement to take a more prominent part than usual last session;
but I don't see what I got by it except abuse. I thought I should
not hear any of the abuse that was poured upon me when I came
here, and got out of the reach of the English newspapers, but, on
the contrary, I find it all concentrated in Galignani.' Lyndhurst
and Ellice have been great friends here. Madame de Lieven seems to
have a very agreeable position at Paris. She receives every night,
and opens her house to all comers. Being neutral ground, men of
all parties meet there, and some of the most violent antagonists
have occasionally joined in amicable and curious discussion. It is
probably convenient to her Court that she should be here under
such circumstances, for a woman of her talents cannot fail to pick
up a good deal of interesting, and perhaps useful, information;
and as she is not subject to the operation of the same passions
and prejudices which complicated and disturbed her position in
England, she is able to form a juster estimate of the characters
and the objects of public men. She says Paris is a very agreeable
place to live at, but expresses an unbounded contempt for the
French character, and her lively sense of the moral superiority of
England. I asked her who were the men whom she was best inclined
to praise. She likes Molé, as pleasing, intelligent, and
gentlemanlike; Thiers the most brilliant, very lively and amusing;
Guizot and Berryer, both very remarkable. She talked freely enough
of Ellice, who is her dear friend, and from whom she draws all she
can of English politics; that he had come here for the purpose of
intriguing against the present Government, and trying to set up
Thiers again, and that he had fancied he should manage it. Molé[2]
was fully aware of it, and felt towards him accordingly. Lord
Granville, who was attached to the Duc de Broglie, and therefore
violently opposed to Thiers, when he became Minister, soon became
even more partial to Thiers, which sudden turn was the more
curious, because such had been their original antipathy that Lady
Granville had been personally uncivil to Madame Thiers, so much so
that Thiers had said to Madame de Lieven, that 'he would have her
to know it was not to be endured that an Ambassadress should
behave with such marked incivility to the wife of the Prime
Minister, and if she chose to continue so to do she might get her
husband sent away.' The other replied, 'Monsieur Thiers, if you
say this to me with the intention of its being repeated to Lady
Granville, I tell you you must go elsewhere for the purpose, for I
do not intend to do so.' I asked her whether it had been repeated,
and she said she thought probably it had been through Ellice for
soon after all was smiles and civility between them. She talked a
great deal about England, and of the ignorance of the French about
it; that Molé, for example, had said, 'It is true that we are not
in an agreeable state, but England is in a still worse.' The King,
however, is of a different opinion, and appears better to
understand the nature of our system. She described him (Molé) as
not the cleverest and most brilliant, but by far the most
sensible, sound, and well-judging man of them all.

      [2] [M. Molé was then Prime Minister. The overthrow of M.
          Thiers on the Spanish question had been regarded as a
          check by the English Government, and Mr. Ellice was a
          cordial friend and supporter of Thiers. The resentment
          of Lord Palmerston at the refusal of the King to
          support the cause of the Queen in Spain by a direct
          intervention, was the commencement of that coolness
          which is noticed further on, and which led eventually
          to most important results.]

Peel's Glasgow speeches arrived yesterday, that is, were in
general circulation, for the King received on the 16th a
newspaper containing the speech made there on the 13th, an
instance (as it seems to me) of unexampled rapidity. Lord
Granville, who praises anything against his own party very
reluctantly, told me he thought Peel's speech at the dinner very
dexterous, and Ellice said, though there was nothing new in it,
he thought it would produce a great effect.

January 20th, 1837 {p.380}


Yesterday went about visiting, found Montrond ill. Sat a long time
with Lady Granville, who was very amusing, and told me a great
deal about the characters of the people and the _tracasseries_ in
society; dined at the Club, and at night to Madame de Lieven's,
where I found Berryer, a remarkable-looking man, but not like what
I expected: dark, stout, countenance very intelligent, with a
cheerful, cunning, and rather leering look, such as a clever Irish
priest might have, neither in look nor manner very refined. He
soon went away, so I heard nothing of his conversation. Everybody
I have met has been very civil and obliging, and I ought to be and
am grateful for my reception, but I wish myself back again, and
ask myself a hundred times why I came. It is tiresome to go
through introductions to a parcel of people whom I shall probably
never see again, whose names I can scarcely remember, and with
whom, be they ever so agreeable, I have not time to form any
intimacy. They all ask the same question, 'Do you make a long stay
here?' to which I universally reply, 'As long as I can,' which,
being interpreted, means, I shall be off as soon as I can find a
decent pretext. It may be a very delightful place to _live at_,
but for a flying visit (as at present inclined), I don't think it

January 21st and 22nd, 1837 {p.381}

Walked about and rejoiced in the Madeleine, which is alone worth
coming to Paris to see. Greece and Rome in the days of their
glory never erected a grander temple. I find Paris tolerable, and
that is all. Dined with Madame de Noailles at the Hôtel de Poix,
then to the Opera. On the 22nd, I walked to the Arc de Triomphe,
wonderfully fine, and clambered to the top. The view is well
worth the trouble, and above all the Madeleine is seen to great
advantage from the elevation; all its fine proportions strikingly
developed, and bringing to my mind the Temple of Neptune at
Pæstum. Dined at the Embassy, where was nobody of note but M. de
Broglie, and then to Madame de Lieven's.

January 23rd, 1837 {p.381}

Rained all day, dined at the Grahams, with Madame de Lieven and
many people of no note, and went afterwards to Madame de
Flahault's beautiful house, where was all the fashion of France
of the Liberal and Royal faction; no Carlists. Some very handsome
women, particularly the Duchesse d'Istria.

Ellice told me that his letters from England announced smooth
water between Whigs and Radicals, and that the latter were coming
up to support the Government in good humour. The event here in
these last days has been the acquittal of the Strasburg
prisoners, of military men taken in the commission of overt acts
of mutiny and high treason.[3] By the law, when military men and
civilians are indicted for the same offence, the former cannot be
brought before a court-martial, but must be tried by a jury; the
jury decide according to their feelings or their prejudices, and
appear to care nothing for the law, and an Alsatian jury is said
to be republican. These men were therefore acquitted against the
clearest and most undoubted evidence, and their acquittal was
hailed as a triumph. It produces considerable annoyance and
surprise, but not so great a sensation as I should have expected.

      [3] [These were the accomplices of Prince Louis Napoleon
          Bonaparte in his first attempt made at Strasburg on the
          30th of November 1836. The Prince himself was sent off
          to the United States in a French frigate. His
          accomplices were tried at Colmar in the ordinary course
          of law, and acquitted by the jury, who refused to
          convict them when the head of the conspiracy was not
          brought to trial.]

There appears to be something rotten in the state of this
country; the system stands on unstable foundations, the people
are demoralised, in vain we look for fixed principles or deep
convictions. Some are indifferent to the fate of the monarchy
because they hate the monarch, others rejoice at attempts on the
monarch from aversion to monarchy, and as far as my cursory
observation and casual observation instruct me, I see only a
confusion and caprice of passions, prejudices, and opinions,
which are only reduced to anything like order by the strong sober
sense and the firmness of the King, who is by far the ablest man
among them.

January 25th, 1836 {p.382}

On the 24th I walked about Paris, dined at the Embassy, and went
to Court at night; about fifty English, forty Americans, and
several other foreigners were presented. The Palace is very
magnificent; the present King has built a new staircase, which
makes the suite of rooms continuous, and the whole has been
regilt and painted. We were arranged in the throne-room by
nations, the English first, and at a quarter before nine the
doors of the royal apartments were opened, and the Royal Family
came forth. We all stood in a long line (single file) reaching
through the two rooms, beginning and ending again at the door of
the King's apartment. The King walked down the line attended by
Lord Granville, then the Queen with the eldest Princess under her
arm, then Madame Adélaïde with the other, and then the Duke of
Orleans. Aston[4] attended the Queen, and the _attachés_ the
others. They all speak to each individual, and by some strange
stretch of invention find something to say. The King is too
civil; he has a fine head, and closely resembles the pictures of
Louis XIV. The Queen is very gracious and dignified, Adélaïde
very good-humoured, and the Duke of Orleans extremely princely in
his manners. This morning I went to the Tuileries by appointment,
when he received me, kept me for a quarter of an hour talking
about race-horses, and invited me to breakfast on Saturday, and
to go with him to Meudon to see his stud.

      [4] [The British Secretary of Embassy, afterwards Sir
          Arthur Aston.]

Then I went sight-seeing; to the Invalides, the Pantheon, and the
Madeleine. The former is very well worth seeing, and nothing is
more remarkable than the kitchen, which is the sweetest and the
cleanest I ever saw. The Chapel is fine, with no remarkable tombs
except those of Turenne and Vauban. The Pantheon is under repair;
there are the tombs of Voltaire and Rousseau. The interior of the
Madeleine is very rich, but it is inferior to the outside; the
simple grandeur of the latter is somewhat frittered away in the
minute ornaments and the numerous patches of coloured marble of
the Church. However, it will be with all its faults a magnificent


I ended my day (the 25th) by going to a ball at the Tuileries,
one of the great balls, and a magnificent spectacle indeed. The
long line of light gleaming through the whole length of the
palace is striking as it is approached, and the interior, with
the whole suite of apartments brilliantly illuminated, and
glittering from one end to the other with diamonds and feathers
and uniforms, and dancing in all the several rooms, made a
splendid display. The supper in the theatre was the finest thing
I ever saw of the kind; all the women sup first, and afterwards
the men, the tables being renewed over and over again. There was
an array of servants in gorgeous liveries, and the apartment was
lit by thousands of candles (no lamps) and as light as day. The
company amounted to between 3,000 and 4,000, from all the great
people down to national guards, and even private soldiers. None
of the Carlists were there, as they none of them choose to go to
Court. The King retired before eleven; it was said that he had
received anonymous letters warning him of some intended attempt
on his person, and extraordinary precautions were taken to guard
against the entrance of any improper people.

January 26th, 1837 {p.384}

Having seen all the high society the night before, I resolved to
see all the low to-night, and went to Musard's ball--a most
curious scene; two large rooms in the rue St. Honoré almost
thrown into one, a numerous and excellent orchestra, a prodigious
crowd of people, most of them in costume, and all the women
masked. There was every description of costume, but that which
was the most general was the dress of a French post-boy, in which
both males and females seemed to delight. It was well-regulated
uproar and orderly confusion. When the music struck up they began
dancing all over the rooms; the whole mass was in motion, but
though with gestures the most vehement and grotesque, and a
licence almost unbounded, the figure of the dance never seemed to
be confused, and the dancers were both expert in their capers and
perfect in their evolutions. Nothing could be more licentious
than the movements of the dancers, and they only seemed to be
restrained within limits of common decency by the cocked hats and
burnished helmets of the police and gendarmes which towered in
the midst of them. After quadrilling and waltzing away, at a
signal given they began galloping round the room; then they
rushed pellmell, couple after couple, like Bedlamites broke
loose, but not the slightest accident occurred. I amused myself
with this strange and grotesque sight for an hour or more, and
then came home.

January 27th, 1837 {p.384}


Called on Talleyrand and sat with him for an hour. He talked of
England in a very Conservative strain. I called on the Duc de
Broglie, Mesdames de Marescalchi and Durazzo, dined at the
Embassy, then to Madame de Lieven's and Pembroke's concert. Not a
profitable life, but not dull, and the day glides away.

February 2nd, 1837 {p.385}

Nothing worth noticing for the last three or four days. Dined the
day before yesterday with the Duc de Poix, and went to Hope's
ball; his house is a sumptuous palace in miniature, all furnished
and decorated with inconceivable luxury and _recherche_; one room
hung with cachemires. Last night to a small ball at Court. Supper
in the gallery de Diane--round tables, all the ladies supping
first; the whole thing as beautiful and magnificent as possible,
and making all our fêtes look pitiful and mean after it.

Our King's speech was here before seven o'clock yesterday
evening, about twenty-nine hours after it was delivered; a
rapidity of transmission almost incredible. Lord Granville had
predicted to me in the morning that they would be very angry here
at no mention being made of France, and so it was. I heard the
same thing from other quarters, and he told me that he had found
himself not deceived in his expectations, and that the King had
himself complained. The French Government had taken such pains
latterly to conciliate ours, by their speeches in the Chambers,
and by applying for votes of money to enable them to employ more
custom-house officers for the express purpose of preventing the
transmission of arms and stores to the Spanish Pretender; in
short, giving us every proof of goodwill; that Lord Granville was
desirous of having some expressions of corresponding goodwill and
civility inserted in the speech, and said as much to Lord
Palmerston; but he refused, and replied that as they could not
speak of France with praise, it was better not to mention her at
all. I have been riding with Lord Granville the last two days,
when he talked a good deal about France and French affairs. His
own position here is wonderfully agreeable, because all the
business of the two countries is transacted by him here, and
Sebastiani's is little more than a nominal embassy. This has long
been the case, having begun in Canning's time; then the great
intimacy which subsisted between the Duc de Broglie and Lord
Granville confirmed it during his Ministry, and the principal
cause of Talleyrand's hatred to Palmerston was the refusal of the
latter to alter the practice when he was in England, and his
mortification at finding the part he played in London to be
secondary to that of the British Ambassador in Paris.


The Duc de Broglie seems to have been the most high-minded and
independent of all the Ministers who have been in place, and the
only one who kicked against the personal supremacy of the King in
the conduct of affairs. He looked to constitutional analogies, and
thought it incompatible with Ministerial responsibility. The King
appealed to the example of William III., and said to Lord
Granville, 'King William presided in person at his council board,
after your revolution?' It was Broglie's scruple (for it hardly
ever amounted to resistance) on this head that made the King
dislike him so much. It is certainly true that the present state
of things is an anomaly, but France is in its infancy as to
constitutional practice, and the doctrine of Ministerial
responsibility, with all its indispensable consequences, is not
understood. Nothing can exemplify this more than the recent case
of a man which was agitated in the Chambers, and passed off so
easily. He was one of the French refugees in Switzerland, and
Montalivet, Minister of the Interior, the man most in the King's
confidence, engaged him in his service to act as a spy on the
other refugees, but without letting Thiers (President of the
Council and Minister for Foreign Affairs) know that he had done
so. Accordingly Thiers demanded, through the French Ambassador,
the Duc de Montebello, that this man (with the rest) should be
expelled from Switzerland, he being at the time the agent of
Thiers' own colleague. In the course of the subsequent discussions
this fact came out, when Thiers declared he had been ignorant of
his employment, and Montalivet merely said that he had acted as he
deemed best for the interest of the country, and this excuse was
taken and nothing more said. Thiers took it more quietly than he
would otherwise have done, because he had committed himself in his
correspondence with Montebello, and it would not have suited him
to have his letters published. At that time the Duke of Orleans
was gone to Vienna, and Thiers was in all the fervour of his hopes
of obtaining one of the Archduchesses for the Prince, and he was
therefore the humble servant of Austria, and endeavouring to court
her favour in all ways, especially by truckling to her views in
the affair of the refugees.

I asked Madame de Lieven what was the reason that the great Powers
would not let the Duke of Orleans find a wife, and why especially
the Emperor Nicholas (who, it was to be presumed, desired the
continuance of peace and order in France, and therefore of this
dynasty) took every opportunity of showing his contempt and
aversion for the King, being the only Sovereign who had never
congratulated him by letter on his various escapes from
assassination. She replied that it was not surprising that
Sovereigns and their families should be indisposed to send their
daughters to a country which they looked upon as always liable to
a revolution, and to marry them to a prince always in danger of
being expelled from France, and perhaps from Europe; and that the
Emperor (whom she did not excuse in this respect) could not bring
himself to write _Monsieur mon Frère_ to Louis Philippe, and for
that reason would never compliment him but through his ambassador;
_au reste_, that the Duke of Orleans would find a wife among the
German princesses. It is, however, very ridiculous that second and
third-rate royalties should give themselves all sorts of airs, and
affect to hold cheap the King of France's eldest son, and talk of
his alliance as a degradation. There are two Würtemberg
princesses, daughters of the Duchess of Oldenburg, who talk in
this strain; one of them is good-looking, and the Duke of Orleans
in his recent expedition in Germany had the curiosity to travel
incognito out of his way to take a look at them. The King their
father, who heard of it, complained to Madame de Lieven of the
impertinence of such conduct; but the girls were enchanted, and
with all their pretended aversion and contempt for the Orleans
family, were in a flutter of excited vanity at his having come to
look at them, and in despair at not having seen him themselves.

London, February 7th, 1837 {p.388}

Left Paris on Friday at five o'clock, and got to Boulogne at
half-past one on Saturday; passed the day with my cousin Richard,
and walked all over Boulogne, the ramparts and the pier.

February 22nd, 1837 {p.388}

An unhappy business not to be recorded here has so completely
absorbed my attention that I could not think of politics or of
anything else that is passing in the world. The Session had
opened (before I arrived) with a reconciliation, as usual,
between the Whigs and Radicals, but with a general opinion that
the Government was nevertheless in considerable danger. In a long
correspondence which I had with Tavistock I urged that his
friends ought to give up the appropriation clause, and propose
poor laws and payment of the Catholic clergy. The first two they
have done, and the last probably they really cannot do. As I have
all along thought, it will be reserved for Peel to carry this
great measure into effect. Caring much for the measure and
nothing for men of either party, I shall rejoice to take it from
anybody's hands.

February 25th, 1837 {p.388}


I was interrupted while writing, and since I began, the division
of eighty in favour of the Irish Corporation Bill appears to have
settled that question, and at the same time those of dissolution
and change. At the beginning of the Session the Tories were (as
they are always ready to be) in high spirits, and the Government
people in no small alarm. The elections had generally gone
against them, and there were various symptoms of a reaction. In
Scotland the Renfrewshire election was attributed to Peel's visit
and speech, and old Lauderdale wrote word that it was the most
remarkable proof of a change there which had occurred since the
Reform Bill. Nothing was talked of but a dissolution, of Peel's
taking office, and many people confidently predicted that new
elections would produce a Tory majority. Besides, it was argued
that the same spirit which turned out Peel in 1835 could not be
roused again, and that several moderate Whigs would give him
their support if he endeavoured to go on with this Parliament. In
the midst of all these speculations this debate came on. It was
exceedingly feeble on the part of the Opposition. Stanley,
Graham, and Peel successively spoke, and none of them well; the
latter was unusually heavy. The best speeches on the other side
were Charles Buller's and Roebuck's (Radicals), and Howick's.
Sheil made a grand declamatory tirade, chiefly remarkable for the
scene it produced, which was unexampled in the House, and for its
credit may be hoped such as never will occur again. There was a
blackguard ferocity in it which would have disgraced the National
Convention or the Jacobin Club. Lyndhurst was sitting under the
gallery, and Sheil, turning to him as he said it, uttered one of
his vehement sentences against the celebrated and unlucky
expression of 'aliens.' The attack was direct, and it was taken
up by his adherents, already excited by his speech. Then arose a
din and tumultuous and vociferous cheering, such as the walls
never echoed to before; they stood up, all turning to Lyndhurst,
and they hooted and shouted at him with every possible gesture
and intonation of insult. It lasted ten minutes, the Speaker in
vain endeavouring to moderate the clamour. All this time
Lyndhurst sat totally unmoved; he neither attempted to stir, nor
changed a muscle of his countenance. At length they divided, and
there was a majority of eighty; sixteen more than on the same
question last year.

The next morning (yesterday) Wharncliffe called on me, and I
found that they were prodigiously depressed at this defeat. He
said that they had suffered from many unusual casualties,
sicknesses, and deaths, and that their people could not be made
to attend. He instanced three cases of lukewarmness and
indifference. Sir G. Noel remained in the House till twelve
o'clock, and then went to bed; Lord John Scott went out of town
in the morning of the division, because he was engaged to dine
somewhere; and young Lefroy, who had paired with Sheil _until
this question_, set off with him to embark for England from
Dublin, and turned back from the steamboat because it blew hard,
and he said his mother would be alarmed for his safety.
Wharncliffe told me that Peel is very much disgusted at such
coolness, and that, while he is slaving body and mind in the
cause, he cannot even depend upon the corporeal presence of his
idle and luxurious followers, who will sacrifice none of their
amusements for the cause which they pretend to think is in such
danger. On the other hand, the rash and foolish (no small
proportion) are dissatisfied with his caution, and the prudence
which they call timidity; they are always for doing something
desperate. Lyndhurst last year in the House of Lords was the man
after their own hearts, and they were quite willing to depose the
Duke from his leadership of the party, and put themselves under
the guidance of Lyndhurst. When we recollect who and what
Lyndhurst was and is, it is curious to see the aristocracy of
England adopting him for their chief; scarcely an Englishman (for
his father was an American painter[5]), a lawyer of fortune, in
the sense in which, we say a soldier of fortune, without any
fixed principles, and only conspicuous for his extraordinary
capacity, he has no interest but what centres in himself, and is
utterly destitute of those associations which naturally belong to
an aristocracy. There is probably not a man of the party who is
not fully aware of Lyndhurst's character, and they have already
experienced the results of his political daring in his famous
attempt to interrupt the Reform Bill by the postponement of
Schedule A; and with this knowledge and experience they follow
him blindly, lead them where he will. Wharncliffe owned to me
that he saw no alternative but the compromise, but that he did
not know whether his party would be brought to consent to it. I
told him that they could not help themselves, and must consent;
besides that, if the Tithe Bill is passed they will have got the
security for the Church which they require, and the ground of
objection to the Corporation Bill would be cut from under their
feet. It is remarkable, and rather amusing to a neutral like me,
to hear what each party says of the concessions of the other. I
see in the 'Examiner' this day that 'the Lords cannot now pass
the Bill if they would, without disgracing their party in the
House of Commons,' and Wharncliffe said that 'the Government
could not give up the appropriation clause in the Tithe Bill
without covering themselves with disgrace.' In my opinion the
disgrace is not in making concessions which reason and expediency
demand, and which are indispensable to the peace and tranquillity
of the country, but in ever having pledged themselves to measures
for party purposes, or to accomplish particular ends, without
calculating the consequences of such pledges, or estimating the
degree of power that they would possess of giving effect to the
principles they avowed. This applies more strongly a great deal
to the Whigs about the Tithe Bill than to the Tories about the
Corporations; but it does apply to both, and it is a national
misfortune when two great parties so commit themselves that no
adjustment of the question at issue between them is possible
without some detriment to the credit and character of both.

      [5] [He was entirely an Englishman, for he was born at
          Boston before America was separated from England, and
          his whole family came to this country when the war
          broke out.]

March 18th, 1837 {p.391}


Three weeks, and nothing written. The dejection of the Tories at
the division on the Corporation Bill has been since relieved by
that on the Church-rates, which they consider equivalent to a
victory; and so it is, for the probability is that the Bill will
not pass the House of Commons. The debates have been good upon
both these matters. Just before the question came on, the Bishops
made a grand _flare-up_ in the House of Lords. The Archbishop of
Canterbury (Howley), with as much venom as so mild a man can
muster, attacked the Bill. Melbourne replied with some asperity,
and the Bishop of London (Blomfield) retorted fiercely upon him.
The Tories lauded and the Whigs abused the Bishops, both
vehemently. I don't admire their conduct, either as to temper or
discretion. The Church had better not be militant, and to see the
Bench of Bishops in direct and angry collision with the King's
Prime Minister is a sorry sight.

The angry debate which took place was not contemplated by the
Bishops. It had been settled that the Archbishop should make his
declaration against the measure in the name of his brethren,
which he did in a speech (for him) remarkably good, for he is a
miserable speaker at all times. Melbourne's severe remarks
provoked the Bishop of London (Blomfield), who had not intended
to speak, and he said to the Archbishop, 'I must answer this,'
who replied, 'Do.' His abrupt and animated exordium, 'And so, my
Lords,' was very much admired.

This Church rate Bill, however, is a bad Bill; it gives little
satisfaction to anybody except to the Dissenters, who have no
right to require such a concession to what they absurdly call
their scruples of conscience. One of the underwhippers of
Government dropped the truth as to the real cause of such a
measure, when he said that, 'if they had proposed Althorp's plan,
they should have had all the Dissenters against them at the next
elections.' The question, originally one of considerable
difficulty, is now doubly so, and its solution will not be easy,
especially by this Government; but nothing can prevent its being
settled. It is strange that no experience can open the eyes of
inveterate Tories and High Churchmen, and that successive defeats
have not demonstrated to them the futility of their expectations
of being able to resist the passing of measures which great
interests support, and which are congenial to public opinion.
There is, however, something discreditable in the conduct of
Government, and which shows the compromising, half-cunning,
hand-to-mouth way in which they are compelled to scramble on.
Upon the ballot the 'Times' published a list of at least twenty
members of the Government who stayed away, leaving the Tories to
fight the Radicals and make the majority, and such a measure as
this Church-rate Bill is utterly inconsistent with Lord John
Russell's declarations last year. This division has again revived
the question of dissolution and change of Government, and made a
great deal of speculation. If the Lords dare throw out the
Corporation Bill, the Government must go out, though not else;
but it is next to impossible they should venture on this.

March 31st, 1837 {p.393}


So I thought upon the 18th of March, but so I do not think now. In
the first place, I hear from those who are well informed that the
Lords have made up their minds to throw out this Bill. Lord John
Russell has made up his to resign if they do, and in that case
Peel has made up his to come in. It does not appear, however, that
the great body of the Whigs are at all prepared to go out. Some
doubt the Lords rejecting the Bill, others that the Tories would
take office, or that Melbourne and his friends would so certainly
resign it. Lord Spencer wrote to John Russell, and told him that
if the Lords did throw out the Bill, he thought that (being still
supported by a majority of the Commons) he ought not to resign,
but Lord John wrote him back decisive and convincing reasons why
his retention of office under such circumstances would be
impossible. The fact is that there is a great change in the face
of affairs. The small majority on the Church rate Bill, the
unpopularity of the measure, and the discredit which attends our
foreign relations (since Evans's defeat in Spain more especially),
have had a material effect upon the moral efficacy of the
Government. It is now known that Government have abandoned the
appropriation clauses in the Tithe Bill, and this has grievously
offended many of their violent, thick and thin supporters, more
especially as it was the particular question on which they turned
Peel out; and the grand principle, therefore, on which the
Government was bound in honour and consistency to stand. The
Ministers none of them possess any public confidence in their
individual or official capacities; the King detests them, the
country does not care for them, and the House of Commons supports
them in a lukewarm spirit. If they do resign there will be no
repetition of the scenes of their former expulsion and triumphant
return to power. The same enthusiasm could not be raised, nor the
same union brought about. I hear men in office talk of Peel going
on without a dissolution, and the most interested adherents of
Government (Tavistock for example) of a fair trial, and of his
having a better right to it now than he had on the former
occasion. Peel's undoubted fitness for office, his vast
superiority to all the other public men of the day, will be more
readily acknowledged, and I doubt very much whether he would
experience any such factious and uncompromising opposition as
would seriously obstruct the march of his Government, particularly
if its composition should be tolerable, and his measures judicious
and liberal. It is very remarkable that when he wanted to take in
Stanley and Graham formerly, he desired them more particularly
because they would have strengthened his hands in the establishment
of liberal principles _against_ the great body of his Tory
supporters, and they refused upon the pretext that they had no
security for his being liberal enough; and now, when of course he
must and will place whatever offices they please at their
disposal, so far from being of the same assistance to him, they
only bring an addition of bigotry and illiberality which will
perpetually cast difficulties and embarrassments in his way. It is
a curious matter for speculation how he will go on with these men,
how his coldness, prudence, and reserve will suit the intemperate
and often injudicious vivacity of Stanley. With Graham there would
not be so much difficulty, and _his_ principles would not be found
too inflexible. Nothing shocks his old Whig associates more than
the contrast between his present conduct and opinions, and the
extreme violence which he displayed at the period of his accession
to office in 1831; he was in fact the most ultra Liberal of Lord
Grey's Cabinet, and now he is little better than a Tory.


The King, who is a thorough party man, will be overjoyed at any
change; he never loses an opportunity of showing his antipathy to
his confidential servants. The other day at the reception of the
Bath, when Lord Aylmer was introduced, he made him a speech to
which he gave that sort of dramatic effect which he is so fond of
doing. Aylmer had been recalled from Canada by this Government,
but when he approached the throne, the King called out to Lord
Minto and Lord Palmerston (the only two Ministers who are Knights
of the Bath), and made them come up, and stand one on each side of
Aylmer, that they might not lose a word of his oration, and then
he began. He told them that he wished to take that, the most
public opportunity he could find, of telling him that he approved
most entirely of his conduct in Canada, that he had acted like a
true and loyal subject towards a set of traitors and conspirators,
and behaved as it became a British officer to do under such
circumstances. I forget the exact expressions, but it was to this
effect, to the unspeakable satisfaction of Aylmer, and to inflict
all the mortification he could upon the Ministers whom he had
lugged up to witness this ebullition.

Another circumstance will facilitate the change of Ministry, which
is, that the question is not argued as if it were a struggle for
authority between the Lords and the Commons, for the notion of
such a struggle would be well calculated to excite a constitutional
jealousy. The Lords, however, pretend that their support of the
Protestant interest is not only in itself constitutional, but more
in accordance with the sentiments of the nation than the measures
of the Government are. The two parties are pretty evenly balanced,
but the strength of the Opposition lies in the Lords, and it is
altogether a question of party tactics, and not of constitutional
principle. Of all men, Peel is the last to favour any attempt to
question the virtual supremacy of the House of Commons, and if he
becomes Minister, and has a majority (as of course he must, to
stay in), the high tide of the Lords will begin to ebb, and
everything will be seen to settle down into the usual practice. If
a victory is achieved, it will not be that of the Lords over the
Commons, but of the Conservatives over the Whigs and Radicals.

The fierce dispute between Sydney Smith and the Bishop of London,
which gave birth to his pamphlet,[6] has terminated in an
interview sought by Sydney and accorded by the Bishop, when they
are said to have discussed the matter in dispute with temper and
candour, and to have parted amicably. It will probably prevent
the appearance of Sydney's second pamphlet, which was ready. He
speaks in terms of great admiration of the capacity of the
Bishop, and owned that he had convinced him upon some of the
points which they had to discuss. I did not hear what the Bishop
said of the Prebend.

      [6] [The well-known letter of Sydney Smith to Archdeacon
          Singleton in defence of Deans and Chapters.]

Among the many old people who have been cut off by this severe
weather, one of the most remarkable is Mrs. Fitzherbert, who died
at Brighton at above eighty years of age. She was not a clever
woman, but of a very noble spirit, disinterested, generous,
honest, and affectionate, greatly beloved by her friends and
relations, popular in the world, and treated with uniform
distinction and respect by the Royal Family. The late King, who
was a despicable creature, grudged her the allowance he was bound
to make her, and he was always afraid lest she should make use of
some of the documents in her possession to annoy or injure him.
This mean and selfish apprehension led him to make various
efforts to obtain possession of those the appearance of which he
most dreaded, and among others, one remarkable attempt was made
by Sir William Knighton some years ago. Although a stranger to
Mrs. Fitzherbert, he called one day at her house, when she was
ill in bed, insisted upon seeing her, and forced his way into her
bedroom. She contrived (I forget how) to get rid of him without
his getting anything out of her, but this domiciliary visit
determined her to make a final disposition of all the papers she
possessed, that in the event of her death no advantage might be
taken of them either against her own memory or the interests of
any other person. She accordingly selected those papers which she
resolved to preserve, and which are supposed to be the documents
and correspondence relating to her marriage with George IV., and
made a packet of them which was deposited at her banker's, and
all other letters and papers she condemned to the flames. For
this purpose she sent for the Duke of Wellington and Lord
Albemarle, told them her determination, and in their presence had
these papers burnt; she assured them that everything was
destroyed, and if after her death any pretended letters or
documents were produced, they might give the most authoritative
contradiction to their authenticity.

May 13th, 1836 {p.397}


I have been six weeks without writing a line, and though no great
events have occurred, the aspect of affairs has been continually
shifting and changing. About a month ago it was supposed the fall
of the Government was at hand, and when the crisis was over it
was found that they had really been in danger. The Duke of
Wellington called a meeting at Apsley House just before the
Corporation Bill came on in the House of Lords, and a great point
was made of the resolution of the Tory Lords being kept secret
till the last moment. The mystery excited some curiosity, but
after all it only turned out to be what everybody had long before
talked about, the postponement of the Committee. This was done by
the Duke in a very bad speech, so bad that Fitzgerald and others
were obliged to try and do away its effect by making out that he
did not mean what he said. On the division the Government had
greater numbers than usual. It then remained to be seen what Lord
John Russell would do, and it was reported that he meant to
retaliate by postponing the Tithe Bill, but he did no such thing.
He came down and declared that they would regularly go on with
all their bills, and moreover, that while they retained the
confidence of the House of Commons they would not resign; so
again it seems likely that the compromise originally anticipated
will take place at last, and there will be no change. This
declaration of Lord John's is at variance with his former
resolution, and so I told Tavistock it would appear to be. He
admitted that it would, but said that John claimed for himself to
judge of the fit moment for his resignation; that whenever he was
satisfied that he had no reasonable prospect of carrying his
measures, he should retire, but not till then; and that one
defeat ought not to make him throw up the game. However, he owned
that this qualification ought to have formed part of his original
declaration, in order to obviate all misrepresentation.

During the last week the Westminster election[7] has absorbed
everything else. Though the Government were by way of taking no
part, all Brooks's moved heaven and earth for Leader, and until
the day of nomination they were confident of his success. Bets
were two to one in his favour, and a great deal was lost and won.
On the other hand the Tories worked hard for Burdett. He appeared
on the hustings at the nomination, and was received quite as well
as his opponent, and the show of hands was in his favour. This
reduced the betting to even, but nobody was prepared for the
great majority by which Burdett won. It was certainly a great
triumph to the Conservative cause, and a great disappointment to
the violent Whigs, and still more to the Radicals. The Government
affect to make light of it. Melbourne is probably sincere when he
says he is very glad of it, and for this reason, 'that the
Radicals are very difficult to manage as it is, and if they had
carried this election there would be no doing anything with
them.' A great many people on both sides would not vote. I would
not, for one. I hate Leader's politics, and don't like Burdett's;
nobody can tell what he is, for his answers and explanations are
of a shuffling, ambiguous character, and he disgusted me by
throwing over the new Poor Law, which was a base compliance.
However, though I would not vote, I was rather glad he came in,
and somewhat like Lord Grey, who said last night, 'he was glad at
Leader's defeat, and sorry for Burdett's success.'

      [7] [A contested election in Westminster between Mr. Leader
          (Radical) and Sir Francis Burdett (Conservative).
          Burdett was returned by a majority of 515. It was a
          chivalrous contest. Burdett had resigned his seat
          voluntarily to test the feeling of his constituents,
          and Leader resigned a seat for Bridgewater solely to
          meet Burdett in Westminster.]

May 23rd, 1837 {p.398}

There was great triumph among the Conservatives at Burdett's
success, raised to a higher pitch by that of Broadwood at
Bridgewater, which makes the whole thing very complete, Leader
having fallen between the two stools, and now they expect to get
Glasgow, if they succeed in which there will be no bounds to
their exultation. Then it is suspected that there have been
difficulties and divisions in the Cabinet. There was a meeting at
Lord Grey's of Ministers and Ministerial adherents, it was
supposed for the purpose of his patching up matters, but I know
nothing of what occurred. The Duke of Wellington, too, had an
audience of the King on Wednesday last, and all these things set
surmises afloat. At another time I should probably have bestirred
myself and found out what all this meant, but I have been so
occupied and absorbed with the Derby that I could think of
nothing else.

The King prayed that he might live till the Princess Victoria was
of age, and he was very nearly dying just as the event arrived.
He is better, but supposed to be in a very precarious state.
There has been a fresh squabble between Windsor and Kensington
about a proposed allowance to the Princess.

June 2nd, 1836 {p.399}


The King has been desperately ill, his pulse down at thirty; they
think he will now get over it for this time. His recovery will
not have been accelerated by the Duchess of Kent's answer to the
City of London's address, in which she went into the history of
her life, and talked of her 'friendless state' on arriving in
this country, the gist of it being that, having been abandoned or
neglected by the Royal Family, she had thrown herself on the

June 11th, 1836 {p.399}

At Buckhurst last week for Ascot; went on Monday and returned on
Friday. On Tuesday the Queen came to the course, but only stayed
an hour. They had an immense party at the Castle notwithstanding
the King's illness. I met Adolphus Fitzclarence at the course,
who gave me an account of the King's state, which was bad enough,
though not for the moment alarming; no disease, but excessive
weakness without power of rallying. He also gave me an account of
the late Kensington quarrel. The King wrote a letter to the
Princess offering her £10,000 a year (not out of his privy
purse), which he proposed should be at her own disposal and
independent of her mother. He sent this letter by Lord Conyngham
with orders to deliver it into the Princess's own hands.
Conyngham accordingly went to Kensington (where Conroy received
him) and asked to be admitted to the Princess. Conroy asked by
what authority. He said by his Majesty's orders. Conroy went
away, and shortly after Conyngham was ushered into the presence
of the Duchess and Princess, when he said that he had waited on
her Royal Highness by the King's commands to present to her a
letter with which he had been charged by his Majesty. The Duchess
put out her hand to take it, when he said he begged her Royal
Highness's pardon, but he was expressly commanded by the King to
deliver the letter into the Princess's own hands. Her mother then
drew back and the Princess took the letter, when Conyngham made
his bow and retired. Victoria wrote to the King, thanking him and
accepting his offer. He then sent to say that it was his wish to
name the person who should receive this money for her, and he
proposed to name Stephenson. Then began the dispute. The Duchess
of Kent objected to the arrangement, and she put forth her claim,
which was that she should have £6,000 of the money and the
Princess £4,000. How the matter had ended Adolphus did not know
when I saw him. [It never was settled.]

The Duchess of Northumberland had been to Windsor and resigned
her office of governess a few days before.


On Wednesday it was announced for the first time that the King
was alarmingly ill, on Thursday the account was no better, and in
the course of Wednesday and Thursday his immediate dissolution
appeared so probable that I concerted with Errol that I should
send to the Castle at nine o'clock on Thursday evening for the
last report, that I might know whether to go to London directly
or not. On Wednesday the physicians wanted to issue a bulletin,
but the King would not hear of it. He said as long as he was able
to transact public business he would not have the public alarmed
on his account; but on Friday, nevertheless, the first bulletin
was issued.

It is in this state of things, with the prospect of a new reign
and a dissolution, and in complete uncertainty of the direction
which affairs would take under a new influence, when it is
peculiarly desirable that moderate and healing counsels should
prevail, that Lyndhurst comes down to the House of Lords and
fires off one of his violent speeches, and at his bidding the
Irish Municipal Corporation Bill has been again postponed. All
this is very disgusting to me, and I am at a loss to comprehend
why such men as the Duke and Peel lend themselves to such
courses. In the House of Commons John Russell took a very
different line, for he made a strong Conservative speech in
answer to an omnium gatherum Radical tirade of Roebuck's; just
such a speech as a Minister ought to make. Denman was persuaded
to give up his design of bringing before the House of Lords the
question of privilege, on which he is at issue with the House of
Commons, and there seems luckily a disposition to deal with it
calmly; in fact, it is no party question. The Judges are all with
their colleagues, but Peel has taken a strong part with the House
of Commons, and made a very good speech upon it the other night.

I met Melbourne in the Park, who told me he thought the King
would not recover. Lord Harrowby was very much astonished as well
as annoyed at Lyndhurst's speech the other night, it having been
previously agreed upon that all violence and everything offensive
should be avoided. They had resolved to postpone the Committee on
the Bill as before, but it was to have been done in the most
conciliatory way, and they were not prepared for this outbreak of

June 13th, 1837 {p.401}

Bad accounts of the King yesterday. Melbourne desired I would get
everything ready _quietly_ for a Council. He has been busily
occupied in examining the precedents in order to conduct the
first ceremonies properly, and the first questions have been
whether the Duchess of Kent could come into Council with her
daughter, and whether the Duke of Cumberland (King of Hanover as
he will be) should be summoned to it.

June 16th, 1837 {p.401}

On Wednesday the King was desperately bad, yesterday he was
better, but not so as to afford any hope, though Chambers says
his recovery is not impossible. Although the bulletins tell so
little, everybody is now aware of his Majesty's state. He
dictates these reports himself, and will not allow more to be
said; he continues to do business, and his orders are taken as
usual, so he is resolved to die with harness on his back.
Yesterday Lord Lansdowne sent for me to beg in the first place
that everything might be ready, and in the next to say that they
were perplexed to know what steps, if any, they ought to take to
ascertain whether the Queen is with child, and to beg me to
search in our books if any precedent could be found at the
accession of James II. But they had forgotten that the case had
been provided for in the Regency Bill, and that in the event of
the King's death without children, the Queen is to be proclaimed,
but the oath of allegiance taken with a saving of the rights of
any posthumous child to King William. They ought to have known
this, but it is odd enough that there is nobody in office who has
any personal knowledge of the usual forms at the first Council,
for not one of these Ministers was in office at the accession of
William IV. My colleague, Buller, who was present as Clerk of the
Council, is dead, and I was abroad.


In the morning I met Sir Robert Peel in the Park, and talked with
him about the beginning of the new reign. He said that it was very
desirable that the young Queen should appear as much as possible
emancipated from all restraint, and exhibit a capacity for the
discharge of her high functions; that the most probable as well as
the most expedient course she could adopt, would be to rely
entirely upon the advice of Melbourne, and she might with great
propriety say that she thought it incumbent on her to follow the
example which had been set by her two uncles, her predecessors,
William IV. having retained in office the Ministers of his
brother, and George IV., although his political predilections were
known to lean another way, having also declined to dismiss the
Government of his father. Peel said that he concluded King Leopold
would be her great adviser. If Leopold is prudent, however, he
will not hurry over here at the very first moment, which would
look like an impatience to establish his influence, and if he
does, the first result will be every sort of jealousy and discord
between him and the Duchess of Kent. The elements of intrigue do
not seem wanting in this embryo Court. Besides the Duchess of Kent
and Leopold, and Conroy of course, Caradoc[8] is suspected of a
design and an expectation to become a personage; and Lord Durham
is on his way home, and his return is regarded with no little
curiosity, because he may endeavour to play a great political
part, and materially to influence the opinions, or at least the
councils, of the Queen. What renders speculation so easy, and
events uncertain, is the absolute ignorance of everybody, without
exception, of the character, disposition, and capacity of the
Princess. She has been kept in such jealous seclusion by her
mother (never having slept out of her bedroom, nor been alone with
anybody but herself and the Baroness Lehzen), that not one of her
acquaintance, none of the attendants at Kensington, not even the
Duchess of Northumberland, her governess, have any idea what she
is, or what she promises to be. It is therefore no difficult
matter to form and utter conjectures which nobody can contradict
or gainsay but by other conjectures equally uncertain and
fallacious. The Tories are in great consternation at the King's
approaching death, from the advantage which they foresee their
opponents must derive from it as far as the extension of their
term of power is concerned, and they prognosticate, according to
their custom, all sorts of dismal consequences, none of which, of
course, will come to pass. _Nothing_ will happen, because, in this
country, _nothing_ ever does. The Whigs, to do them justice,
behave with great decency; whatever they may really feel, they
express a very proper concern, and I have no doubt Melbourne
really feels the concern he expresses. The public in general don't
seem to care much, and only wonder what will happen.

      [8] [Colonel Caradoc, afterwards Lord Howden: died in

June 17th, 1837 {p.403}

Yesterday the King was better, so as to promise a prolongation of
his existence, though not his recovery. An intimation came from
Windsor, that it was desired prayers should be offered up in the
Churches for him; so the Privy Council assembled to order this,
but on assembling the Bishop of London objected to the form which
had been used upon the last and other occasions (an order made by
the Lords to the Archbishop of Canterbury to prepare a form of
prayer), asserting that _the Lords_ had no power to make such an
order, and it was even doubted by lawyers whether the King
himself had power to order alterations in the Liturgy, or the use
of the particular prayers; and admitting that he had, it was in
virtue of his prerogative, and as Head of the Church, but that
_the Lords of the Council_ had no power whatever of the kind.
They admitted that he was correct in this view of the case, and
consequently, instead of an order to the Archbishop, his
Majesty's pleasure that prayers should be offered up was conveyed
to the Council, and a communication to that effect was directed
to be made to the Archbishop. The King's pleasure being thus
conveyed, it is his duty to obey, and the Bishops have power to
direct their clergy to pray for the King. The Bishop of London
would have preferred that a prayer for his recovery as for a sick
person, but mentioning him by name, should have been adopted, but
the Archbishop was prepared with his form of prayer, and it was
directed to be used.

June 18th, 1837 {p.404}

The King lingers on; yesterday he sent for the Archbishop of
Canterbury to administer the Sacrament to him.


An attack (but a feeble one) was made upon Palmerston the other
night, about Sir Charles Vaughan's appointment to relieve Lord
Ponsonby at Constantinople, to which he made, as usual, a feeble
and inefficient answer, but the real story did not come out. The
whole history of Lord Ponsonby is a remarkable example of what a
man in favour or with powerful protection may do with impunity,
and it is the more striking because Palmerston is the most
imperious of official despots, and yet has invariably truckled to
Lord Grey's brother-in-law. When Ponsonby was appointed
Ambassador at Constantinople, the affairs of the East were in a
most critical state, notwithstanding which nothing would induce
him to repair to his post, and he loitered away several months at
Naples, while Russia was maturing her designs upon Turkey, and
when the presence of an English Ambassador was of vital
importance. This was overlooked, because to Lord Grey's
brother-in-law everything was permitted. The appointment of Mr.
Urquhart as Secretary of the Embassy at Constantinople greatly
displeased Lord Ponsonby, who resolved to hold no communication
with him, and accordingly the Chancellerie at Constantinople has
presented the amusing spectacle of an Ambassador and Secretary of
Embassy who do not speak to each other, and the latter of whom
has had no functions whatever to discharge. A short time ago Lord
Ponsonby applied for leave of absence, which was given to him,
and the Government here hoped that when he came home he would not
think of returning, and secretly resolved that if they could help
it he should not. But as Mr. Urquhart had been placed in this
strange position, and besides, since his appointment, they had
found reason to doubt whether he was altogether fit for such a
trust, it was impossible to leave him at Constantinople as
_chargé d'affaires_ during his chief's absence, so they got Sir
Charles Vaughan to go out on what was called a special mission,
though there was nothing more in it than to meet this difficulty.
Sir Charles was directed to proceed to Malta, and from thence to
send a steamer to Constantinople, which was to announce his
arrival and bring back Lord Ponsonby. Sir Charles, accordingly,
sent his Secretary of Embassy to announce him, who, when he
arrived off Constantinople, was met by an absolute prohibition
from Ponsonby to land at all, and a flat refusal on his part to
stir. The Secretary had nothing to do but to return to his
principal and report his reception, and he in his turn had
nothing to do but report his ridiculous position to his employers
at home, and await their orders. The result has been that Sir
Charles is ordered home, and Lord Ponsonby remains, so that
Palmerston has knocked under. Ponsonby has carried his point, and
Vaughan has had a _giro_ to Malta and back, for which the public
has to pay.

June 19th, 1837 {p.405}

Yesterday the King was sinking fast; the Sacrament was
administered to him by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He said,
'This is the 18th of June; I should like to live to see the sun
of Waterloo set.' Last night I met the Duke, and dined at the
Duchess of Cannizzaro's, who after dinner crowned him with a
crown of laurel (in joke of course), when they all stood up and
drank his health, and at night they sang a hymn in honour of the
day. He asked me whether Melbourne had had any communication with
the Princess Victoria. I said I did not know, but thought not. He
said, 'He ought. I was in constant communication with the present
King for a month before George IV. died. George IV. was for a
month quite as bad as this King, and I sent the Duke of Clarence
the bulletins every day, and besides wrote to him the private
accounts I received, and what is very odd, I had a quarrel with
him in the course of this. He constantly wrote to me, and in one
of his letters he told me he meant to make me his Minister. I
felt this was a very awkward subject for me to enter upon, and
that I could not, being the Minister of the King, with any
propriety treat with his successor, so I resolved to take no
notice whatever of this part of his letter, and I did not. He was
very indignant at this, and complained to his friends (to Lord
Cassilis, for instance) that I had behaved very rudely to him.
When I met him--for I met him constantly at Windsor, and in the
King's room--he was very cold in his manner, but I took no
notice, and went on as before.'

June 21st, 1837 {p.406}


The King died at twenty minutes after two yesterday morning, and
the young Queen met the Council at Kensington Palace at eleven.
Never was anything like the first impression she produced, or the
chorus of praise and admiration which is raised about her manner
and behaviour, and certainly not without justice. It was very
extraordinary, and something far beyond what was looked for. Her
extreme youth and inexperience, and the ignorance of the world
concerning her, naturally excited intense curiosity to see how she
would act on this trying occasion, and there was a considerable
assemblage at the Palace, notwithstanding the short notice which
was given. The first thing to be done was to teach her her lesson,
which for this purpose Melbourne had himself to learn. I gave him
the Council papers, and explained all that was to be done, and he
went and explained all this to her. He asked her if she would
enter the room accompanied by the Great Officers of State, but she
said she would come in alone. When the Lords were assembled the
Lord President informed them of the King's death, and suggested,
as they were so numerous, that a few of them should repair to the
presence of the Queen and inform her of the event, and that their
Lordships were assembled in consequence; and accordingly the two
Royal Dukes, the two Archbishops, the Chancellor, and Melbourne
went with him. The Queen received them in the adjoining room
alone. As soon as they had returned the proclamation was read and
the usual order passed, when the doors were thrown open and the
Queen entered, accompanied by her two uncles, who advanced to meet
her. She bowed to the Lords, took her seat, and then read her
speech in a clear, distinct, and audible voice, and without any
appearance of fear or embarrassment. She was quite plainly
dressed, and in mourning. After she had read her speech and taken
and signed the oath for the security of the Church of Scotland,
the Privy Councillors were sworn, the two Royal Dukes[9] first, by
themselves; and as these two old men, her uncles, knelt before
her, swearing allegiance and kissing her hand, I saw her blush up
to the eyes, as if she felt the contrast between their civil and
their natural relations, and this was the only sign of emotion
which she evinced. Her manner to them was very graceful and
engaging; she kissed them both, and rose from her chair and moved
towards the Duke of Sussex, who was farthest from her and too
infirm to reach her. She seemed rather bewildered at the multitude
of men who were sworn, and who came one after another to kiss her
hand, but she did not speak to anybody, nor did she make the
slightest difference in her manner, or show any in her countenance,
to any individual of any rank, station, or party. I particularly
watched her when Melbourne and the Ministers and the Duke of
Wellington and Peel approached her. She went through the whole
ceremony, occasionally looking at Melbourne for instruction when
she had any doubt what to do, which hardly ever occurred, and with
perfect calmness and self-possession, but at the same time with a
graceful modesty and propriety particularly interesting and
ingratiating. When the business was done she retired as she had
entered, and I could see that nobody was in the adjoining room.
Lord Lansdowne insisted upon being declared President of the
Council (and I was obliged to write a declaration for him to read
to that effect), though it was not usual. The speech was admired,
except by Brougham, who appeared in a considerable state of
excitement. He said to Peel (whom he was standing near, and with
whom he is not in the habit of communicating), '_A_melioration,
that is not English; you might perhaps say _me_lioration, but
improvement is the proper word.' 'Oh,' said Peel, 'I see no harm
in the word; it is generally used.' 'You object,' said Brougham,
'to the sentiment, I object to the grammar.' 'No,' said Peel, 'I
don't object to the sentiment.' 'Well, then, she pledges herself
to the policy of _our_ Government,' said Brougham. Peel told me
this, which passed in the room and near to the Queen. He likewise
said how amazed he was at her manner and behaviour, at her
apparent deep sense of her situation, her modesty, and at the same
time her firmness. She appeared, in fact, to be awed, but not
daunted, and afterwards the Duke of Wellington told me the same
thing, and added that if she had been his own daughter he could
not have desired to see her perform her part better. It was
settled that she was to hold a Council at St. James's this day,
and be proclaimed there at ten o'clock, and she expressed a wish
to see Lord Albemarle, who went to her and told her he was come to
take her orders. She said, 'I have no orders to give; you know all
this so much better than I do, that I leave it all to you. I am to
be at St. James's at ten to-morrow, and must beg you to find me a
conveyance proper for the occasion.' Accordingly, he went and
fetched her in state with a great escort. The Duchess of Kent was
in the carriage with her, but I was surprised to hear so little
shouting, and to see so few hats off as she went by. I rode down
the Park, and saw her appear at the window when she was
proclaimed. The Duchess of Kent was there, but not prominent; the
Queen was surrounded by her Ministers, and curtsied repeatedly to
the people, who did not, however, hurrah till Lord Lansdowne gave
them the signal from the window. At twelve she held a Council, at
which she presided with as much ease as if she had been doing
nothing else all her life, and though Lord Lansdowne and my
colleague had contrived between them to make some confusion with
the Council papers, she was not put out by it. She looked very
well, and though so small in stature, and without much pretension
to beauty, the gracefulness of her manner and the good expression
of her countenance give her on the whole a very agreeable
appearance, and with her youth inspire an excessive interest in
all who approach her, and which I can't help feeling myself. After
the Council she received the Archbishops and Bishops, and after
them the Judges. They all kissed her hand, but she said nothing to
any of them, very different in this from her predecessor, who used
to harangue them all, and had a speech ready for everybody.

      [9] The Dukes of Cumberland and Sussex. The Duke of
          Cambridge was in Hanover.


Conyngham, when he came to her with the intelligence of the King's
death, brought a request from the Queen Dowager that she might be
permitted to remain at Windsor till after the funeral, and she has
written her a letter couched in the kindest terms, begging her to
consult nothing but her own health and convenience, and to remain
at Windsor just as long as she pleases. In short, she appears to
act with every sort of good taste and good feeling, as well as
good sense, and as far as it has gone nothing can be more
favourable than the impression she has made, and nothing can
promise better than her manner and conduct do, though it would be
rash to count too confidently upon her judgment and discretion in
more weighty matters. No contrast can be greater than that between
the personal demeanour of the present and the late sovereigns at
their respective accessions. William IV. was a man who, coming to
the throne at the mature age of sixty-five, was so excited by the
exaltation, that he nearly went mad, and distinguished himself by
a thousand extravagances of language and conduct, to the alarm or
amusement of all who witnessed his strange freaks; and though he
was shortly afterwards sobered down into more becoming habits, he
always continued to be something of a blackguard and something
more of a buffoon. It is but fair to his memory at the same time
to say that he was a good-natured, kind-hearted, and well-meaning
man, and he always acted an honourable and straightforward, if not
always a sound and discreet, part. The two principal Ministers of
his reign, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Grey (though the former
was only his Minister for a few months), have both spoken of him
to me with strong expressions of personal regard and esteem. The
young Queen, who might well be either dazzled or confounded with
the grandeur and novelty of her situation, seems neither the one
nor the other, and behaves with a decorum and propriety beyond her
years, and with all the sedateness and dignity the want of which
was so conspicuous in her uncle.


Abercromby, Right Hon. James, proposed as Speaker, ii. 333;
  Master of the Mint, iii. 95; proposed as Speaker, 201; the
  Speakership, 204; elected Speaker, 213

Aberdeen, Earl of, Duchy of Lancaster, i. 124; motion about
  Belgium, ii. 238

Achmet Pacha, concludes a treaty with Russia, iii. 69

Adair, Right Hon. Sir Robert, sworn in Privy Councillor, i. 136

Addington, Henry Unwin, recalled from Madrid, iii. 14

Address, proposed amendment to the, iii. 217

Adelaide, Queen, ii. 7; at the Ancient Concert, 133; mobbed in
  the City, 141; audience of, about the crown, 179; coronation
  of, 190; Lord Howe, 338; yacht, iii. 99; return of, 125;
  illness of, 125; supposed to be with child, 198, 199, 201

Adrian's Villa, i. 377

Agar Ellis, _see_ Dover, Lord

Alava, General, and the Duke of Cumberland, iii. 275

Albani, Cardinal, influence of, i. 310; conversation with, 373;
  interview with, 380

Albano, i. 331

Alexander, Emperor of Russia, death of, i. 78; coronation of,
  described by Talleyrand, ii. 185

Allen, Dr., Bishop of Ely, iii. 363

Allen, John, iii. 135; unbelief of, 324

Althorp, Viscount, proposed as Chairman of the Finance
  Committee, i. 120; Chancellor of the Exchequer, ii. 66,
  introduces the budget, 114; leader of the House of   Commons,
  116, 200; letter to Attwood, 205, 206; hurries on the   Irish
  Church Bill, 364; as Chancellor of the Exchequer, iii. 2;
  arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms, 56; financial statement, 60;
  defects as leader, 62; summons a meeting of the supporters of
  Government, 92; resigns, 101; popularity of, 105; Chancellor of
  the Exchequer under Lord Melbourne, 113; succeeds his father as
  Earl Spencer, 140

Alvanley, Lord, duel with Morgan O'Connell, ii. 257; on Irish
  affairs, 348

America, dispute with France, iii. 322

Anglesey, Marquis of, recalled, i. 149; entry into   Dublin, ii.
  99; disputes with O'Connell, 106

Antwerp, threatened bombardment of, by the Dutch, ii. 321; French
  army marches to, 329

Arbuthnot, Right Hon. Charles, nickname 'Gosh,' i. 103;
  conversation with, on the Duke of Wellington's
  Administration, ii. 51; conversation with, at Oatlands, 170

Arbuthnot, Mrs., death of, iii. 116

Arkwright, Sir Richard, fortunes of, iii. 50

Arkwright, Mrs., visit to, iii. 49

Arms Bill, the, ii. 196

Arnold, Dr., proposed for a bishopric, iii. 325

Artevelde, Philip van, iii. 114; discussed at Holland House, 128

Ascot Races, 1831, ii. 147; 1833, 375

Attwood, chairman of the Birmingham Union, ii. 205, 206;
  proclamation against, 215

Auckland, Lord, Board of Trade, ii. 66; First Lord of the
  Admiralty, iii. 88, 113; on the state of affairs, 238; First
  Lord of the Admiralty in Lord Melbourne's second
  Administration, 256

Augustus, Prince, of Prussia, ii. 319

Austin, Mr. John, his work on Jurisprudence, iii. 138

Austin, Mr. Charles, ii. 306

Aylmer, Lord, recalled from Canada, iii. 394; the King's address
  to him, 395

Bachelor, valet to the Duke of York and to King George IV.,   i.
  142, 143; conversation with, ii. 30

Bagot, Lord, conduct to Lord Harrowby, ii. 253

Baiæ, Bay of, i. 341

Baring, House of, ii. 53

Baring, Right Hon. Alexander, offered the Chancellorship of the
  Exchequer, ii. 299; proposes a compromise with the ex-Ministers,

Baring, Francis, Chairman of the West India Committee, iii. 279

Barnes, Mr., editor of the 'Times,' ii. 97, 214; negotiations
  with, for supporting the Government, iii. 155, 156, 157; dines
  with Lord Lyndhurst, 167, 169; alarm of, at the prevailing
  spirit, 188

Barri, Madame du, ii. 219

Barry, Dr., sent to Sunderland, ii. 216; report on cholera, 217

Bath, Chapter of the Order of the, i. 254

Bathurst, Earl, Lord President, i. 124; death of, iii. 115;
  character of, 115

Bathurst, Countess, conversation with, ii. 62

Bathurst, Hon. William, appointed Clerk of the Council, ii. 61,
  86; delay in appointment of, 74; sworn in Clerk of the Council,

Bathurst, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Seymour, death of, iii. 79

Baudrand, General, ii. 33; reception of, 38

Bazaar, in Hanover Square, ii. 383

Beauclerc, Lord Aurelius, dances a country dance with the King,
  ii. 341

Belgian question, the, settlement of, ii. 314

Belgium, revolution in, ii. 41; affairs of, 44; unsettled state
  of, 69; deputation from, 160; fortresses of, 169; invaded by
  the Dutch, 175; French army refuses to leave, 181; end of
  hostilities with the Dutch, 184; Conference, 1832, 321

Belmore, Earl of, Governor of Jamaica, i. 140, 147

Belvoir Castle, iii. 46

Benson, Canon, sermon at the Temple Church, ii. 113

Bentinck, Right Hon. Lord William, desires to be appointed
  Governor-General of India, i. 59; address to the electors of
  Glasgow, iii. 339, 343; qualities of, 339; inscription on
  monument in honour of, 340

Bentinck, Lord Henry, quarrel with Sir Roger Gresley, ii. 148

Bergara, Convention of, iii. 259

Berri, Duchesse de, in La Vendée, ii. 322

Berry, Miss, iii. 58

Berryer, M., iii. 379; appearance of, 380

Best, Right Hon. William Draper, _see_ Lord Wynford

Bethnal Green, distress in, ii. 261

Bexley, Lord, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, i. 95

Bickersteth, Henry, _see_ Lord Langdale

Blacas, M. de, favourite of Louis XVIII., ii. 305

Black Book, the, ii. 79

Bloomfield, Sir Benjamin, dismissal of, i. 55

Blount, Rev. Mr., sermon, iii. 12

Body-snatchers, ii. 227

Bologna, i. 402

Bonaparte, Emperor Napoleon, in the 100 days, i. 24; campaigns
  of, described by Marshal Marmont, ii. 35

Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon, Strasburg attempt, iii. 381

Bonaparte, Joseph, at dinner at Lady Cork's, iii. 18

Bonaparte, Lucien, introduced to the Duke of Wellington, iii. 11;
  at dinner at Lady Cork's, 18

Boodle's, dinner at, ii. 124

Bosanquet, Right Hon. Sir John Bernard, sworn in a Privy
  Councillor, iii. 30; Judge of the King's Bench, 71

Boswell, 'Life of Johnson,' anecdotes lost, ii. 105

Boulogne, iii. 388

Bourbon, Duke de, death of, ii. 50

Bourmont, Marshal de, marches on Lisbon, iii. 25

Bourne, Right Hon. Sturges, Secretary of State for the Home
  Department, i. 95

Bowring, Dr., sent to Paris, ii. 219; satire of Moore on, 219;
  career of, 220

Bradshaw, Mrs., acting of, at Bridgewater House, ii. 353

Brescia, i. 412

Bretby, visit to, iii. 327; Chesterfield Papers, 327

Bridgewater House, dramatic performances at, iii. 352, 355

Bridgewater Election, iii. 398

Brighton, the Court at, 1832, ii. 334; races, 1835, iii. 284

Bristol, riots at, ii. 208

Broglie, Duke de, conduct of, iii. 386

Brooks's Club, iii. 320

Brougham, Lord, attack upon, in 'Quarterly Review,' i. 16; speech
  on the Queen's trial, 35; letter to the Queen, 57; character
  of, 117; qualities of, ii. 18, 33; appointed Lord High
  Chancellor, 65; discontent of, 65; social qualities of, 69;
  anecdote of, 106; quarrel with Sugden, 106; correspondence with
  Southey on rewards to literary men, 112; speech on Chancery
  Reform, 118; domestic kindness of, 120; origin of
  representation of Yorkshire, 125; as Lord Chancellor, 128; at
  the Horse Guards, 129; as a judge, 145; at dinner at Hanbury's
  brewery, 148; at the British Museum, 149; claims the old Great
  Seal, 188; intention of sitting at the Privy Council, 223;
  speech on the Russian Loan, 244; quarrel with Sugden, 312;
  anecdote of, 314; Bill for creating a new Court of Appeal, 342;
  Bill objected to, 344; Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
  Bill, 365; sits on the case of Drax _v._ Grosvenor, 370; as
  Chancellor, iii. 22; anecdotes of Queen Caroline, 36; and Sir
  William Horne, 67; meets Sir Thomas Denman in Bedfordshire, 71;
  judicial changes, 71; defence of himself, 72; apology for, 76;
  speech on Lord Wynford's Bill for the observance of the
  Sabbath, 83; on the Pluralities Bill, 86; on the Irish Church,
  94; and the 'Times,' 96; Lord Chancellor in Lord Melbourne's
  Administration, 113; and Lord Westmeath, 119; conduct in the
  Westmeath case, 119, 124; versatility of, 121; lines applied
  to, 121; Greek epigrams, 121; ambition of, 122; in Scotland,
  133; communicates to the 'Times' the fall of Lord Melbourne's
  first Administration, 145; resigns the Great Seal, 156; takes
  leave of the Bar, 156; asks for the Chief Baronship, 157;
  anecdote, 232; conduct of, in the case of Swift _v._ Kelly,
  260, 267; on the London University Charter, 261; judgment in
  the case of Swift _v._ Kelly, 274; on the Corporation Bill,
  286; violence in the House of Lords, 303; illness of, 329; and
  Macaulay, 337, 338; at Queen Victoria's first Council, 408

Brummel, 'Beau,' i. 282

Brussels, disturbances at, ii. 40

Buccleuch, Duke of, subscription to election expenses, iii. 182

Budget, the, 1831, ii. 113

Buller, James, death of, ii. 59

Bülow, Baron von, on English affairs, iii. 211

Bulwer, Sir Edward Lytton, iii. 348

Bunsen, Baron, i. 315; career of, 327; on Roman affairs, 389

Burdett, Sir Francis, returned for Westminster, 1837, iii. 398

Burghersh, Lord, at Florence, i. 299; amateur opera, 301

Burghersh, Lady, intercedes for a prisoner at the Old Bailey, ii.

Burghley, party at, iii. 53

Burke, Right Hon. Edmund, writings of, iii. 209; compared with
  Mackintosh, 314

Burke, Sir G., conversation with, on O'Connell, ii. 111

Buxton, Fowell, dinner at the brewery, ii. 148

Byng, Right Hon. George, Lord of the Treasury, iii. 95

Byron, Lord, Moore's Life of, i. 272; character of, 273

Cambridge, H.R.H. the Duchess of, reception of, i. 2

Cambridge, University of, petition for the admission of
  Dissenters to the, iii. 72, 75

Campbell, Sir John, Solicitor-General, ii. 333; Attorney-General,
  iii. 141

Canada, affairs in, iii. 350

Canning, Right Hon. Sir Stratford, Ambassador at St. Petersburg,
  ii. 352, 357; anecdote of, iii. 39; offered the Governor-Generalship
  of Canada, 234

Canning, Right Hon. George, Foreign Secretary, i. 55;
  correspondence with the King on taking office, 59; forms an
  Administration (1827), 93, 95; death of, 103; anecdotes of,
  104; industrious habits of, 106; memoirs of, 263, 272; despatch
  in verse, 326; sagacity of, ii. 42; conversation with the King,
  102; correspondence with the Duke of Wellington, 103; coldness
  to the Duke of Wellington, 103; anecdote of, 125; negotiation
  with the Whigs, 170; influence over Lord Liverpool, 172; in
  favour with the King, 172; on Reform, iii. 135; and King George
  IV., 137

Canning, Lady, visit to, ii. 101; authorship of pamphlet, iii. 40

Canning, Mr. Charles, offered a Lordship of the Treasury, iii.

Cannizzaro, Duchess of, iii. 11; crowns the Duke of Wellington,

Canterbury, Archbishop of, indecision of the, ii. 250, 262, 263;
  importance of support of the, 252, 253

Canterbury, Viscount, declines to go to Canada, iii. 234

Capo di Monte, i. 335

Capua, i. 360

Cardinals, the, i. 309

Carlisle, Earl of, Lord Privy Seal, i. 95; iii. 88

Carlists, the, in Spain, iii. 66

Carlos, Don, in London, iii. 98

Carlow election, iii. 348

Carnarvon, Earl of, refuses to move the address in the House of
  Lords, iii. 202

Caroline, Queen, return of, i. 28; trial of, 31, 35; anecdote of,
  iii. 37

Carvalho, Minister of Finance to Dom Pedro, iii. 93

Catacombs, the, _see_ Rome

Catholic emancipation, i. 163, 172, 174

Catholic Relief Bill, excitement concerning the, i. 180; debates
  on, _see_ Lords and Commons

Cato Street Conspiracy, the, i. 26

Cayla, Madame du, i. 71; dinner at the Duke of Wellington's, 214;
  Béranger's verses on, 215; favourite of Louis XVIII., ii. 306

Cenis, the Mont, i. 287

Champollion, Jean François, death of, ii. 307

Chapeau de Paille, the, purchase of, ii. 125

Chapel, near Holland House, unable to be consecrated, iii. 200

Charles I., King, head of, discovered at Windsor, ii. 168;
  executioner of, iii. 132

Charles X., King, of France, arrival of in England, ii. 31; at
  Lulworth Castle, 33; off Cowes, 34

Charlotte, Queen, illness of, i. 2, 3

Charlotte, H.R.H. the Princess, anecdotes of, ii. 319

Chartres, H.R.H. the Duc de, arrival of, i. 208

Chatham, Earl of, death of, iii. 316

Chatsworth, hospitality at, i. 237; charade at, 238; party at,
  ii. 51

Chesterfield Papers, the, iii. 327

Chobert, the 'Fire King,' i. 276

Cholera, the, in Russia, ii. 57; account of, 150; preventive
  measures against, 154, 216; effect on trade of, 156; spread of,
  161; alarm about, 169; at Berlin, 192; at Sunderland, 208, 210;
  at Marseilles, 221; on the decline, 224; near Edinburgh, 240;
  in London, 258, 259; in Bethnal Green, 261; account of, 278;
  diminution of, 285; in Paris, 287; alarm in London, 309, 311

Christina, Queen, of Spain, iii. 66, 72; reported flight of, 360;
  courage of, 365

Christmas trees, introduced by Princess Lieven at Panshanger, i.

Church Bill, the, Committee on, iii. 199

Church Reform, iii. 206

City, the, address to the King, ii. 126; illumination in, 140;
  election, 1835, iii. 184, 186, 187; anxiety in the money-market,
  373, 376

Civil List, the, excess of expenditure on, i. 253; for debates
  on, _see_ Commons, House of

Clanricarde, Marquis of, sworn in a Privy Councillor, ii. 78

Clarence, H.R.H. the Duke of, Lord High Admiral, i. 95; removal
  of, from the office of Lord High Admiral, 138, 140. _See_
  William IV.

Cobbett, William, trial of, ii. 158; returned for Oldham, 335;
  takes his seat, 351; and Sir Robert Peel, 373

Cochrane, Lord, at Florence, i. 301; villa near Florence, 302

Codrington, Sir E., interview with the Duke of Wellington, i. 179

Coercion Bill, the, introduced, ii. 359

Colchester Election, iii. 112

Commons, House of; Alien Bill, i. 1; Dr. Halloran's petition, 14;
  debate on grant to the Duke of York, 18; debates on Queen
  Caroline, 30, 32, 38; Small Notes Bill, 79; debates on Catholic
  Relief Bill, 91, 133, 166, 191; division on Catholic Relief
  Bill, 185; Catholic Relief Bill read a third time, 203; Regency
  and Civil List, ii. 45; debate on the Evesham election, 25;
  debate on the Civil List, 110; announcement of the Reform Bill,
  110; Pension List, 111; debate on Ireland, 112; Budget of 1831,
  113; proposed reductions, 118; introduction of the first Reform
  Bill, 121; debates on the Reform Bill, 123, 125; debate on the
  Timber duties, 130; debate on the Reform Bill, 131; division on
  the Reform Bill, 132; Government defeated, 135; scene in the
  House, 135; second reading of the Reform Bill, 156; Wine
  duties, 160; Reform Bill, Schedule A, 170; second Reform Bill,
  227; debate on, and second reading of the second Reform Bill
  carried, 228; Reform Bill supported by the Irish Members, 239;
  division on the Russian Loan, 240; division on the sugar
  duties, 267; Reform Bill passed, 270; debates, 296; violent
  scene in debate on petition of the City of London, 299; Irish
  Tithe question, 308; debate on, 309; debate on the Address,
  353; Irish Church Reform, 354; aspect of the reformed House,
  360; debate on Slave Emancipation, 371; vote of confidence in
  the Ministers, 376; division on the Irish Church Bill, 381;
  vote against sinecures, iii. 13; division on Apprenticeship
  Clause of West India Bill, 16; disorganised state of the House,
  17; Pension List, 60; business of the House, 61; debate on the
  Corn Laws, 68; debate on admission of Dissenters to the
  University, 75; debate on Repeal of the Union, 80; Pension
  List, 80; debate on Portugal, 82; Poor Law Bill, 83; debate on
  Irish Tithe Bill, 98, 99; gallery for reporters, 205; debate on
  the Speakership, 214; debate on the Address, 221; debate and
  division on amendment to the Address, 223; Malt Tax, 224;
  debate on appointment of Lord Londonderry, 225; Dissenters'
  Marriage Bill, 230; Government beaten on Chatham election, 234;
  state of parties in the House, 234; debate and division on
  Irish Church question, 240; uproar in the House, 243;
  Government defeated on Irish Tithe Bill, 246; debate on Irish
  Church Bill, 281; position of the House, 288, 291; conflict
  with the House of Lords, 225; debate and division on the
  amendment to the Address, 334; effect of division, 336;
  Opposition defeated, 347; division, 359; Irish Corporation
  Bill, 388; insult to Lord Lyndhurst, 389; debates on Irish
  Tithe Bill, 391; abandonment of the appropriation clauses, 393

Como, i. 414

Conroy, Sir John, ii. 190; iii. 3

Conservative Club, dinner at, ii. 327; speeches, 327

Constantine, the Grand Duke, accident to, i. 259; death of, ii.

Convention signed between France, England, and Holland, ii. 375

Conyngham, Marquis of, Postmaster-General, iii. 88, 113

Conyngham, Marchioness of, i. 46; wears a Crown jewel, 48; Court
  intrigues, 207

Conyngham, Lord Francis, i. 50

Coprogli, History of the Grand Vizier, iii. 115

Cornelius, painter, ii. 149

Coronation, the, of William IV., decided on, ii. 156;
  preparations for, 157, 163, 165; estimates for, 181; disputes
  over the arrangements for, 187

Cottenham, Lord, Lord High Chancellor, iii. 328

Cotton, Sir Willoughby, suppresses the insurrection in Jamaica,
  ii. 262; on affairs in Jamaica, 380

Council, Clerk of the, Mr. Greville sworn in, i. 44; after the
  accession of William IV., ii. 12; Lord Grey's Administration
  sworn in, 71; for the proclamation against rioters, 73;
  recorder's report in, 85; clerks of the, 87; scene at Council
  for a new Great Seal, 188

Council, Privy: suttee case before the, ii. 307; embargo on Dutch
  ships, 343; meeting of the, on the London University petition,
  iii. 80; counter petition of Oxford and Cambridge, 80

Council, Cabinet: the first of Lord Melbourne's Administration,
  iii. 120; the first of Sir Robert Peel's Administration, 174

Covent Garden Theatrical Fund Dinner, i. 205

Coventry, glove trade, ii. 224

Cowley, Abraham, lines from 'Ode to Solitude,' ii. 272

Cowper, Earl, at Panshanger, ii. 229

Cowper, Countess, at Panshanger, ii. 229

Cowper, William, Life of, by Southey, iii. 134

Cradock, Colonel, sent to Charles X., ii. 37

Crampton, Sir Philip, Irish story, i. 243

Craven, Earl of, disperses a mob, ii. 77; on the proposed new
  Peers, 232

Craven, General the Hon. Berkeley, suicide of, iii. 350

Crawford, William, member for the City of London, iii. 188

Creevey, Mr., i. 235

Croker, Right Hon. John Wilson, edition of 'Boswell's Life of
  Johnson,' ii. 105; reviews lost, 106

Cumberland, H.R.H. the Duke of, opposition to Catholic Relief
  Bill, i. 180; intrigues at Court, 222; insults Lady Lyndhurst,
  222, 223; quarrel with Lord Lyndhurst, 224; disputes concerning
  the office of 'Gold Stick,' ii. 5, 21

Cumberland, H.R.H. the Duchess of, i. 2

Cuvier, Baron, death of, ii. 307

Dalberg, Duke de, letter on European affairs, ii. 44

Dawson, Right Hon. George Robert, speech on Catholic
  Emancipation, i. 138, 200; sworn in a Privy Councillor, ii. 71

De Cazes, Duke, favourite of Louis XVIII., ii. 305; Ambassador to
  the Court of St. James, 306

Dedel, M., Dutch Minister at the Court of St. James, iii, 32

Denbigh, Earl of, Chamberlain to Queen Adelaide, ii. 342; sworn
  in Privy Councillor, 352

Denman, Lord, correspondence with the King, i. 156; sworn in a
  Privy Councillor, ii. 329; Lord Chief Justice, 330; qualities
  of, 331; meeting of, with Lord Brougham, in Bedfordshire, iii.
  71; raised to the Peerage, 74

Derby Dilly, the, iii. 236, 237, 253

De Ros, Lord, in Rome, i. 368

De Ros, Colonel, the Hon. Arthur John Hill, death of, i. 81;
  character of, 82

Dickenson, Captain, trial of, by court-martial, i. 235

Diebitsch, Marshal, death of, from cholera, ii. 154

Dino, Duc de, arrest of the, i. 255

Dino, Duchesse de, ii. 57; on the state of France, 195

Discontent throughout the country, ii. 108

Disraeli, Benjamin, projects for sitting in Parliament, iii. 170

Dissenters' Marriage Bill, iii. 207, 230. For debates on, _see_
  Commons, House of

Dorsetshire election, 1831, ii. 203, 207; crime in, iii. 77

Dover, Lord, resigns the Woods and Forests, ii. 109; created a
  Peer, 150; death of, iii. 4; character of, 4; Life of
  Frederick II., 6; book on the Man in the Iron Mask, 6

Down, deanery of, iii. 70

Drax _v._ Grosvenor, case of, ii. 224; lunacy case, 369; decision
  on, 375; final meeting on, 377

Drummond, Henry, mission to the Archbishop of York, iii. 333

Dublin Police Bill, iii. 333

Dudley, Earl of, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, i. 95,
  124; dinner to Marshal Marmont, ii. 38; eccentricity of, 271,

'Duke of Milan,' quotation from the, i. 178

Dülcken, Madam, performs before the Judicial Committee, iii. 325

Duncannon, Viscount, iii. 104; called to the House of Lords, and
  Secretary of State, 109; sworn in, 112; Home Secretary, 113; on
  O'Connell, 117; at a fire in Edward Street, 117; on the state
  of affairs, 196; Commissioner of Woods and Forests under Lord
  Melbourne, 256

Duncombe, Hon. Thomas Slingsby, maiden speech of, i. 128;
  petition from Barnet, ii. 255; guilty of libel, iii. 9; at
  Hillingdon, 123

Durham, Earl of, quarrel with Lady Jersey, ii. 119; influence
  over Lord Grey, 222; attack on Lord Grey at a Cabinet dinner,
  226; rudeness of, 269; return from Russia, 333; violence of,
  333; created an earl, 365

Dwarris, Sir Fortunatus, dinner at the house of, ii. 359

East, Sir E. Hyde, sworn in a Privy Councillor, ii. 155

Eboli, Duchesse d', ball at Naples, i. 335

Ebrington, Viscount, moves a vote of confidence in the
  Government, ii. 202, 204

Ebury, Lord, sworn in a Privy Councillor, ii. 78

Egremont, Earl of, at Petworth, ii. 336; wealth of, 337;
  hospitality to the poor, iii. 84

Eldon, Earl of, audience of King George IV., i. 197; speech at
  Apsley House, ii. 198; career of, 378; tribute to, iii. 42

Election, General, in 1830, ii. 20, 29; in 1831, 139, 141, 142,
  145; in 1832, 335; in 1835, iii. 184, 189, 191, 193; results
  of, 195; in the counties, 198; result, 201

Eliot, Lord, return of, from Spain, iii. 259; conversation with
  Louis Philippe, 259

Ellenborough, Earl of, Lord Privy Seal, i. 124; letter to Sir
  John Malcolm, 271; on West India affairs, ii. 350; on Egypt,
  351; speech on admission of Dissenters to the University, iii.

Ellesmere, Earl of, Irish Secretary, i. 146

Ellice, Right Hon. Edward, iii. 104; and the Colchester election,
  112; Secretary for War, 113; in Paris, 379

Elliot, Frederic, letter from Canada, iii. 325

Epsom races, 1831, ii. 143; in 1833, 373

Erskine, Right Hon. Thomas, sworn in a Privy Councillor, ii. 223;
  Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, 223

Escars, Duchesse d', at a party given by the Duke of Wellington,
  i. 214

Este, Sir Augustus d', behaviour of, ii. 194

Esterhazy, Prince Paul, conversation with, ii. 40; on Belgian
  affairs, 189; on the state of England, iii. 32; on affairs in
  Europe, 370; conversation with, 373

Europe, state of, ii. 126; in 1831, 187; in 1836, iii. 370

Evans, General de Lacy, iii. 265; reported death of, 359

Evans, the incendiary, arrest of, ii. 70

Exeter, Bishop of, correspondence with Lord Melbourne, ii. 97;
  interview with Lord Grey, 205; talents of, 287; ambition of,

Falck, Baron, ii. 15, 41

Ferdinand, Emperor, of Austria, iii. 374

Fergusson, Right Hon. Cutlar, Judge Advocate, iii. 95

Ferrara, i. 405

Fieschi conspiracy, iii. 286

Fingall, Earl of, created a Baron of the United Kingdom, ii. 150

Finsbury election, 1834, Radical returned, iii. 100

Fitzclarence, Colonel George, _see_ Munster, Earl of

Fitzclarence, Lord Frederick, resigns appointment at the Tower,
  ii. 362

Fitzclarence, Lord Adolphus, picture of, ii. 179

Fitzclarence, Lord Augustus, at Ascot, ii. 147; picture of, 176

Fitzclarence, Lady Augusta, marriage of, iii. 363

Fitzgerald, Right Hon. Vesey, i. 150

Fitzherbert, Mrs., death of, iii. 396; documents of, 396

Flahault, Madame de, anecdotes of Princess Charlotte, ii. 319;
  _salon_ of, in Paris, iii. 381

Fleury, Cardinal, ii. 347

Florence, i. 299; sights of, 300; society at, 302; sculpture,
  300, 301; pictures, 303; Grand Duke, 303

Foley, Lord, sworn in a Privy Councillor, ii. 84; Lord-Lieutenant
  of Worcestershire, 84; at St. James's, 297

Fonblanque, Albany, iii. 348

Forester, Right Hon. Colonel Cecil, resigns his appointment as
  Groom of the Bedchamber, ii. 118

Forfar election, 1835, iii. 197

Fox, Mrs. Lane, accompanies the Prince of Orange to Gravesend,
  ii. 133; receives the Cabinet Ministers, iii. 140

Fox, Right Hon. Charles James, described by Talleyrand, ii. 344

Fox, W. J., Unitarian minister, sermon, iii. 43

France, state of affairs in, i. 284; appearance of the country,
  287; impending crisis in 1830, 369; events in 1830, ii. 17;
  revolution, 19; Duke of Orleans ascends the throne, 26;
  political prospects, 26; reconstruction of the Constitution,
  28; army ordered to Belgium, 178; army in Belgium, 181; seizure
  of Portuguese ships, 182, 184; republican tendencies of, 187;
  state of the country, 1831, 195; weakness of the Government of
  Louis Philippe, 322; dispute with America, iii. 322; state of
  the country, 382

Francis, Sir Philip, handwriting of, i. 234

Franklin, Benjamin, ii. 185

Franz Joseph, Archduke, iii. 374

Frascati, convent at, i. 305; dinner at, 305; visit to, 390

Gallatin, Albert, i. 257

Gambier, Lord, proxy of, ii. 286

Garrick, David, anecdotes of ii. 316

Gell, Sir William, at Rome, i. 372, 375

Geneva, i. 415

Genoa, i. 292; palaces, 293, 295; churches, 294; tomb of Andrew
  Doria, 296

George III., death of, i. 23; will, 64; jewels and property, 65;
  dislike of the Duke of Richmond, iii. 129

George IV., illness of, i. 23; at the Pavilion, 49; interview
  with, 91; health and habits of, 143; violent dislike to the
  Catholic Relief Bill, 153, 181; character of, 155; personal
  habits of, 189; interview with the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of
  Wellington, and Sir Robert Peel, 201; health of, 206; racing
  interests of, 212; anecdotes concerning, 216; eyesight
  affected, 233, 236; courage of, 236; conduct in reference to
  Mr. Denman, 250; illness of, 368; death of, 417; funeral of,
  ii. 4; sale of wardrobe, 23; details of last illness, 30;
  anecdotes concerning, 189

Gérard, Marshal, reported resignation of, ii. 45; ordered to
  Belgium, 178

Gibson, John, R.A., at Rome, i. 383

Gladstone, William Ewart, West India Committee, iii. 280

Glenelg, Lord, President of the Board of Trade, i. 124; Board of
  Control, ii. 66, iii. 113; Colonial Secretary in Lord
  Melbourne's second Administration, 256; and the King, 276

'Glenfinlas' performed at Bridgewater House, iii. 353, 355

Glengall, Earl of, comedy by the, i. 249

Glengall, Countess of, ii. 85

Gloucester, H.R.H. the Duke of, ii. 8

Goderich, Viscount, Small Notes Bill, i. 79; Secretary of State
  for Colonial Affairs and War, 95; sent for by the King, 107;
  scene at Windsor, 108; Administration of, formed, 108;
  resignation of, 115; returns to office, 116; Ministry
  dissolved, 120; Colonial Secretary, ii. 66; Lord Privy Seal,
  365; created an earl, 367; invested with the Order of the
  Garter, 367

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, death of, ii. 307

Goodwood, ii. 182; in 1833, iii. 20

Gorhambury, party at, ii. 188

'Goriot, Le Père,' iii. 378

Goulburn, Right Hon. Henry, Chancellor of the Exchequer, i. 124

Graham, Right Hon. Sir James, First Lord of the Admiralty, ii.
  66; elevation of, 90; remarks on, 91; resignation of, iii. 88;
  declines to join the Peel Administration, 176; conservative
  spirit of, 249; on the crisis of 1835, 249; joins the
  Opposition, 272

Grange, The, attacked by a mob, ii. 68

Grant, Right Hon. Charles, _see_ Glenelg, Lord

Granville, Earl, Ambassador in Paris, iii. 385

Granville, Countess, i. 10; quarrel with M. Thiers, iii. 380

Greece, policy of the English Government towards, i. 255

Greenwich, dinner at, iii. 1

Grenville, Thomas, conduct during the riots of 1780, iii. 129

Gresley, Sir Roger, quarrel with Lord H. Bentinck, ii. 148

Greville, Charles, sen., death of, ii. 318

Greville, Mrs., 'Ode to Indifference,' ii. 319

Greville, Algernon, private secretary to the Duke of Wellington,
  iii. 163

Grey, Earl, hostility to the Government, i. 100; forms an
  Administration, 1830, ii. 64, 66; First Lord of the Treasury,
  66; at dinner at Lord Sefton's, 69; nepotism of, 78; character
  of, 88; relations with Lord Lyndhurst, 88; lays the Reform Bill
  before the King, 109; weakness of Government in the House of
  Commons, 116; remarks on Administration of, 137; invested with
  the Order of the Garter, 146; at dinner at Hanbury's Brewery,
  149; attacked on his foreign policy, 178; on Belgian affairs,
  178; attacked by Lord Durham, 226; proposed new Peers, 230;
  altered conduct of, 232; reluctance to make new Peers, 247;
  conversation with, 248; interview with Lord Harrowby and Lord
  Wharncliffe, 259; minute of compromise with Lord Harrowby and
  Lord Wharncliffe, 260; speech on Ancona, 269; speech at the
  close of the Reform debate, 288; continued efforts for a
  compromise, 291; Government defeated in committee, 293;
  resignation of Administration of, 294; resumes office with his
  colleagues, 300; remarks on the members of the Administration
  of, 322; embarrassment of Government, 369; instance of
  readiness of, iii. 10; on Portuguese affairs, 21; compared with
  the Duke of Wellington, 73; changes in the Administration of,
  88, 90, 91; situation of, in the crisis of 1834, 91; letter to
  Lord Ebrington, 92; weakness of the Government, 97; resignation
  of, 101; refuses the Privy Seal, 112; desires to retire, 124;
  dinner to, at Edinburgh, 135; events subsequent to retirement
  of, 145; intrigue, 145; conservative spirit of, 249; audience
  of the King, 251; dissatisfaction of, 352

Grey, Sir Charles, Governor of Jamaica, sworn in a Privy
  Councillor, iii. 271

Grote, George, returned for the City of London, iii. 188

Guizot, Monsieur, reported resignation of, ii. 45; eminence of,
  iii. 379

Gully, Mr., account of, ii. 335; returned for Pontefract, 336

Gunpowder Plot, papers relating to, i. 161

Haddington, Earl of, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, iii. 181

Halford, Sir Henry, report on the cholera, ii. 137

Hampden, Dr. Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, iii. 341,

Hanbury's Brewery, dinner at, ii. 148

Happiness, reflections on, iii. 293

Hardinge, Right Hon. Sir Henry, on the prospects of the Tory
  Government, iii. 167; on the King and Lord Melbourne, 168

Harrowby, Earl of, Lord President, i. 95; speech on Reform, ii.
  206; interview with Lord Grey, 224; circular to the Peers, 242,
  248; interview with Lord Grey, 259; discussions on letter of,
  262; letter shown to Lord Grey, 264; the 'Times' on the letter
  of, 264, 265; patriotic conduct of, 275; declines to vote on
  Schedule A, 281; character of, iii. 52; subscription to
  election expenses, 182

Harrowby, Countess of, iii. 52

Hartwell, visit to, ii. 345

Harvey, Whittle, committee, iii. 112; speech of, at Southwark,

Harwich election, 1835, iii. 186

Health, formation of a board of, ii. 154

Henry II., King, and Thomas à Becket, iii. 130

Henry VIII., King, coffin of, found at Windsor, ii. 168

Herbert, Sydney, Secretary to the Board of Control, iii. 194

Herculaneum, i. 349

'Hernani,' ii. 154

Herries, Right Hon. John Charles, scene at Council, i. 108;
  discussions on appointment of, 110; ill-will of, towards his
  colleagues, 121; Master of the Mint, 124

Hertford, Marchioness of, funeral of, iii. 79

Hess, Captain, ii. 319, 320

Heurteloup, Baron, before the Judicial Committee, iii. 332

Heythrop, riot at, ii. 77

Hill, Mr., Irish members' squabble, iii. 55

Hobhouse, Right Hon. Sir John Cam, speech on the Reform Bill, ii.
  123; Secretary of War, 243; resigns Irish Secretaryship and
  seat for Westminster, ii. 368; on the state of affairs, iii.
  195; Board of Control, in Lord Melbourne's second
  Administration, 256

Holland, the King of, invades Belgium, ii. 175; state of, 200;
  conduct of the King of, 314; the King refuses to give up
  Antwerp, 321, 329; obstinacy of the King, 324; bankrupt
  condition of, iii. 32

Holland, Lord, at Panshanger, ii. 47; Duchy of Lancaster, iii.
  113; anecdotes related by, 131; on Reform, 135; on Mr. Canning,
  135; anecdotes, 335; on Mr. Fox, 335; contempt for the Tory
  party, 336

Holland, Lady, fancies of, ii. 331; and Spencer Perceval, iii.

Holland House, dinner at, ii. 245; conversation at, 316; Allen
  and Macaulay, 317; sketch of, 331; conversation at, iii. 127,
  129; literary criticisms, 130; Lord Melbourne's conversation,
  131; dinner at, 132; news of the fall of Lord Melbourne's
  Administration, 147; party spirit at, 192

Holmes boroughs, ii. 140

Hook, Theodore, improvisation of, iii. 119, 197; singing of, 197

Home, Sir William, Attorney-General, ii. 333; and Lord Brougham,
  iii. 67

Hortense, Queen, at Frascati, i. 305

Horton, Wilmot, lectures at the Mechanics' Institute, ii. 97

Howe, Earl, dismissal of, ii. 203; Queen's Chamberlain, 319; and
  Queen Adelaide, 331; correspondence about the Chamberlainship,

Howick, Viscount, Under-secretary, ii. 78; in office, iii. 254;
  civility of the King to, 255; Secretary of War, 256; acrimony
  of, 312; interview with Spencer Perceval, 330; on the position
  of parties, 360

Hudson, Sir James, page of honour, ii. 339

Hume, John Deacon, Assistant-Secretary to the Board of Trade, i.
  223; ii. 49

Hume, Joseph, extreme Radical views of, ii. 361; speech on the
  Orangemen, iii. 344; deputation to Lord Melbourne, 357

'Hunchback, The,' ii. 285

Hunt, Henry, speech of, ii. 112; speech of, against the Reform
  Bill, 134

Huskisson, Right Hon. William, President of the Board of Trade,
  i. 95; dispute in the Cabinet, 120; joins the new Government,
  122; Colonial Secretary, 124; resignation of, 131; Lord
  Melbourne's opinion of, ii. 46; death of, 47; character of, 49;
  funeral of, 51

Incendiarism in the country, ii. 84

Ireland, trials in, i. 239; dissatisfaction in, ii. 76;
  unpopularity of Government changes in, 89; state of, 112, 114;
  education in, 267, 271; tithes, 309; Church difficulties in,

Irish Church, abuses in, iii. 9; the Irish Church Bill dangerous
  to the Government, 86; differences in the Cabinet, 89;
  difficulties of the Irish Church question, 240, 253; opinions
  of Lord Melbourne on the, 269. For debates on the Irish Church
  Bill, _see_ Lords, House of, and Commons, House of

Irish Tithe Bill, thrown out, iii. 117; divisions on the, 246;
  conduct of the Government, 298; difficulties of, 353, 354;
  abandonment of the Appropriation Clause, 355

Irving, Edward, service in chapel, iii. 40; the unknown tongues,
  41; sermon of, 41; interview with Lord Melbourne, 129

Irving, Washington, i. 249

Istria, Duchesse d', beauty of, iii. 381

Jacquemont's Letters, iii. 115

Jamaica, insurrection in, ii. 262; Mr. Greville, Secretary of the
  Island of, 349; petition to the King, 352; affairs of, 352;
  anecdote of a slave, 359; opinion of Sir Willoughby Cotton,
  380; office of Secretary to the Island of, threatened, iii.
  266, 268, 275; secured, 279

Jebb, Judge, charge of, at O'Connell's trial, ii. 109

Jeffrey, Lord, and Professor Leslie, iii. 44

Jersey, Countess of, character of, i. 12; party at the house of,
  ii. 64; quarrel with Lord Durham, 119; correspondence with Lord
  Brougham, 126

Jockey Club, dinner given by the King to the, 1828, i. 154; in
  1829, 211

'John Bull,' the, newspaper, ii. 97

Johnson, Dr., anecdotes of, ii. 316

Johnstone, Right Hon. Sir Alexander, sworn in a Privy Councillor,
  iii. 27, 30; at the Judicial Committee, 125

Jones Loyd, Mr., iii. 188

Jones, 'Radical,' interview with Lord Wharncliffe, ii. 200

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Bill for the
  establishment of the, iii. 21; meeting to make regulations for
  the, 35; first sitting of the, 38; working of the, 205

Kelly, Mrs., adventures of her daughter, i. 379, 383; case before
  the Privy Council, iii. 259, 261, 266, 267; judgment, 274

Kemble, Charles, and his family, iii. 260

Kemble, Miss Fanny, i. 240, ii. 129; tragedy by, 270; in the
  'Hunchback,' 285

Kempt, Right Hon. Sir James, Master-General of the Ordnance,
  sworn in a Privy Councillor, ii. 84

Kent, H.R.H. the Duchess of, disputes in the Royal Family, ii.
  190; and the Duke of Wellington, 190; the Regency Bill, 191;
  salutes to, iii. 3; at Burghley, 315; quarrels with the King,
  366; scene at Windsor, 367; answer to the address of the City
  of London, 399; squabble with the King, 400

Kenyon, Lord, speech at Apsley House, ii. 198

Kinnaird, Lord, created a Baron of the United Kingdom, ii. 150

Klopstock, Friedrich Gottlieb, anecdote of, iii. 130

Knatchbull, Right Hon. Sir Edward, joins the Peel Government,
  iii. 176, 177; attack on, 226

Knighton, Sir William, i. 72; influence with the King, 99, 144;
  behaviour of, during the King's illness, ii. 174

Lafayette, Marquis de, resignation of, ii. 99

La Ferronays, M. de, French Ambassador at Rome, i. 307; on the
  accession of the Emperor Nicholas, 373; on French politics,
  368; civility of, 380, 381; on French affairs, 393, 395

La Granja, revolution of, iii. 364, 365

'Lalla Rookh,' at Bridgewater House, iii. 353

Lamb, Sir Frederick, ii. 94; reported letter to the King of
  France from the Duke of Wellington, 94

Lambeth Palace, restoration of, ii. 34

Lancashire election, 1835, iii. 198

Langdale, Lord, reply to Lord Brougham, iii. 81; declines the
  Solicitor-Generalship, 141; peerage, 328; Master of the Rolls,

Lansdowne, Marquis of, Secretary of State for the Home
  Department, i. 95; Lord President, ii. 66; dinner to name the
  sheriffs, 109; on the Reform Bill, 131; and Lord Brougham, 347;
  Lord President in both of the Administrations of Lord
  Melbourne, iii. 113, 256

La Roncière, case of, iii. 202

Laval, M. de, at Apsley House, ii. 15

Law, History of English, iii. 114

Lawrence, Sir Thomas, early genius of, i. 256; death of, 263;
  character of, 264; funeral of, 268; engagement of, to the
  Misses Siddons, iii. 50

Leach, Right Hon. Sir John, disappointed of the Woolsack, ii. 68;
  in the case of Drax _v._ Grosvenor, 378

Leigh, Colonel George, ii. 189

Leinster, Duke of, sworn in a Privy Councillor, ii. 155

Leitrim, Earl of, created a Baron of the United Kingdom, ii. 150

Le Marchant, Denis, at Stoke, iii. 21

Lemon, Robert, F.S.A., Deputy Keeper of the State Papers, iii. 44

Lennard, John Barrett, Chief Clerk of the Privy Council Office,
  ii. 370

Leopold, King, i. 22; desires to ascend the throne of Greece,
  265; anxiety to ascend the throne of Belgium, ii. 153; accepts
  the throne of Belgium, 158; starts for Belgium, 167; proposes
  to the Princess Louise of France, 168; in Belgium, 177; want of
  confidence in, 177; cold reception of, at Windsor, iii. 370

Leuchtenberg, Duke of, at Havre, iii. 33; marriage of, 33; letter
  to Lord Palmerston, 34; arrival of, 195

Leveson, Lord Francis, _see_ Ellesmere, Earl of

Levee, iii. 213

Lewis, Matthew Gregory, ('Monk' Lewis), journals and voyages to
  the West Indies, ii. 382; anecdote of, iii. 2; agreement with
  Mr. Murray for the Journal, 8

Lichfield, Earl of, at Runton, iii. 51

Lichfield Cathedral, iii. 327

Lieven, Prince, recalled, iii. 87

Lieven, Princess, character of, i. 15; attacks Lord Grey, ii.
  261; on the Belgian question, 266; conversation with, 322;
  renews her friendship with the Duke of Wellington, 325;
  grievances of, 351; interference of, 358; diplomatic
  difficulties, 357; reception of, at St. Petersburg, iii. 23;
  position, of, in Paris, 379

Littleton, Right Hon. Edward, i. 11; proposed by Lord Althorp as
  Speaker, ii. 333; Secretary for Ireland, 372; and O'Connell,
  iii. 99; instrumental in breaking up the Government, 102;
  political career of, 103; letter to Lord Wellesley, 103, 110;
  in communication with O'Connell, 103, 110; Irish Secretary, 113

Liverpool, Earl of, and the King, i. 25; paralytic seizure, 90;
  transactions before the close of Administration of, ii. 173

Liverpool, opening of the railroad, ii. 43, 47; bribery at
  election, 79

Lobau, Marshal, Commandant-Général, ii. 99

Lodge, the Royal, entertainments at, i. 99

London, speech of Bishop of, iii. 391; University Charter, iii.
  80, 81, 237; meeting of Committee of Council on, 260, 262

Londonderry, Marquis of, death of, i. 51; character of, 52;
  funeral of, 54

Londonderry, Marquis of, motion on Belgium, ii. 180; attacks Lord
  Plunket, 266; debate on appointment of, to St. Petersburg, iii.
  225; opinion of the Duke of Wellington, 227; speech of, 228;
  resignation of, 229

Long, St. John, trial of, ii. 85

Lords, House of, debate of Royal Dukes, i. 177; debate on
  Catholic Relief Bill, 199; division on Catholic Relief Bill,
  199; debate on affairs in Portugal, 277; debate on the Methuen
  Treaty, ii. 118; speech of Lord Brougham, 118; violent scene in
  the, 136; debate on Lord Londonderry's motion, 180; prospects
  of the Reform Bill, 193; First Reform Bill thrown out, 202;
  attack on the Bishops, 205; new Peers, 230; measures for
  carrying the second reading of the Second Reform Bill, 235,
  237; division on the Belgian question, 240; Reform Bill, 271;
  Irish education, 271; debates on second reading of the Reform
  Bill, 272, 286; list of proposed new Peers, 283; Reform Bill
  carried, 287; in Committee on the Reform Bill, 291; debate on
  conduct of the Tory party, 303; Russo-Dutch Loan, 315;
  Government beaten on Portuguese question, 376; powerlessness
  of, 377; Local Courts Bill, 382, 384; debate on Local Courts
  Bill, iii. 7; Government defeated, 7; Irish Church Bill, 8;
  Bill for the observance of the Sabbath, 83; debate on the Irish
  Church Bill, 94; Poor Law Bill, 114; debate on Irish Tithe
  Bill, 117; conduct of the House, 239; debate on Corporation
  Bill, 286, 290; position of the House, 288, 291; Irish Tithe
  Bill thrown up, 295; conflict with the House of Commons, 295;
  state of the House, 307; debate on Corporation Bill, 308, 351;
  hostility to the House of Commons, 359; conduct of the House,
  360, 361

Louis XVIII., King, memoirs of, ii. 305; favourites of, 305; at
  Hartwell, 345

Louis Philippe, King, accession of, ii. 26; conduct of, 27;
  tranquillises Paris, 99; speech of, 169; averse to French
  attack on Antwerp, 334; behaviour of, to the Queen of Portugal,
  iii. 33; power of, in the Chamber, 142; courage of, 286;
  conduct towards Spain, 321, 360, 364; at the Tuileries, 382;
  dislike to the Duke de Broglie, 386

Louise, H.R.H. Princess, daughter of King Louis Philippe, ii. 168

Louis, Baron, reported resignation of, ii. 45

Luckner, General, ii. 219

Lushington, Dr., speech of, in the appeal of Swift _v._ Kelly,
  ii. 383

Lushington, Sir Henry, and 'Monk' Lewis, iii. 2

Luttrell, Henry, character of, i. 10; 'Advice to Julia,' 33

Lyndhurst, Lord, Lord High Chancellor, i. 95, 124; quarrel with
  the Duke of Cumberland, 223; dissatisfaction at Lord Brougham's
  being raised to the Woolsack, ii. 68; reported appointment to
  be Lord Chief Baron, 89; opinion of the Government, 93; Lord
  Chief Baron, 106; political position of, 107; anecdote of a
  trial, 107; retort to the Duke of Richmond, 139; on the
  Government, 143; on Sir Robert Peel, 144; on Lord Brougham,
  144; sent for by the King, 294; efforts to form a Tory
  Government, 326; judgment in Small _v._ Attwood, 330; account
  of the efforts of the Tory party to form a Government, 340;
  forgets the message of the King to Lord Grey, iii. 49; account
  of transactions between the King and Lord Melbourne, 150;
  policy of, 151; on Lord Brougham, 153; Lord High Chancellor,
  156; on the Administration of Sir Robert Peel, 189; conduct on
  the Corporation Bill, 288, 292; on the prospects of the
  session, 332; on the business of the House of Lords, 333;
  speech in vindication of conduct, 362; in Paris, 378; insult
  offered to, in House of Commons, 389; capacity of, 390; violent
  speech of, 401

Lyndhurst, Lady, insulted by the Duke of Cumberland, i. 222;
  conversation with, ii. 93

Lynn Regis, election, iii. 170, 171, 175, 181

Lyons, riots at, ii. 219

Macao, verses on, i. 11, 12

Macaulay, Thomas Babington, speeches on the Reform Bill, ii. 123,
  199; eloquence of, 204; at Holland House, 245; appearance of,
  246; character of, 317; on the Coercion Bill, 363; conversation
  of, iii. 35; memory of, 337; eloquence of, compared to Lord
  Brougham, 338; inscription on monument erected in honour of
  Lord William Bentinck, 339

Macaulay, Zachary, iii. 337

Mackintosh, Right Hon. Sir James, speech of, on the criminal
  laws, i. 19; conversation of, 241; death of, ii. 307; 'History
  of England,' iii. 139; remarks on life of, 293, 314; compared
  with Burke, 314; life of, 316; abilities of, 316; religious
  belief of, 324

Maggiore, Lago, i. 414

Maidstone, state of the borough, iii. 184

Maii, Monsignore, i. 367, 375

Malibran, Maria Felicita, in the 'Sonnambula,' iii. 12

Mallet, conspiracy of, ii. 186

Malt Tax, the, Government defeated on, ii. 368

Manners Sutton, Sir Charles, G.C.B., proposed as Premier, ii.
  326; conduct of, 341; reappointed Speaker, 343; Knight of the
  Bath, iii. 30; the Speakership, 204, _see_ Canterbury, Lord

Mansfield, Lord, speech against the Government, ii. 136; audience
  of the King, 138; meeting of Peers, 152

Mansion House, the, dinner at, iii. 178

Marengo, battle-field of, i. 292

Maria, Donna, Queen of Portugal, at a child's ball, i. 209;
  proposals of marriage for, iii. 33; at Windsor, 33; picture of,

Marie Amélie, Queen, iii. 383

Marmont, Marshal, at Lady Glengall's, ii. 34; conversation with,
  34; revolution of 1830, 37; at Woolwich, 38; dinner at Lord
  Dudley's, 38

Matteis, trial of, i. 336, 341

Matuscewitz, Russian Ambassador Extraordinary, i. 159; on affairs
  in Europe, ii. 176; conduct of, 324; conversation with, iii.

Maule, Mr. Justice, at dinner at the Athenæum, ii. 101

Meeting of moderate men, origin of the 'Derby Dilly,' iii. 219

Meiningen, château of, model of the, iii. 122; the Queen revisits
  the, 125

Melbourne, Viscount, Home Secretary, ii. 66; efficiency of, in
  office, 90; negotiations with, 104; dissatisfaction of, 245; on
  the proposed new Peers, 254; on the Reform Bill, 277; on the
  members of Lord Grey's Administration, 322; sent for by the
  King, iii. 102; forms an Administration, 108; letter to the
  Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Stanley, 109;
  Administration of, 113; anecdote of, 126; information of, 130;
  literary conversation of, 131; on Benthamites, 138; theological
  reading of, 138; fall of Government of, 143; dismissal of, 144;
  details of fall of Government, 147; account of dismissal, 150,
  168; with the King, 163, 168; with his colleagues, 164, 165,
  166; dispute with Lord Duncannon, 166; speeches at Derby, 170;
  weakness of, 170; second Administration formed, 253;
  composition of, 256; theological reading of, 324; appointment
  of Dr. Hampden, 342; action against, brought by the Hon. Mr.
  Norton, 349; result of the trial, 351; difficulties of the
  Government, 355

Melville, Viscount, President of the India Board, i. 124

Mendizabal, ability of, iii. 321; dismissal of, 350

Messiah, the oratorio of the, performed in Westminster Abbey,
  iii. 98

Methuen, Paul, M.P., on supporting the Government, iii. 65;
  retort of O'Connell to, 65

Metternich, Princess, anecdote of, iii. 187

Mexico, failure of the Spanish expedition against, i. 249

Meynell, Mr., retires from the Lord Chamberlain's department, ii.

Mezzofanti, i. 403

Middlesex election, 1835, iii. 197

Middleton, party at, i. 12

Miguel, Dom, ii. 312, 315, 321; attacks Oporto, 324; fleet
  captured by Captain Napier, iii. 9; anecdote of, 26; blunders
  of, 93

Milan, i. 413

Mill, John Stuart, at breakfast given by Mr. Henry Taylor, ii. 59

Milton, Viscount, at a meeting at Lord Althorp's, ii. 161

Mirabeau, Count de, Talleyrand's account of, ii. 384

Miraflores, Count de, Spanish Ambassador in London, iii. 98;
  doubtful compliment to Madame de Lieven, 99

Mola di Gaeta, i. 359; Cicero's villa, 368

Molé, M., Prime Minister of France, iii. 379; abilities of, 380

Montalivet, case of the French refugee, iii. 386

Monti, Vincenzo, anecdote of, ii. 186

Moore, Thomas, i. 239, 245; conversation of, 242; anecdotes, 247;
  Irish patriotism of, ii. 98; opinions on Reform, 140; copy of
  'Lord Edward Fitzgerald,' 169; satire on Dr. Bowring, 219;
  compared with Rogers, iii. 324; quarrel with O'Connell, 346

'Morning Herald,' the, moderate Tory organ, ii. 269

Mornington, Countess of, death of, ii. 194

Morpeth, Viscount, Irish Secretary, iii. 256; speech on Irish
  Tithe Bill, 256

Mosley, Sir Oswald, meeting of moderate men, iii. 220

Mulgrave, Earl of, in Jamaica, ii. 352; refuses the office of
  Postmaster-General, iii. 90; Lord Privy Seal, 113; capability
  of, 255

Municipal Corporation Bill, iii. 263, 284, 290; policy of Tory
  Peers on the, 283; prospects of the, 295; effects of the, 309,
  313; the Bill carried, 310

Munster, Earl of, employed by the King, ii. 10; raised to the
  Peerage, 143; Lieutenant of the Tower, 168; sworn in a Privy
  Councillor, 352

Murat, Achille, ii. 115

Murray, Dr., Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, i. 146

Murray, Sir George, Secretary of State for the Colonial
  Department, ii. 11

Murray, Lady Augusta, marriage of, ii. 194

Musard's ball, iii. 384

Namik Pacha, Turkish Ambassador, ii. 339

Napier, Sir William, on the state of the country, ii. 108;
  'History of the Peninsular War,' iii. 271

Napier, Captain Charles, captures Dom Miguel's fleet, iii. 9;
  cause of capture of a French squadron, 11; anecdote of, 34

Naples, i. 333; sight-seeing at, 334; Court of Justice, 334;
  manuscripts, 334; ceremony of taking the veil, 338; sights of,
  345, 356; miracle of the blood of San Gennaro, 353, 355, 364;
  excursions to Astroni, 356; lines on leaving, 361

Navarino, battle of, i. 114, 163

Nemours, H.R.H. Duc de, accompanies King Louis Philippe, ii. 99;
  nomination to the throne of Belgium declined, 111; in the House
  of Commons, iii. 306; at Doncaster, 315

Newmarket, political negotiations at, ii. 290

Nicholas, Emperor, accession of, i. 373; reception of strangers,
  iii. 24; on the change of Government in England, 211; speech at
  Warsaw, 319; dislike to King Louis Philippe, 387; qualities of,

'Norma,' the opera of, iii. 2

North, Lord, Letters of George III. to, iii. 129; anecdote of,

Northamptonshire election, iii. 326

Northumberland, Duke of, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, i. 157

Northumberland, Duchess of, resigns her office of governess to
  the Princess Victoria, iii. 400

Norton, Hon. Mr., action brought against Lord Melbourne, iii.
  349; result of the trial, 351

Oaks, The, ii. 374; party at, 374

Oatlands, the residence of the Duke of York, i. 4; weekly parties
  at, 5, 7

O'Connell, Daniel, character of, i. 145; at dinner, 203; attempts
  to take his seat, 207; elected for Clare, 1829, 223; insult to,
  ii. 76; in Ireland, 96; opposition to Lord Anglesey, 98;
  abilities of, 100; violence of, 106; arrest of, 107; trial of,
  109; position of, 111; pleads guilty, 114; opposition to Lord
  Duncannon in Kilkenny, 115; explanation of, 123; dread of
  cholera, 309; member for Ireland, 351; violent speech at the
  Trades' Union, 362, 363; attack on Baron Smith, iii. 59; retort
  to Mr. Methuen, 65; and the Coercion Bill, 103, 110; in
  correspondence with Mr. Littleton, 110; union with the Whig
  party, 219; power of, 255; affair with Lord Alvanley, 256; in
  Scotland, 316; proposed expulsion from Brooks's club, 320;
  quarrel with Moore, 346; Carlow election, 348

O'Connell, Morgan, duel with Lord Alvanley, iii. 256

Old Bailey, trials at, i. 204; ii. 85

Opera House, the English, burnt, i. 277

Orange, Prince of, dinner to the, ii. 57; returns to Holland, 133

Orange, Princess of, robbery of jewels of, i. 267

Orange Lodge, association of, iii. 343

Orangemen, meeting of, iii. 123

Orleans, H.R.H. Duke of, arrival of, i. 208; sent to Lyons, ii.
  219; in England, 373; project of marriage at Vienna, iii. 372;
  question of marriage of, 387

Orloff, Count, arrival of, ii. 278; delay in ratification of the
  Belgian Treaty, 285

Osterley, party at, ii. 187

Padua, i. 411

Pæstum, i. 344

Palmella, Duke of, arrival of in London, ii. 315

Palmerston, Viscount, speech on the Portuguese question, i. 211;
  Foreign Secretary, ii. 66; suggests a compromise on the Reform
  Bill, 211; on proposed new Peers, 254; on prospects of the
  Reform Bill, 256; business habits of, iii. 20, 21; unpopularity
  of, 56; speech on the Turkish question, 71; Foreign Secretary
  in Lord Melbourne's Administration, 113; unpopularity with the
  _corps diplomatique_, 136; loses his election in Hampshire,
  197; as a man of business, 210; Foreign Secretary, 256;
  abilities of, 360

Panic, the, 1825, i. 77; on the Stock Exchange, 1830, ii. 43

Panshanger, parties at, ii. 46, 47, 229

Paris, society at, in 1830, i. 283; in July, 416, 417; Marshal
  Marmont's account of events at, in 1830, ii. 36; alarm felt in,
  99; change of Ministry, 133; in 1837, iii. 377; society at,
  378, 385; sight-seeing, 381, 383

Park, Judge, anecdotes of, ii. 92; iii. 372

Parke, Right Hon. Sir James, sworn in a Privy Councillor, iii.
  21; Baron of the Exchequer, 71; in the appeal of Swift _v._
  Kelly, 268

Parliament, meeting of, 1830, ii. 53; meeting of, 1831, ii. 110;
  dissolution of 1831, 137; opening of, 153; in 1831, 223;
  dissolution of, 1832, 334; opening of, 1833, 351; prorogation
  of, 1833, iii. 27; opening of, 1834, 55; dissolution of, 183;
  temporary buildings for Houses of, 205; opening of, 219; in
  1836, 334; prorogation of, 1836, 361

Parnell, Sir Henry, turned out of office, ii. 243

Parsons, anecdotes of, ii. 108

Paskiewitch, Marshal, in quarantine, ii. 162

Pattison, James, returned to Parliament for the City of London,
  iii. 188

Pavilion, The, dinner at, i. 49; completion of, 54

Pease, Mr., and O'Dwyer, iii. 59

Pedro, Dom, expedition of, ii. 312, 315; proposal to combine with
  Spain, iii. 72; in possession of Portugal, 93

Peel, Right Hon. Sir Robert, Home Secretary, i. 124; speeches on
  Catholic Relief Bill, 167, 183; Oxford University election,
  1829, 177; defeated, 178; political prospects of, ii. 95, 96;
  power in the House of Commons, 116; speech on the Reform Bill,
  123; inactivity of, on the Reform Bill, 130, 134; complaints of
  policy of, 141; conduct of, 160; reserve of, 161, 174;
  excellence in debate, 200; answer to Lord Harrowby, 248, 249;
  policy of, 264; speech on Irish Tithes, 269; invited to form a
  Government, 294; refuses to take office, 296; defence of
  conduct, 304; conduct during the Tory efforts to form a
  Government, 327, 328; conduct compared with that of the Duke of
  Wellington, 328; character of, 354; on political unions, iii.
  12; in society, 35; position of, in the House of Commons, 64;
  collection of pictures, 70; great dinner given by, 72; speech
  on admission of Dissenters to the University, 75; policy of the
  Administration of, 161; friendship with the Duke of Wellington
  renewed, 167; arrival of, from the Continent, 174; formation of
  Administration, 177; manifesto to the country, 178; prospects
  of the Ministry, 179; qualities of, 189; Toryism of
  Administration of, 194; false position of, 208; prospects of
  Government, 214, 235, 236; talents of, 224; conduct to his
  adherents, 230, 244; courage of, 283; impending resignation of,
  242; Government defeated, 246; resignation of Administration
  of, 1835, 246, 248; speech on Corporation Reform, 263; on Irish
  Church Bill, 281; relations with Lord John Russell, 282;
  seclusion of, 297; speech on Corporation Reform, 304;
  consideration for Lord Stanley, 335; conduct with regard to the
  Corporation Bill, 340; position of, 358; on the beginning of
  the new reign, 402

Peel, Sir Robert, sen., account of, ii. 125

Peel, Right Hon. Jonathan, iii. 243

Pemberton, Thomas, ii. 314; in the appeal of Swift _v._ Kelly,
  iii. 267, 271

Pembroke, Earl of, i. 250

Pension List, _see_ Commons, House of

Pepys, Right Hon. Sir Christopher, Master of the Rolls, iii. 328.
  _See_ Cottenham, Lord

Perceval, Spencer, discourse of, iii, 41; the Unknown Tongue, 41;
  on the condition of the Church, 123; apostolic mission to the
  members of the Government, 331; at Holland House, 331;
  apostolic mission of, 333

Périer, Casimir, momentary resignation of, ii. 175; attacked by
  cholera, 288; death of, 307

Persian Ambassador, the, quarrel of, with the Regent, i. 21

Perth election, 1835, iii. 197

Petworth House and pictures, ii. 336; fête at, iii. 84

Peyronnet, Comte de, i. 393

Phillpotts, _see_ Exeter, Bishop of

Pisa, i. 297

Pitt, Right Hon. William, described by Talleyrand, ii. 345;
  anecdotes of, iii. 131

Plunket, Lord, Lord Chancellor in Ireland, ii. 90; anecdote of,
  107; at Stoke, iii. 21; Deanery of Down, 70

Poland, contest in, ii. 157

Polignac, Prince Jules de, head of the Administration in France;
  i. 160, 229, 283; Administration of, 394; behaviour of, ii. 29;
  letter to M. de Molé, 33; exasperation against, 38, 39

Pompeii, i. 338; excavations at, 343

Ponsonby, Viscount, Minister at Naples, ii. 155; letters of, 172;
  conduct of, as Ambassador at Constantinople, iii. 405

Pope, the, audience of Pius VIII., i. 382; Irish appointments of
  the, iii. 269. _See_ Rome

Portfolio, the, iii. 327

Portland, Duke of, Lord Privy Seal, i. 95

Portugal, ships seized by the French, ii. 182, 184; affairs in,
  iii. 25, 79; bankrupt state of, 93

Powell, Mr., ii. 52

Pozzo di Borgo, Count, ii. 347; views of, on the state of Europe,
  iii. 182; Russian Ambassador in London, 201, 203

Praed, Winthrop Mackworth, first speech of, ii. 115; First
  Secretary to the Board of Control, iii. 194

Pratolino, i. 402

Prayer, form of, on account of the disturbed state of the
  kingdom, ii. 99

Proclamation against rioters, ii. 73

Quakers, the, address to King William IV., ii. 17

'Quarterly Review, The,' attacks Lord Harrowby, ii. 269, 270;
  pamphlet in answer to article, 270

Quintus Curtius, iii. 130

Racing, remarks on, ii. 373; anecdote, 374

Redesdale, Lord, letter of, ii. 269

Reform, plan of, ii. 105; remarks on, 207; negotiations
  concerning, 215, 217, 218

Reform Bill, the, laid before the King, ii. 109; excitement
  concerning, 124; carried by one vote, 132; alterations in, 134;
  Government defeated, 135; remarks on, 180; attitude of the
  press, 193; prospects of, 199; negotiations for a compromise,
  211; altered tone of the press, 225; meeting of Peers in
  Downing Street, 225; measures for carrying the second reading
  in the House of Lords, 235, 237, 239, 241; continued efforts to
  compromise, 268; finally passed in the House of Commons, 270;
  continued discussions on, 274; difficulty with Schedule A, 280;
  carried in the House of Lords, 287; in committee, 292; passes
  through committee, 304; results of, iii. 27, 191. For debates
  on, _see_ Lords, House of, and Commons, House of

Reichstadt, Duke of, and Marshal Marmont, iii. 374

Reis-Effendi, the, i. 159

Renfrewshire election, iii. 388

Rice, Right Hon. Thomas Spring, Colonial Secretary, iii. 88, 113;
  difficulties with, 253; Chancellor of the Exchequer, 256;
  incapacity of, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, 376

Richmond, Duke of, and King George III. at a naval review, iii.

Richmond, Duke of, summary of character of, i. 199; Postmaster-General,
  ii. 66; refuses the appointment of Master of the Horse, 67;
  difficulties with his labourers, 68; at Goodwood, 182; on Reform,
  211; character of, iii. 15; resignation of, 88

Riots, in London, 1830, ii. 55; among the farm labourers, 68;
  proclamation against, 73; in the country, 77

Ripon, Earl of, Lord Privy Seal, ii. 66; resignation of, iii. 88.
  _See_ Goderich, Viscount

Robarts, Mr., dinner given by, iii. 184

Robinson, Right Hon. Frederick John, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
  i. 79; _See_ Goderich, Viscount

Rochester election, 1835, iii. 193

Roden, Earl of, declines the office of Lord Steward, iii. 179,

Rogers, Samuel, breakfast given by, ii. 150; compared with Moore,
  iii. 324

Rolle, Lord, remark to Lord Brougham, iii. 107

Rome, i. 303, 304; St. Peter's, 303, 321; sight-seeing, 306, 311,
  322; the Sistine Chapel, 309; the cardinals, 309; a cardinal
  lying in state, 312; Pompey's statue, 313; Temple of Bacchus,
  313; the Catacombs, 314; the Pope's blessing, 316, 324; Holy
  Week observances, 317; the Grand Penitentiary, 317, 319;
  washing of pilgrims' feet, 320; supper to pilgrims, 321;
  Protestant burial-ground, 322; St. Peter's illuminated, 325;
  excavations, 327; sight-seeing, 328, 329, 362; aqueducts, 363;
  the Scala Santa, 364; St. Peter's, 366; Library of the Vatican,
  367; votive offering of a horse-shoe, 367, 372; Columbaria,
  374; saints, 385; the Flagellants, 387; relations with
  Protestant countries, 391; the Coliseum, 395; story of a thief,
  396; convent of SS. Giovanni e Paolo, 397; sight-seeing, 398

Rosslyn, Earl of, Lord Privy Seal, i. 210; Lord President of the
  Council, iii. 177; dinner for selecting the Sheriffs, 201

Roussin, Admiral, at Constantinople ii. 367

Rovigo, the Duke de, at Rome, i. 325

Rundell, Mr., fortune of, will of, i. 90

Runton Abbey, shooting at, iii. 51; murder in the neighbourhood,

Russell, Right Hon. Lord John, introduces the Reform Bill, ii.
  121; seat in the Cabinet, 150; brings in his Bill, 155; letter
  to Attwood, 205, 206; willing to compromise, 223; brings on the
  second Reform Bill, 227; Paymaster, of the Forces, iii. 113;
  objected to by the King as leader of the House of Commons, 160;
  speech at Totness, 171; on the Speakership, 205; on Church
  Reform, 206; first speech as leader of the House of Commons,
  214; letter of, on the Speakership, 218; as leader of the House
  of Commons, 221; marriage of, 252; Home Secretary in Lord
  Melbourne's second Administration, 256; introduction of
  Corporation Reform, 263; relations with Sir Robert Peel, 282;
  course to be pursued on the Corporation Bill, 303, 310; speech
  on the Orangemen, 344; moderation of, 352; meeting at the
  Foreign Office, 357, 358; intention of the Government to
  proceed with their Bills, 397; speech in answer to Roebuck, 401

Russia, state of, 1829, i. 158; intrigues of, ii. 351; diplomatic
  relations with, 352; combines with Turkey against Egypt, 366;
  fleet sent to Constantinople, 366; establishes her power in the
  East, 371; quarrel with, iii. 44; policy towards Turkey, 48;
  treaty with Turkey, 69; relations with Turkey, 183

Russo-Dutch Loan, question of the, ii. 240, 241; origin of the,
  244; debate on the, in the House of Lords, 315

Rutland, Duke of, anti-Reform petition, ii. 263; birthday party,
  iii. 46

Sadler, Mr., maiden speech of, in opposition to the Catholic
  Relief Bill, i. 191

Saint-Aulaire, M. de, French Ambassador at Vienna, iii. 187;
  anecdote of, 187

Saint-Aulaire, Madame de, iii. 187

Saint-Germain, Count de, account of, ii. 186; the 'Wandering
  Jew,' 186

Salerno, i. 344

Salisbury, Marquis of, petition to the King, ii. 231

Saltash, borough of, division on, ii. 170

San Carlos, Duke and Duchess of, i. 8

Sandon, Viscount, moves the Address in the House of Commons, iii.
  202; on Sir Robert Peel, 340

Sandys, Lord, iii. 359

Sartorius, Admiral, petition, iii. 366

Scarlett, Sir James, Attorney-General, i. 210

Scott, Sir Walter, death of, ii. 307

Seaford, Lord, i. 83

Sebastiani, Count, French Ambassador to the Court of St. James's,
  iii. 180

Sefton, Earl of, dinner to Lord Grey and Lord Brougham, ii. 69;
  on Lord Brougham, 148; created a Peer of the United Kingdom,
  150; qualities of, 183

Segrave, Lord, Lord-Lieutenant of Gloucestershire, iii. 322

Senior, Nassau, at Holland House, iii. 138

Session of 1833, review of the, iii. 28

Sestri, i. 297

Seton, Sir Henry, arrival of, from Belgium, ii. 178

Seymour, Lord, withdraws his support from the Government, ii. 124

Seymour, George, Master of the Robes, ii. 50

Seymour, Horace, retires from the Lord Chamberlain's Department,
  ii. 133

Seymour, Jane, coffin of, found at Windsor, ii. 168

Shadwell, Right Hon. Sir Lancelot, on legal business, iii. 76

Shee, Sir Martin, elected President of the Royal Academy, i. 269

Sheil, Right Hon. Richard, dispute with Lord Althorp, iii. 55;
  arrest of, by the Serjeant-at-Arms, 56; committee, 57, 58;
  insult to Lord Lyndhurst, 389

Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, iii. 336

Siege of Saragossa, the, iii. 40

Siena, i. 303

Simplon, the, i. 415

Slavery, abolition of, ii. 347; for debates on, _see_ Commons,
  House of

Smith, Baron, ii. 105; O'Connell's attack upon, iii. 59, 61, 63

Smith, Sydney, and the siege of Saragossa, iii. 39; and Professor
  Leslie, 44; sermon of, in St. Paul's Cathedral, 166; on Sir
  James Mackintosh, 317; dispute of, with the Bishop of London,
  395; letter to Archdeacon Singleton, 395

Smithson, Sir Hugh, ii. 337, 338

Somaglia, Cardinal, i. 312

Somerville, Mrs., iii. 58

Sorrento, i. 352; Benediction of the Flowers, 352

Soult, Marshal, sent to Lyons, ii. 219; Prime Minister of France,

Southey, Robert, at breakfast given by Mr. Henry Taylor, ii. 59;
  letter to Lord Brougham on rewards to literary men, 111

Spain, the Duke of Wellington on affairs in, iii. 47; state of,
  55; affairs in, 66, 72; proposal to combine with Dom Pedro, 72;
  affairs in, 183; deplorable state of, 359

Spanish Legion, formation of the, iii. 265

Speaker, the, indecision of, ii. 299; disputes on the
  Speakership, 333; iii. 204

Spencer, Earl, death of, iii. 140

Spencer, Earl, _see_ Althorp, Viscount

Sprotborough, party at, for the races, ii. 50

Staël, Madame de, 'Considérations sur la Révolution française,'
  i. 16; anecdote of, ii. 186

Stafford House, concert at, iii. 278

Stanley, Right Hon. Edward, Irish Secretary, ii. 66; speech on
  the Reform Bill, 123; seat in the Cabinet, 150; speech in
  answer to Croker, 228; Secretary for the Colonial Department,
  365; at The Oaks, 374; indecision of, iii. 17; racing interests
  of, 35; resignation of, 88; in opposition, 93; 'Thimblerig'
  speech, 100; conciliatory letter to Lord Grey, 107; disposition
  of, 165, 167; declines to join Sir R. Peel, 175, 176; speech at
  Glasgow, 180; formation of the Stanley party, 220; position of
  Mr. Stanley, 222; policy of, 228; meeting of party at the
  'King's Head,' 237; speech on Irish Church question, 240;
  character of, 250; letter to Sir Thomas Hesketh, 265; joins the
  Opposition, 272; conduct of, 336

Stanley, Right Hon. Edward John, Under-Secretary of State, iii.

State Paper Office, i. 160; iii. 44

Stephen, James, opinions on emancipation, ii. 359

Stephenson, George, on steam-engines, iii. 54

Stewart, Lady Dudley, party given by, ii. 115; accompanies the
  Prince of Orange to Gravesend, 133

Stoke, party at, i. 142; ii. 185

Strangford, Viscount, sent to the Brazils, i. 140

Strasburg prisoners, acquittal of, iii. 381

Strawberry Hill, party at, i. 247

Strutt, Edward, ii. 59

Stuart de Rothesay, Lord, Ambassador in France, i. 141

Sugden, Right Hon. Sir Edward, quarrel of, with Lord Brougham,
  ii. 312; origin of animosity towards Lord Brougham, iii. 22;
  Irish Chancellor, 178; resignation of, 231; retains his
  appointment, 234

Sugden, Lady, not received at Court, iii. 231

Sunderland, state of, ii. 216

Sussex, H.R.H. the Duke of, marriage of, ii. 194

Sutherland, Duke of, death of the, iii. 19; wealth, of the, 19

Suttee case, before the Privy Council, ii. 307

Swift _v._ Kelly, before the Judicial Committee of the Privy
  Council, iii. 259, 266, 267, 271; judgment, 274

Talleyrand, Charles Maurice de, letter to the Emperor of Russia,
  i. 23; Ambassador to the Court of St. James, ii. 44;
  conversation of, 185; anecdotes, 185; _mot_ of, 195; dinner
  with, 222; on Fox and Pitt, 344; detained in the Thames, 346;
  on Portuguese affairs, iii. 25; on relations between France and
  England, 314; opinion of, of Lord Palmerston, 360;
  dissatisfaction at his position in London, 386

Tasso, i. 328; bust of, 328

Tavistock, Marquis of, on the prospects of the Liberal party,
  iii. 43

Taylor, Sir Herbert, conversation with Lord Wharncliffe, ii. 251;
  correspondence with, about the Chancellorship, 339

Taylor, Henry, breakfast at the house of, ii. 58; breakfast to
  Wordsworth, Mill, Elliot, Charles Villiers, 120; on the
  abolition of slavery in the West Indies, 348; 'Philip van
  Artevelde,' iii. 114

Taylor, Brook, mission to Rome, ii. 153

Teddesley, party at, i. 11

Tenterden, Lord, death of, ii. 329; character of, 331; classical
  knowledge of, 331

Terceira, Portuguese expedition to, i. 169, 170

Terni, Falls of, i. 401

Thiers, Adolphe, dinner to, iii. 31; account of, 31; at the head
  of the French Government, 66; on interference in Spain, 66;
  foreign policy of, 364; social qualities of, 379; quarrel with
  Lady Granville, 380; courts the favour of Austria, 387

Thompson, Alderman, difficulties with his constituents, ii. 166

Thomson, Right Hon. Charles Poulett, originates a commercial
  treaty with France, ii. 219; Board of Trade, iii. 113, 256;
  self-complacency of, 330

Thorwaldsen, Albert, at Florence, i. 299, 300

Tierney, Right Hon. George, i. 14; Master of the Mint, 95; death
  of, 269

'Times,' the, on Lord Harrowby's letter, ii. 264, 265; attacks
  Lord Grey, 267; Lord Chancellor's speech, 313; influence of
  the, 362; and Lord Brougham, iii. 133; disposition of, to
  support a Tory Government, 149, 152; terms of support to the
  Duke of Wellington, 155; power of the, 156, 157; negotiations
  with Lord Lyndhurst, 171; letter signed 'Onslow,' 199

Titchfield, Marquis of, death of, i. 75; character of, 75

Tivoli, i. 375

Tixall, party at, i. 10; Macao, 11

Torrington, Viscount, and the King, iii. 285

Tory party, state of the, ii. 162; meeting at Bridgewater House,
  iii. 237; state of the, 306; indifference of members of the,

Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, iii. 45; between Russia and Turkey,
  1834, 69; the Quadruple, for the pacification of the Peninsula,
  signed 1834, 94

Tree, Ellen, at the City Theatre, ii. 181

Tuileries, the, reception at, iii. 382; ball at, 383; small ball
  at, 385

Turf, the, reflections on, iii. 139

Turin, i. 291

Turkey, threatened by Russia, i. 228; critical state of, ii. 351;
  relations with Russia, iii. 183

Tusculum, i. 390

Twiss, Horace, supper party given by, iii. 260

Union, speech of O'Connell on the repeal of the, iii. 80

Unions, proclamation against the, ii. 215; procession of trades,
  iii. 79

Urquhart, Mr., Secretary to the Embassy at Constantinople, iii.

Van de Weyer, Sylvain, Belgian Minister to the Court of St.
  James, ii. 180

Vaudreuil, M. de, French _chargé d'affaires_ in London, on French
  affairs, ii. 24

Vaughan, Right Hon. Sir Charles, special mission to
  Constantinople, iii. 405

Vaughan, Right Hon. Sir John, sworn in a Privy Councillor, ii.

Venice, i. 405; sights of, 406, 408, 410

Vernet, Horace, at Rome, i. 325

Verona, Congress of, i. 65; visit to, 413

Verulam, Earl of, petition to the King, ii. 231

Vesuvius, ascent of, i. 350

Vicenza, i. 412

Victoria, H.R.H. the Princess, at a child's ball, i. 209; first
  appearance of, at a drawing-room, ii. 119; at Burghley iii.
  315; health of, proposed by the King, 364; at Windsor, 367;
  letter from the King, 400; seclusion of, 403; first Council of,
  406; proclaimed QUEEN, 408; impression produced on all, 409

Villiers, Hon. Hyde, appointed to the Board of Control, ii. 145

Villiers, Hon. George, at the Grove, ii. 105; conversation with
  the Duke of Wellington, 105; mission to Paris for a commercial
  treaty, 219; Minister at Madrid, iii. 14, 20, 21; on prospects
  in Spain, 69, 79; letters of, from Madrid, 321, 360, 365

Villiers, Hon. Charles Pelham, ii. 59

Virginia Water, ii. 25; visit to, 30

Walewski, Count Alexander, arrival of, in London, ii. 104

Walpole, Horace, letters to Sir Horace Mann, iii. 2

'Wandering Jew, The,' ii. 186

Warsaw, affair at, ii. 95; taken by the Russians, 192

Warwickshire Election, iii. 353, 354

Wellesley, Marquis of, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, iii. 31;
  correspondence with Mr. Littleton, 103, 110; resigns the White
  Wand, 258

Wellesley, Long, Esq., committed for contempt of court, ii. 166

Wellington, Duke of, account of the battle of Waterloo, i. 39; in
  Paris with Blücher, 41; dispute with the King, 51; on affairs
  of France and Spain, 67; opinion of Bonaparte, 71; mission to
  Russia, 78; visit to the Royal Lodge, 102; opinion of Mr.
  Canning, 107; forms a Government, 1828, 124; resolves to carry
  the Catholic Relief Bill, 143; correspondence with Dr. Curtis,
  148; ascendency of, in the Cabinet, and over the King, 176;
  hardness of character of, 191; duel with Lord Winchelsea, 192;
  conversation with, on King George IV. and the Duke of
  Cumberland, 216, 218; prosecution of the press, 233, 258, 260;
  business habits of, 262; conversation with on the French
  Revolution, ii. 21; qualities of, 41; confidence in, 45;
  declaration against Reform, 53; Administration of, defeated,
  61; resignation of, 62; suppresses disturbance in Hampshire,
  75; political character of, 81; reported letter of advice to
  the King of France, 94; correspondence with Mr. Canning, 103;
  conduct towards the Government, 159; objections to Mr. Canning,
  170; dinner at Apsley House, 188; anti-Reform dinner at Apsley
  House, 197; remarks upon, 204; memorial to the King, 211;
  correspondence with Lord Wharncliffe, 221; obstinacy of, 234;
  letter to Lord Wharncliffe, 248; unbecoming letter laid before
  the King, 252; reply to Lord Wharncliffe, 253; speech on Irish
  Education, 272; sent for by the King, 294; efforts of, to form
  an Administration, 299; inability of, to form an
  Administration, 300; statement of his case, 302; conduct of the
  Tory party, 302; ill-feeling towards Peel, 325; view of
  affairs, 1833, 363; government of French provinces, 363;
  respect evinced towards, 372; defence of policy, 379; Speech on
  the Coronation Oath, iii. 9, 10; policy on the Irish Church
  Bill, 10; on Portuguese affairs, 11, 26; and the Bonaparte
  family, 26; subsequent account of attempt to form a Government,
  48; compared with Lord Grey, 73; speech on the admission of
  Dissenters to the University, 73; presents the Oxford petition,
  79; and the Whigs, 82; installed as Chancellor of the
  University of Oxford, 95; First Lord of the Treasury, and
  Secretary of State for the Home Office, 149; arrangement for a
  provisional Government, 149; at the public offices, 1834, 154;
  account of crisis of 1834, 162; inconsistencies of, 172; on the
  division on the Speakership, 216; on Lord Londonderry's
  appointment, 227; anecdote of Lord Brougham, 232; on Spain,
  270; on the Walcheren expedition, 271; policy of, on the
  Corporation Bill, 283; letter to the Duke of Cumberland, 320;
  speech in answer to Lord Lyndhurst, 362; meeting of Tory Peers,
  397; crowned by the Duchess of Cannizzaro, 406; quarrel with
  the Duke of Clarence, 406

Western, Lord, evidence of, iii. 112

West India Body, consternation of the, ii. 350; deputation of
  the, 350

West India Bill, prospects of the, iii. 13. For debates on the,
  _see_ Commons, House of

West Indies, Lord Chandos's motion on the state of the, ii. 116;
  project of emancipation, 347; alarm in the, 352; difficulties
  attending emancipation, 360; committee on affairs of the, iii.
  266; decision on the office of Secretary of the Island of
  Jamaica, 279

Westmeath, Marchioness of, pension, i. 157, 160

Westmeath _v._ Westmeath, appeal before the Judicial Committee,
  iii. 119, 124; decision in, 140

Westminster election, 1818, contest, i. 3; in 1819, 17, 19; in
  1833, ii. 370; in 1837, iii. 398

Wetherell, Sir Charles, account of, i. 194; speech on the Reform
  Bill, ii. 123; supports Sir E. Sugden's motion, 314

Wharncliffe, Lord, interview with Radical Jones, ii. 200;
  overtures for a compromise on the Reform Bill, 211; character
  of, 213; draws up a declaration for signature in the City, 214;
  disappointment of, 218; final interview of, with Lord Grey,
  220; correspondence of, with the Duke of Wellington, 221;
  interview of, with the King on the proposed new Peers, 231,
  233; memorandum laid before the King, 252; as chief of a party,
  289; in communication with Lord Lyndhurst and Lord
  Ellenborough, 290; defends his policy, 292; paper on the Tory
  party, 343; on the prospects of the country, iii. 54; joins the
  Peel Government, 175; on the prospects of the session, 341

Whately, Richard, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin, iii. 280

Whig party, state of the, iii. 159; tactics of the, 216; union
  with O'Connell, 219; symptoms of disunion in the, 221; meeting
  at Lichfield House, 224; prospects of the, 235

Wicklow, Earl of, attack on the Government, iii. 110

Wilberforce, William, speech of, i. 16; negotiation with Mr.
  Canning, ii. 125

William IV., King, accession of, ii. 1; dislike of, to the Duke
  of Cumberland, 5; behaviour of, 6, 9; at the House of Lords,
  11; personal anecdotes of, 11, 12, 13, 14; dinner at Apsley
  House, 14; at Windsor, 25; pays the racing debts of the Duke of
  York, 50; speech on the change of Government, 72; levee, 74;
  health of, 106, 108; mobbed on returning from the theatre, 117;
  in mourning for his son-in-law, 133; in the House of Lords,
  136; dissolves Parliament, 136; conduct to his Ministers, 138;
  at Ascot, 147; opens Parliament, 153; at Windsor, 179; and the
  Bishops, 185; divides the old Great Seal, 188; crowned at
  Westminster, 190; levee, 192; toasts at dinner at St. James's,
  193; interview with Lord Wharncliffe on creation of new Peers,
  233; health of, 282; reluctance of, to make Peers, 283; adverse
  sentiments towards the Whigs, 298; dinner to the Jockey Club,
  301; levity of, 302; letter to the Peers, 303; character of,
  307; struck by a stone, 307; country dance, 341; anecdotes of,
  342; state of mind of, 364; letter to the Archbishop of
  Canterbury, 382, 383; letter-writing, iii. 2; animosity to the
  French, 33; irritability of, 81; conduct of, 84; personal
  feelings towards the members of Lord Melbourne's
  Administration, 137; dismissal of Lord Melbourne, 144; speech
  to the Tory Lords, 148; provisional appointments, 148; account
  of difference with Lord Melbourne, 150; resolution of, to
  support the Tory Government, 161; address to the new Ministers,
  175; on the state of Persia, 184; whims of, 203; Island of St.
  Bartholomew, 203; indignation of, at the affair of Lord
  Londonderry, 231; distress of, 251; and the Ministers, 245;
  personal habits of, 264; speech to Sir Charles Grey, 272;
  audience to Lord Durham, 272; hostility towards Lord Glenelg
  and the Ministers, 276; conduct to the Speaker, 279; scene with
  Lord Torrington, 285; speech to the Bishops, 303; speech on the
  Militia, 311; and the Duchess of Kent, 313; speech at dinner to
  the Jockey Club, 351; Toryism of, 358; joke, 361; speech to the
  Bishop of Ely, 363; proposes the health of the Princess
  Victoria, 364; aversion to his Ministers, 364, 366; speech to
  Lord Minto, 364, 366; rudeness to the Duchess of Kent, 366;
  scene at birthday party, 367; reception of King Leopold, 370;
  speech, 1837, 385; address to Lord Aylmer, 394; illness of,
  399, 400; letter to the Princess Victoria, 399; dangerous
  illness of, 401; prayers offered up for, 403; death of, 406;
  kindness of heart of, 410

Williams, Sir John, Justice of the Common Pleas, iii. 71

Winchelsea, Earl of, duel of, with the Duke of Wellington, i.
  192; incident of the handkerchief, 198

Winchester Cathedral, iii. 283

Windham, Right Hon. William, diary of, i. 231; conversation with
  Doctor Johnson, 232

Windsor Castle, dinner in St. George's Hall, ii. 34, 42; dinner
  during the Ascot week, 147

Windsor election, mobs at the, iii. 130

Woburn, party at, i. 23; riot at, ii. 77

Wood, Charles, on the Reform Bill, ii. 280

Wood, Matthew, returned to Parliament for the City of London,
  iii. 188

Worcester, Marchioness of, death of the, i. 47

Worcester Cathedral, iii. 327; monument of Bishop Hough, 327

Wordsworth, William, characteristics of, ii. 120

Wortley, Right Hon. John, Secretary to the Board of Control, i.
  271. _See_ Wharncliffe

Wrottesley, Sir John, motion of, for a call of the House, iii. 8,

Wynford, Lord, raised to the Peerage, i. 210; Deputy Speaker of
  the House of Lords, 210

Wynn, Right Hon. Charles, President of the Board of Control, i.
  95; resignation of, ii. 124

York, H.R.H. the Duke of, character of, i. 5; management of
  racing establishment, 44; dislike to the Duke of Wellington,
  48, 62; duel with the Duke of Richmond, 62; anecdotes of King
  George IV., 73; illness of, 83, 85; death of, 84; funeral of,
  89; letter to Lord Liverpool on the Catholic question, ii. 104

York, H.R.H. the Duchess of, character of, i. 5; portrait of, 8;
  illness of, 27; death of, 34

Young, Thomas, private secretary to Lord Melbourne, iii. 126

Zea Bermudez, iii. 21; dismissal of, 55

Zumalacarreguy, iii. 270

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The Greville Memoirs - A Journal of the Reigns of King George IV and King William IV, Vol. III" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.