However, when he replied, Lord Anglesey treated the contradiction as
absolute, and Lord Bathurst told the Duke he must give some explanation,
which the Duke did, saying he did not mean to accuse Lord Anglesey of
declaring he had the King's permission when he had not, but only that he
had reason to think he had not. In fact, the King, as we always thought,
told the Duke one thing and Lord Anglesey another; and the only result of
the debate is that the King is proved to have told a lie.
Lord Wharncliffe, who overtook me as I was riding home, considered Lord
Anglesey to be blown out of water.
At Lady Brownlow's ball I talked with Lord Farnborough, Longford, and
Beresford. All thought the reading of the letters should have been stopped,
and that the Duke did wrong to read anything. We could not stop the reading
of the letters when the King's permission to read them was stated
distinctly by Lord Anglesey. The misery is that we have a lying master.
_May 5._
I called at the Treasury and saw the Duke. On the subject of what took
place yesterday he said, that having received the King's commands to
declare Lord Anglesey had not his permission to read the letters, he could
not do otherwise than make the observations he did. The gravamen of the
charge against Lord Anglesey as arising out of those letters is that in the
last he declares his intention of using them as public documents; and this
being the ground upon which the King had acquiesced in his being relieved,
for the King to have afterwards permitted the reading of those letters
would have been a withdrawal of confidence from his Ministers.
I met Lord Ravensworth and talked to him upon the subject. He seemed to be
in a sort of alarm as to what took place yesterday. This is superfluous.
The Duke's explanation that he did not mean to say Lord Anglesey had reason
to think he was permitted to read those letters was quite sufficient. The
Duke added that he had understood the contrary.
Lord Ravensworth seemed to think his Royal master came the worst off--which
is true.
He told me the Duke of Cumberland had been abusing every one at Lady
Brownlow's last night, and had declared, as he has before, that he would
not go away till he had us out.
Lord Anglesey is reported to be very ill to-day.
_May 6._
Cabinet dinner at Sir G. Murray's. The Duke saw the King to-day. He was in
good humour, and said the Duke was quite right in declaring Lord Anglesey
had not his permission to read the letters. It seems the King said the same
thing in the Duke of Cumberland's presence on Monday at dinner, and this
made the Duke so very angry that evening.
We had a very good division last night on the Retford question. Almost all
the Brunswickers voted with us--none against us.
In fact the Government is very strong.
There are disturbances at Manchester, which look rather serious.
_May 7._
Nothing in the House.
The meeting respecting the statue to the Duke of Wellington seems to have
finished in detestable taste. Hunt proposing a vote of thanks to Lord
Anglesey and O'Connell, and _Lord Darnley!_ speaking for it. Both these
said the Catholic Bill arose out of Lord Anglesey's Government. Lord
Darnley repeated the same thing to me to-day in the House. I told him the
contrary was the fact. That Lord Anglesey had placed the carrying of the
question in peril--that without his recall it could hardly have been
carried.
There have been serious disturbances at Manchester. The bakers' shops have
been broken open and robbed, and money extorted by fear. This arises out of
real distress; but it seems, as might be expected, that notorious thieves
lead on the mobs.
_May 8._
The disturbances at Manchester have more the character of robbery than of
riot. Baker's shops have been broken open and pillaged, and money has been
extorted.
At Rochdale an attack was made on the military. They behaved with extreme
forbearance; but at last fired, and killed and wounded many.
_May 9._
Dined at the Trinity House. Hardinge, whom I met there, told me Wood had
been asked by Lord Mansfield to go to the Pitt dinner on the 28th. Wood
said he did not know whether the Ministers would go or not. Lord Mansfield
said, 'Why, you must know, it is understood that as soon as Parliament is
up the Government will be changed. At this dinner we shall make such a
display of Protestant force as will enable the King to take us as his
Ministers.'
It is surprising to me that any able man as Lord Mansfield is should be so
deluded by the lies of the Duke of Cumberland. The country is not agitated,
it is not dissatisfied. It would repudiate, as an act of the basest
treachery, such conduct towards a Government which had been permitted to
carry a great measure, and which was displaced solely on grounds of
personal pique.
Manchester and its neighbourhood more quiet.
Had some conversation with Peel about the next member for the direction. He
inclines to Marryatt. Hardinge reported a communication from E. Ellice, who
canvasses for his brother, Russell Ellice. E. Ellice offers some votes in
the House of Commons if we will support his brother.
I believe E. Ellice would be a good man, but the brother is a nonentity. I
said we must strike at the mass and not at individuals. We must gain the
city by assisting a fit man on public grounds. Peel agreed in this
sentiment. I am sure it is the only wise course for any Government to
pursue.
_Monday, May 11._
The King has got the habit of taking large doses of laudanum. He sent for
the Chancellor yesterday, as usual, at two o'clock. When he got to the
palace the King had taken a large dose of laudanum and was asleep. The
Chancellor was told he would not wake for two or three hours, and would
then be in a state of excessive irritation, so that he might just as well
not see him.
_May 12._
The East Retford question was last night deferred till next session, so we
may, I think, finish all our business by about June 10; that is really
allowing full time.
O'Connell published yesterday an argument on his right to sit in the House
of Commons in the shape of a letter to the members. At first Lord Grey
thought it unanswerable (as founded on the provisions of the Relief Bill);
but at night he told me he had looked into the Bill and found it certainly
excluded him. A large portion of the letter is quite absurd, that in which
he assumes a right to have his claim decided in a court of law. Parliament
alone is by common law the court in which the privileges of its own members
can be decided.
_May 12._
House. Lord Lansdowne put a pompously worded question as to our intentions
with respect to the course of proceeding on Indian affairs.
I answered simply that we were as sensible as he was of the extreme
importance of the question. That for my own part my mind was never absent
from it, and that I had not been many days in office before I took measures
for procuring the most extensive information, which would be laid before
the House at the proper time. That the Government was desirous of forming
its own opinion on the fullest information and with the greatest
consideration; and that we wished the House to have the same opportunities.
That I was not then prepared to inform him in what precise form we should
propose that the enquiry should be made.
The Chancellor introduced the Bill for appointing a new Equity Judge, and
separating the Equity Jurisdiction from the Court of Exchequer. The latter
object, by-the-bye, is not to be accomplished immediately, but it is part
of the plan opened. He soothed Lord Eldon by high compliments to his
judicial administration and to the correctness of his judgments. The wonder
of the day is that Lord Eldon should have lived to hear a Chancellor so
expose the errors of the Court of Chancery as they were exposed by Lord
Lyndhurst to-day.
_May 13._
Recorder's report. The King not well. He has a slight stricture, of which
he makes a great deal, and a bad cold. He seemed somnolent; but I have seen
him worse.
Before the Council there was a chapter of the Garter. The Duke of Richmond
was elected. The knights wore their ordinary dress under the robe, which
was short, and had no hats. The procession was formed by Garter. The
Chancellor and Prelate of the Order and the Dean were present. It looked
rather like a splendid funeral. The Duke of Cumberland took a great deal
upon him.
Cabinet dinner at Vesey Fitzgerald's at Somerset House.
Much talk about Indian matters. Both Peel and Fitzgerald seem to be for
Free Trade, and _unreasonable_ towards the Company.
_May 15._
In the House of Commons yesterday the motion for a Committee on East Indian
affairs was negatived without a division, but promised for _early_ next
session, and papers promised immediately.
_May 16._
Chairs at 11. We spoke of the Charter. They rather dislike the notion of
using the King's name, and I fear Mr. Elphinstone and all the Indians will
give their evidence against the change. I may be outvoted, but I shall not
be convinced. [Footnote: This change was effected in 1858.]
_May 17._
Nothing political, except a grand dinner at the Duke of Norfolk's, given to
the Duke of Wellington, which was very fine and very dull.
The Duke told me he had read the Persian papers. The Russians had brought
it on themselves.
_May 19._
In the House of Commons last night O'Connell was heard at the bar. The
debate seems to have been temperate. It was decided on a discussion, 190 to
116, that he must take the Oath of Supremacy.
At the office had some conversation with Mr. Leach as to the plan of
governing India in the King's name--the Directors being made ex officio
Commissioners for the affairs of India. He seems to have some prejudices
against the plan, but he adduced no real objections. I have begged him to
put on paper all the objections which occurred to him.
Wrote a long letter to Lord W. Bentinck on all subjects connected with the
renewal of the Charter, and the general government of India.
Dined at the Freemasons' Hall with the Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge. There were present 200 persons. I thought they would be very
hostile to a Minister. However, when my name was mentioned by the Bishop of
Durham, as a steward, there was much cheering. The Bishop of London, who
was in the chair, begged me to return thanks for the stewards, which I did.
I spoke of course of the wish entertained by the Ministers that a Society
might prosper the interests of which were so much connected with those of
the Established Church--of their determination in their several departments
to further its objects. It was the duty of us all as Christians, but more
peculiarly that of the Ministers, to advance objects intimately connected
with the individual happiness of the people and with the stability of the
State. I said something too of the intrinsic strength of the Protestant
Church--of its rising in proportion to the difficulties which might
surround it, to the dangers--if dangers there were (the Primate had spoken
of them)--of its security in the zeal and ability of its ministers, and in
the purity of its doctrines.
On the whole I did well. I was loudly cheered--indeed, so much interrupted
as to be enabled to think what I should say next.
Indian business in the morning--Coal Committee.
_May 20._
Dined at the London Tavern with the Directors, at what is called a family
dinner, to meet Mr. Elphinstone, the late Governor of Bombay. He has been
thirty-three years absent from England, having left it at fifteen. He is
one of the most distinguished servants the Company has ever had. He seems
to be a quiet, mild, temperate man. I had some conversation with him, and
have fixed that he should come to the Indian Board on Tuesday. I wish to
have his opinion as to the expediency of governing India in the King's
name.
The Duke told Lord Bathurst and me the King had been very angry with him
for going to the Duke of Norfolk's dinner, and now openly expressed his
wish to get rid of his Ministers. The Duke wrote to the King and told him
it really was not a subject he thought it necessary to speak to him about,
that he dined with everybody and asked everybody to dinner, that had he
known beforehand who were to dine with the Duke of Norfolk, which he did
not, he could not have objected to any one of them. That the King himself
had dined with the Duke of Norfolk. That most of the persons invited were
either in his Majesty's service, or had been.
It seems the king desired it might be intimated to the Duke that he was
much displeased at the dinner, and that he and Cumberland damned us all.
I told the Duke and Lord Bathurst what occurred at the dinner yesterday,
with which they were much gratified.
_May 21._
Went to the Cabinet room at 2. Read papers, by which it seems that the
Russian army is very little stronger than at the commencement of the last
campaign, and that its materials are not so good. It has as yet no medical
staff. The resources of the principalities are exhausted; the cattle of the
peasants have been put in requisition; the ordinary cultivation of the land
has been neglected. The river is worse than last year. There are reports of
the successes of the Turks near Varna, and of that place being in danger.
The recruiting of the Turkish army goes on well.
House of Lords. The Chancellor's Bill, which creates a new Chancery judge.
Opposition from Lord Eldon, Lord Redesdale, and Lord Holland, all saying
they wished to see the whole plan before they agree to a part. Lord
Tenterden approved of the making of the new judge, but wished his functions
had been better defined.
The Duke of Cumberland said the Non-contents had it; but he said it too
late, and his people did not wish to divide.
Lord Londonderry would have voted against us. I fear he is half mad. The
House seems to treat him so.
The Chancellor told me the King did many things personally uncivil to the
Duke. He did not ask him to dinner to meet the Duke of Orleans. He wishes
to force the Duke to offer his resignation. This he is much too prudent to
do upon a mere personal pique.
The King, our master, is the weakest man in England. He hates the Duke of
Cumberland. He wishes his death. He is relieved when he is away; but he is
afraid of him, and crouches to him.
In reality the King never was better satisfied than with his present
Ministers. He knows they will not flinch--that he is safe in their hands.
_May 22._
In the House Lord Melville presented the petition of the City of London
praying, if the House persisted in ordering the production of their
accounts of property other than of a public nature, to be heard at the bar
by counsel. He moved that this petition should be considered on Tuesday. It
being expected that on Monday these very accounts would be produced in the
committee, and thus the order of the House rendered unnecessary. In this we
were beaten too. Indeed, our management under Lord Melville as Admiral does
not answer.
We shall certainly lose the London Bridge Approaches Bill.
Dined at Lord Hill's. A party chiefly military.
_May 24._
Cabinet at Peel's at 11 P.M.
The arrangements determined upon. Lord E. Somerset to have Sir W. Clinton's
office, and Trench Mr. Singleton's. Lord Rosslyn the Privy Seal. Lord
Chandos was proposed, I should rather say suggested, but rejected
immediately, as not of sufficient calibre for the Cabinet. Besides, his
elevation for the purpose of holding the Privy Seal would offend the
peerage, and be an insult to his father. It would not gain us the
Brunswickers, and we should have the Whigs hostile. It would be saying to
them, 'You shall never come in.'
Rosslyn's appointment will be most useful. He will be of value in the
Cabinet and invaluable in the House. His accession will break the Whigs, he
is so popular with everybody.
This is to be proposed to the King to-morrow. It is thought he will take no
step without asking the Duke of Cumberland. He may refuse altogether. Then
we go out. The legal arrangements cannot proceed, because Best [Footnote:
Afterwards Lord Wynford.] communicated with the Duke of Cumberland and
refused a peerage as the _condition_ of resignation. Alexander would go if
he could have his peerage and a pension. Leach will not go unless he is to
have a peerage and a pension of 7,000£ a year, a thing impossible.
_May 25._
Cabinet at 3. Waited a long time for the Duke. He came smiling and
victorious. The King said he would manage Best. To Rosslyn he made some
objection, and suggested Lord Dudley or Melbourne. This was referred to and
rejected by such of the Cabinet as could be on a sudden collected at the
Foreign Office. I was not there. I should certainly have rejected both,
although very willing to have Dudley. The other would never have done. With
Lord E. Somerset and Trench the King was well pleased. As the Duke left the
room the King said, 'Come, you must acknowledge I have behaved well to
you.' This he said frankly and good-humouredly. The Duke said, 'I assure
your Majesty I am very sensible of it, and I feel very grateful to you.'
Having thus established ourselves as a Government we were going to break
our necks by attempting to pass the Chancellor's Bill, which the House of
Commons does not like. However, after a talk, it was resolved to give it
up.
It seems the Tories have deserted us again. We are much in want of winter
quarters.
In the House we had the City of London petition. I took a more active part
than usual in the conversation.
Lord Rosslyn, having just lost his son, is gone to Tunbridge Wells, and the
offer of the Privy Seal will be postponed till after to-morrow, when the
King is to see Best at two, and it is hoped the Duke may be able to tell
Rosslyn that Scarlett is to be Attorney-General.
_May 26._
The King sent Knighton for Chief Justice Best, and desired him not to tell
the Duke of Cumberland; Best was sent for. So Best went, and accepted the
terms offered. Thus we shall get Scarlett, and the King and the Duke be
separated a little.
Yesterday the Duke of Wellington did his business with the King while the
Duke of Cumberland was hearing a clause in the House of Lords. The
Chancellor, knowing how the Duke of Wellington was occupied, kept the Duke
of Cumberland as long as he could.
_May 27._
Committee on London Bridge. Lord Londonderry, who came from the review in
his uniform just covered by a frock coat, spoke against time on a
collateral point for an hour and a half, and disgusted the Committee.
_May 28._
London Bridge Committee. Lord Londonderry a little better than before, but
not much. He is running down his character altogether. He has now formed an
alliance with the Duke of Cumberland, and through him made his peace with
the King. The Duke of Cumberland wishes to be reconciled to the Duke of
Wellington. In the House of Commons there is a small Ultra-Tory party, not
fifty. In our House I doubt whether there are twenty.
_May 30._
Chairs. Lord W. Bentinck seems to be so ill as to make it doubtful whether
he can remain in India should he recover. The letter is dated January 27.
He was then in danger. The vessel did not leave Calcutta till the 30th. The
news then was that he was better, and had sat up for six hours. It was a
_coup de soleil_.
London Bridge Committee.
The Duke showed me a letter from Lord Rosslyn, accepting most cordially the
Privy Seal.
I suppose we shall have a Council on Monday, or on some early day next
week, for me to give it up.
_June 1._
To the Cabinet room.
There is a report that Varna [Footnote: Varna was in the hands of the
Russians, having been taken in the previous campaign.] is _cernée_ by
40,000 men, Bazardjik taken, the Russians running from Karasan, and from
6,000 to 8,000 Russians, who had been thrown over the Danube at Hirsova,
driven into it at Czernavoda by the garrison of Silistria. [Footnote: These
reports seem to have been unfounded. Soon after this date the decisive
battle of Kouleftcha opened to the Russians the road to Adrianople.]
Clanwilliam wrote me he thought the Duke attached some credit to this last
rumour.
News from Calcutta of February 1 states that Lord William Bentinck was then
out of danger. Lady William, who was going to set off to join him, had
determined to expect him at Calcutta.
Lord Rosslyn's appointment is in the newspapers to-day. The 'Times' highly
delighted.
_June 2._
London Bridge Approaches Committee. Lord Londonderry very anxious to have
an adjournment over the Derby; however, he must attend to 'the last
concern.'
House. Anatomy Bill put off till Friday. The Bishops, Lord Malmesbury, and
many others very hostile to it.
It seems certain that the Russians have recrossed the Danube. I am inclined
to think they have been beaten.
_June 3._
The Bishop of Oxford is dead; a great Grecian is to succeed him.
The King is in excellent humour. The Duke of Cumberland rather going down.
We had some talk about the Anatomy Bill. The Duke is afraid of passing it.
Indeed, it is not a Government measure. Probably it will be withdrawn for
the year. The Bishops are very hostile to it.
_June 4._
London Bridge Committee from eleven till four. We made great progress in
our evidence, and, indeed, nearly proved our case. From four to five we had
a very painful discussion in consequence of some words which passed between
Lord Durham and Lord Beresford. We succeeded at last in settling the
difference.
Lord Beresford, having no good word at his disposal, said he did not second
the _evil deeds_ or _improprieties_ of noble lords. He really meant
_irregularities_, and irregularities only as a member of the Committee.
Lord Grey was present and much distressed. The Duke of Wellington's
authority induced both to become amenable to the wish of the Committee.
_June 5._
Anatomy Bill. Some talk; but a general agreement suggested by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, that the Bill should be read a second time, and
not proceeded with this session. The Duke of Wellington expressed his
general approbation of the principle, but thought postponement desirable.
He pledged himself to _cooperate_ in bringing in a Bill on the same
principle, and having the same objects, next year; but did not pledge
himself to bring it in himself.
_June 7._
Cabinet at half-past three. First question: whether we should extend the
time for putting an end altogether to the Brazilian slave trade from March
13 to September 13, 1830, for the equivalent of obtaining for ever the
right to seize ships fitted up for the slave trade, whether they had slaves
on board or not. The Brazilians have been encouraged by their Government to
interpret the treaty as permitting the return of any vessels quitting the
Brazils on slave expeditions before March 13.
Dr. Lushington, who was consulted by Aberdeen, seemed to think it was worth
while to obtain the concession, but still seemed to think that by extending
the time, we should permit the transportation of a very large number of
slaves, of whom many might be destroyed by ill-treatment, and that it was
hardly justifiable with a view to a distant advantage, to sacrifice
immediately and certainly a great number of persons.
This prevailed--the real fact being that Peel does not like awkward
questions in the House of Commons.
So the treaty remains as it is, and both parties will interpret it as they
please. There will be many disputes, for the interpretation is very
different.
_June 8._
Received a private letter from Colonel Macdonald at Tabriz, with copies of
letters received by him from a gentleman he had sent to Teheran on hearing
of the massacre of the Russian mission; and from another gentleman,
travelling unofficially, who first heard the report between Tabriz and
Kamsin.
These accounts only confirm what we had already heard of the arrogance and
violence of the Russians. They deserved their fate.
Colonel Macdonald says that General Paskewitz cannot dispose of more than
25,000, or, at most, 30,000 men, although he has a nominal force of 110,000
men under his command.
Colonel Macdonald says there has been no serious resistance on the part of
the Turks, except at Akhalsik.
He has done what he can to dissuade them from war with the Russians; but I
think the universal feeling of the people will propel them.
The insurrection at Teheran appears to have been instigated by the Mollahs
and the women, but it was evidently national, or it must have failed.
_June 10._
Council. Lord Winford kissed hands. He walked in with great difficulty on
two crutches, which he placed behind him and so leant back upon. The King
had a chair brought for him, and had him wheeled out. The man who pushed
his chair very nearly shipwrecked him at the door.
The Attorney-General (Scarlett), [Footnote: Afterwards Lord Abinger.] the
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (Tindal), and the Solicitor-General
(Sugden), [Footnote: Afterwards Lord St. Leonards. Lord Chancellor 1862. ]
all kissed hands. The Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was sworn in as
Privy Councillor. Lord Rosslyn was sworn in as Privy Councillor and Privy
Seal. The King did not address a word to me, who gave up the seal, or to
Rosslyn, who received it.
House. Nothing of moment.
Dinner at Lord Bathurst's. Lord Rosslyn dined here.
Aberdeen read a paper lately received from the Russians, in which they
concede all we ask about blockades, &c., except as to the Gulf of Enos. The
Duke says he shall bring Lièven to the point about this, and generally
about their views. He feels the Government is stronger now than it was--
that the country is stronger, and we may insist more. He says the question
is, 'Shall we permit the ruin of the Turkish Empire?' I have long felt that
to be the case, and to that I answer 'No.'
We had some conversation as to the charter. The Duke seems rather inclined
to continue the _name_ of the Company. I am for the _name_ of the King.
_June 11._
The world has had imposed upon it a story of the Chancellor's _selling_ his
Church preferment. The 'Age' is to bring forward its charges on Sunday
next. This is an arrow from the Cumberland quiver.
I mentioned Lord Clare's wish to look forward to the Government of Bombay
or Madras to the Duke last night, and he did not by any means receive the
proposition unfavourably. I told Clare so to-day.
_June 13._
Gaisford has refused the Bishopric of Oxford--wisely, for he was only a
Grecian and had good preferment. He is a rough man too. I am glad he has
refused it. I do not think mere Grecians good bishops.
Lord Clare told me Glengall was to be the new Irish peer.
_June 15._
Committee as usual. Lord Londonderry more insane than ever. The Duke said
he had never seen anything more painful.
We made hardly any progress. The victory will belong to the _survivors_,
and I do not think Lord Durham will be one of them.
House. Lord Londonderry made a foolish speech, and the Duke an excellent
one, very severe upon him, and defending the City. If we do not get the
City by this Committee the City is impregnable.
Hardinge told me Lord Grey seemed out of humour. I do not think he is in
good humour.
_June 16._
At last some hope of a compromise respecting London Bridge.
_June 17._
The eternal Committee is, I trust, at an end. The agents have come to a
compromise, and if the Common Council should confirm the terms, as I
conclude they will, the thing will be at an end. We shall then have
Parliament up by Monday or Tuesday next.
Cabinet dinner at Lord Melville's. The Duke was astonished at Lord W.
Bentinck's strong and sudden step of transferring the Supreme Government
_pro tempore_ to Meerut. He said he always expected some wild measure from
Lord W. Meerut was in too exposed a situation.
Twenty thousand Afghan horse might ride in upon the seat of government if
placed in the north-west provinces. It is astonishing how much the Duke is
prejudiced by his old Indian feelings. Whatever _is_ he thinks best. Meerut
is ill and absurdly chosen, but Calcutta is certainly the worst chosen seat
of government.
We are to have a Cabinet on Saturday for the King's speech. On Monday or
Tuesday Parliament will be up. On Wednesday we dine at the India House, and
on the Monday following, the 29th, will be the fish dinner.
_June 18._
Called to compliment the Duke on the anniversary of Waterloo. Left with him
Lord W. Bentinck's minute and despatch on transferring the Supreme
Government Departments and all _pro tempore_ to Meerut, and a proposed
letter, censuring the Governor for having done this without previous
sanction, and directing the members of Council and the Departments to
return.
The Duke objects to any removal of the seat of government to the upper
provinces. It would there be exposed to the sudden inroads of cavalry. In
India a cloud of cavalry rises like a squall in the Mediterranean. At
Calcutta the Government, protected by the rivers, is safe, and always
accessible from England.
_June 19._
Rode to town. Met Rosslyn. He told me Lord Clanrickarde [Footnote: Lord
Clanrickarde was son-in-law of Mr. Canning.] intended to make some
observations on foreign policy this evening.
Had some conversation with the Duke. He doubted whether the Supreme
Government _could_ leave Calcutta and preserve its powers. I told him of
the newspaper report of to-day that leases for sixty years were to be given
to indigo planters, and this without any authority from home. He seems to
have suspected from the first that Lord W. would do some monstrous thing,
and certainly he does seem to be emancipating himself.
House. Lord Clanrickarde made his little speech. Aberdeen his. Then Lord
Holland, and then the Duke. Afterwards Goderich. Lord Holland talked as
usual very vaguely. No notice had been given, and few people knew there was
anything to be done. So ends the House for this year.
_June 20, 1829._
Cabinet. King's speech. Some time occupied in wording it, but no material
alterations. Aberdeen's the worst part. The King is made to _auspicate_ and
to pray, but not to trust that the Franchise Bill and the Relief Bill will
be productive of good.
The Chancellor has prosecuted the 'Morning Journal' for a libel accusing
him of having taken money for Sugden's appointment as Solicitor-General. I
heard him tell Lord Bathurst, with reference to another calumny against
him, that he had fortunately preserved through his secretary the grounds on
which he had given every living he had disposed of.
_June 21._
Had a visit from Loch. He wishes the despatch to Lord William to be worded
more gently, as he thinks Lord William _meant_ well. This shall be done.
_June 22._
Wrote draft paragraphs to the effect above stated to Lord W. Bentinck, and
added a paragraph giving the Duke's reasoning against the removal of the
Government from Calcutta to the north-west provinces.
I had some conversation in the House with Lord Lauderdale on China trade,
&c. He seems friendly to the Company and to the Government.
Went to the House at 4. Found a good many peers there. By mere mistake a
Bill, slightly and necessarily amended by the Lords, was not sent down to
the Commons, although directions to that effect were given, and it by
accident was placed amongst the Bills ready for the Royal assent. So it
received the Royal assent. It became necessary to pass a Bill to make this
Bill valid in law. Lord Shaftesbury thought our House ought to inform the
Commons we had discovered the error; but the Speaker, [Footnote: C. Manners
Sutton, afterwards Lord Canterbury.] to make a flourish, insisted on
announcing it first to the House of Commons. All the steps to be taken were
settled between the Speaker, Lord Shaftesbury, and Courtenay. When I went
down I found it had not been settled that anything should be done first by
us. I suggested that Lord Shaftesbury should acquaint the House with the
circumstance, and that we should appoint a Committee to inquire before the
message from the Commons came up. This was done.
We ordered a message to be sent, but before our messengers left the House
we heard the Commons would not receive a message, so I moved that the order
we had just made should be rescinded, and we had a second conference. The
Commons were well satisfied with our reply. The last sentence had been,
'The Lords hope the Commons will be satisfied with this explanation.' As we
in the first paragraph expressed our desire to preserve a good
understanding between the two Houses, and in the second one regret that
this mistake had taken place, I thought it was going too far to express _a
hope_ only that our explanation would be satisfactory.