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--Fete 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

State.

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

[Page Head: RUSSIA AND TURKEY.]

There is a fresh _demele_ 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

arms.

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

mystery.

March 16th, 1834 {p.071}

[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM'S JUDICIAL CHANGES.]

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 tres-bien parle.' 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}

[Page Head: DINNER AT SIR ROBERT PEEL'S.]

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}

[Page Head: ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY.]

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}

[Page Head: PERSONAL REFLECTIONS.]

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 interieure 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

up.

Parliament being _en relache_, 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}

[Page Head: OXFORD ADDRESS TO THE KING.]

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}

[Page Head: LONDON UNIVERSITY CHARTER.]

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

constituency.

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

subject.

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

Spanish.

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.

[Page Head: DUKE OF WELLINGTON AND THE WHIGS.]

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

consented.

[Page Head: FETE AT PETWORTH.]

On Monday last I went to Petworth, and saw the finest _fete_ 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 _melee_ 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}

[Page Head: SPLIT ON THE IRISH CHURCH.]

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

government.

[Page Head: THE IRISH CHURCH.]

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 qua 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}

[Page Head: HISTORY OF THE CRISIS.]

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}

[Page Head: MR. STANLEY IN OPPOSITION.]

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

another.

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}

[Page Head: DUKE OF WELLINGTON AT OXFORD.]

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

discovered.

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

next.

[Page Head: DON CARLOS ON HIS WAY TO SPAIN.]

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 fraiche,' and then, with

a tender look and squeezing her hand, 'J'aime les femmes un peu

passees.'

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}

[Page Head: STANLEY'S THIMBLERIG SPEECH.]

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.

[Page Head: CAUSES OF THE RETIREMENT OF LORD GREY.]

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

example.

[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

O'Connell.]

[Page Head: POPULARITY OF LORD ALTHORP.]

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

Althorp.]

July 13th, 1834 {p.106}

[Page Head: LORD GREY AND STANLEY.]

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}

[Page Head: LORD DUNCANNON HOME SECRETARY.]

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}

[Page Head: O'CONNELL AND THE COERCION BILL.]

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 L500. 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}

[Page Head: LORD MELBOURNE'S ADMINISTRATION.]

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 'a 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.]