Fall of Lord Melbourne's Government--History and Causes of this
Event--An Intrigue--Effect of the _Coup_ at Holland House--The
Change of Government--The two Camps--The King's Address to the
New Ministers--The Duke's Account of the Transaction--And Lord
Lyndhurst's--Difficult Position of the Tories--Their Policy--
The Duke in all the Offices--Negotiation with Mr. Barnes--Power
of the 'Times'--Another Address of the King--Brougham offers to
be Lord Chief Baron--Mr. Barnes dines with Lord Lyndhurst--Whig
View of the Recent Change--Liberal Views of the Tory
Ministers--The King resolved to support them--Another Account
of the Interview between the King and Lord Melbourne--Lord
Stanley's Position--Sydney Smith's Preaching at St. Paul's--
Lord Duncannon and Lord Melbourne--Relations of the four
Seceders to Peel--Young Disraeli--Lord Melbourne's Speeches at
Derby--Lord John Russell's Speech at Totness--The Duke of
Wellington's Inconsistencies and Conduct.
November 16th, 1834 {p.143}
[Page Head: A STRANGE INTRIGUE.]
Yesterday morning the town was electrified by the news that
Melbourne's Government was at an end. Nobody had the slightest
suspicion of such an impending catastrophe; the Ministers
themselves reposed in perfect security. I never saw astonishment
so great on every side; nobody pretended to have prophesied or
expected such an event. Thus it befell:--On Thursday Melbourne
went to Brighton to make the arrangements necessary on Lord
Spencer's death. He had previously received a letter from the
King, which contained nothing indicative of the fate that awaited
him. He had his audience on Thursday afternoon, and offered his
Majesty the choice of Spring Rice, Lord John Russell, or
Abercromby to lead the House of Commons and fill the vacant
office. The King made some objections, and said he must take time
to consider it. Nothing more passed that night, and the next day,
when Melbourne saw the King, his Majesty placed in his hands a
letter containing his determination. It was couched in terms
personally complimentary to Melbourne, but he said that, having
lost the services of Lord Althorp as leader of the House of
Commons, he could feel no confidence in the stability of his
Government when led by any other member of it; that they were
already in a minority in the House of Peers, and he had every
reason to believe the removal of Lord Althorp would speedily put
them in the same situation in the other House; that under such
circumstances he felt other arrangements to be necessary, and
that it was his intention to send for the Duke of Wellington.
Nothing could be more peremptory and decisive, and not a loophole
was left for explanation or arrangements, or endeavour to patch
the thing up. The King wrote to the Duke, and, what is rather
droll, the letter was despatched by Melbourne's carriage, which
returned to town. It is very evident that the King has long
determined to seize the first plausible pretext he could find for
getting rid of these people, whom he dislikes and fears, and that
he thinks (justly or not remains to be proved) the translation of
Althorp affords him a good opportunity, and such a one perhaps as
may not speedily occur again. It is long since a Government has
been so summarily dismissed--regularly kicked out, in the
simplest sense of that phrase. Melbourne's colleagues expected
his return without a shadow of apprehension, or doubt. He got
back late, and wrote to none of them. The Chancellor, who had
dined at Holland House, called on him and heard the news; the
others (except Duncannon, who went to him, and I believe
Palmerston) remained in happy ignorance till yesterday morning,
when they were saluted at their rising with the astounding
intelligence. All the Ministers (except Brougham) read the
account of their dismissal in the 'Times' the next morning, and
this was the first they heard of it. Melbourne resolved to say
nothing that night, but summoned an early Cabinet, when he meant
to impart it. Brougham called on him on his way from Holland
House. Melbourne told him, but made him promise not to say a word
of it to anybody. He promised, and the moment he quitted the
house sent to the 'Times' office and told them what had occurred,
with the well-known addition that 'the Queen had done it all.'
They attribute their fall to the influence of the Queen, and fancy
that it is the result of a preconcerted scheme and intrigue with
the Tories, neither of which do I believe to be true. With regard
to the latter notion, the absence of Sir Robert Peel, who is
travelling in Italy, is a conclusive proof of its falseness. He
never would have been absent if he had foreseen the remotest
possibility of a crisis, and the death of Lord Spencer has been
imminent and expected for some time past. I am convinced that it
is the execution of a project which the King has long nourished of
delivering himself from the Whigs whenever he could. His original
dislike has been exasperated to a great pitch by the mountebank
exhibitions of Brougham, and he is so alarmed and disgusted at the
Radical propensities which the Durham dinner has manifested, that
he is resolved to try whether the Government cannot be conducted
upon principles which are called Conservative, but which shall
really be _bona fide_ opposed to the ultra doctrines and wild
schemes which he knows are not distasteful to at least one-half of
his late Cabinet.
His resentment against these people has been considerably
increased by the discovery (which he believes he has made) of his
having been grossly deceived at the period of Lord Grey's
retirement and the formation of Melbourne's Administration. The
circumstances of this part of the business I know only imperfectly,
so much so as to leave a good deal that requires explanation in
order to make it intelligible; but I was told on good authority
yesterday that at that time Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of
Wellington were quite prepared to undertake the formation of a
Government if it had been proposed to them, and that he had every
reason to believe they had been betrayed by 'that scoundrel
H----,' who had been employed by some of the other party to find
out what their intentions and dispositions were upon that point;
that H---- had gone to them and asked them the question, and
having at that time entire confidence in him, they had told him if
it was offered to them they certainly would undertake it; that he
had never told them or given them any reason to believe that he
was commissioned to find out their resolution, and they think he
returned to his employer and told him that they must take care how
such an offer was made to the Tories, as they would certainly
accept it if it was offered. Melbourne was no party to this
transaction, but the consequence of it was that the King was given
to understand that it would be useless to propose to them to form
a Government, for they were not prepared to do so, and he was
advised to make the proposal of a coalition, which was made, and
which they of course rejected. The King, it appears, subsequently
discovered what their disposition had been at the time, and that
he had been misled and deceived, and this made him very indignant.
I should like to know this story more in detail, for it would be
curious to learn who were the agents in the intrigue, and, above
all, what could induce H---- to sacrifice the interests of the
Duke of Wellington (with whom he had great influence and to whom
he had great obligations) and of the party from which alone he
could expect any solid advantages to those of the Whigs, from
whom he could derive no benefit sufficient to compensate him for
the danger as well as treachery of the transaction. I never liked
this fellow, and always thought him a low blackguard, and,
however shrewd and active, a bad confidant and 'fidus Achates'
for the Duke to have taken up; but the folly and shortsightedness
of this proceeding seem so obvious (to say nothing of its
villany) that I cannot without strong proofs yield my belief to
the story, though Peel is not a man to harbour such strong
suspicions on slight grounds.
This morning Lord Lansdowne wrote me word that the Duke had
accepted, but it is probable that nothing can be done till Peel
returns from Italy. He will accept no post but that of Prime
Minister, though the King would prefer to put the Duke there if
he would take it.
November 17th, 1834 {p.147}
[Page Head: EFFECT OF THE COUP AT HOLLAND HOUSE.]
It is only bit by bit that one ascertains the truth in affairs
like these. It is true that the King imparted his resolution to
Melbourne in a letter, but not true in the sense in which that
fact is intended to be taken. I went to Holland House yesterday,
but my Lord and my Lady were gone to town. I met the heavy
chariot slowly moving back through Kensington, and stopped to
talk to them. They seemed in tolerably good spirits, all things
considered; like the rest, they had not a suspicion of what was
going to happen. Melbourne was to have dined there on Friday, but
did not arrive. At eleven o'clock everybody went away, without
any tidings having come of Melbourne; the next morning Lord
Holland read in the 'Times' that the Government was at an end.
Allen swore that it must be a hoax, and it was only upon
receiving a summons to the Cabinet at twelve instead of two that
Holland began to think there was _something in it_. He told me
that the King had two long conversations with Melbourne, in which
he explained his opinions, motives, and intentions, and finally
gave him the letter, that he might show it to his colleagues. It
would now appear that no definite arrangements were proposed to
him at all; nothing, in fact, could be settled till it was
ascertained what Althorp would do--whether he would continue in
office, and what office he would take--but they intended that
Lord John Russell should be the leader in the House of Commons,
or what they call 'try it.' This must have been peculiarly
distasteful to the King, who dislikes Lord John, and thinks him a
dangerous little Radical, and Melbourne is well aware of this
antipathy. On _the_ Friday night Melbourne, with a party of his
colleagues--Mulgrave, Ben Stanley, Poulett Thompson, and one or
two more--were at the play just opposite to me; the piece was the
'Regent,' and it was full of jokes about dismissing Ministers and
other things very applicable, at which Melbourne at least (who
does not care a button about _office_, whatever he may do about
power) was heartily amused. To-day the King came to town to
receive the resignations, for he is resolved to finish off the
whole affair at once and make _maison nette_; they have been
ordered therefore to attend at St. James's and give up their
seals.
[Page Head: THE TORIES IN OFFICE.]
_Five o'clock._--Just returned from St. James's. In the outer room I
found assembled the Duke of Wellington, Lyndhurst, Rosslyn,
Goulburn, Hardinge, the Speaker, Jersey, Maryborough, Cowley, whom
the Duke had collected in order to form a Privy Council; in the
Throne Room the ex-Cabinet congregated, and it was amusing to watch
them as they passed through the camp of their enemies, and to see
their different greetings and bows; all interchanged some slight
civility except Brougham, who stalked through looking as black as
thunder and took no notice of anybody. The first question that arose
was, What was to be done about the prorogation? The Duke thought
they might as well finish that business to-day, and I went on an
embassy into the other room to propose it; but they declined to have
anything to say to it and evinced great anxiety to take no part in
any proceedings of this day. Accordingly Lord Lansdowne explained to
the King that the presence of a Lord President was not necessary,
and that there was a sufficiency of Tory Lords to form a Council, so
his Majesty consented to the late Ministers going away. As I thought
the company of those who were coming in would be more cheerful and
agreeable than that of those who were going out, I passed my time in
the outer room, and had a good deal of conversation with the Duke
and Lyndhurst, from whom I gathered everything that I did not know
before. After the Whigs had made their exit we went into the Throne
Room, and the King sent for Lyndhurst, who only stayed with him a
few minutes, and then the Duke and all the Privy Councillors were
summoned. After greeting them all, and desiring them to sit down, he
began a speech nearly as follows:--'Having thought proper to make a
change in my Government, at the present moment I have directed a new
commission to be issued for executing the office of Lord High
Treasurer, at the head of which I have placed the Duke of
Wellington, and his Grace has kissed hands accordingly upon that
appointment. As by the Constitution of this country the King can do
no wrong, but those persons are responsible for his acts in whom he
places his confidence--as I do in the Lords now present--it is
necessary to place the seals of the Secretary of State for the Home
Department in those hands in which I can best confide, and I have
therefore thought proper to confer that office likewise on his
Grace, who will be sworn in accordingly.' Here the Duke came round,
and, after much fumbling for his spectacles, took the oath of
Secretary of State. The King then resumed, 'It is likewise necessary
for me to dispose of the seals of the other two Secretaries of
State, and I therefore place them likewise for the present in the
same hands, as he is already First Lord of the Treasury and
Secretary of State for the Home Office.' Then, turning to me, he
asked if there was any business, and being told there was none,
desired me to retire. When I was gone he began another harangue, to
the effect that he had endeavoured, since he had been upon the
throne, to do for the best, and that he could not fill up any of the
other offices at present.
Now for what I learned from the Duke and Lyndhurst. The former
told me that he was just going out hunting when the messenger
arrived; that the letter merely said that the King wished to see
him, to consult with him as to the steps he should take with
regard to the formation of another Government. He went off
directly, and at once told the King that the best thing he could
do was to send for Sir Robert Peel, and that until he arrived he
would undertake to carry on the Government by a provisional
arrangement, and would do nothing more until Peel's return. So
the matter accordingly stands, and no other appointment will be
made except that the Great Seal will be transferred to Lyndhurst,
without, however (at present), his becoming Chancellor. He talked
a great deal about the state of the late Government, and what
passed between Melbourne and the King, but I heard this still
more in detail from Lyndhurst afterwards.
[Page Head: POLICY OF LORD LYNDHURST.]
I asked the Duke if he had seen the 'Times' this morning. He said
'No,' and I told him there appeared in it a considerable
disposition to support the new Government, and I thought it would
be very advisable to obtain that support if it could be done. He
said he was aware that he had formerly too much neglected the
press, but he did not think the 'Times' could be influenced. I
urged him to avail himself of any opportunity to try, and he
seemed very well disposed to do so. Lyndhurst, whom I afterwards
talked to for a long time, went into the whole business. He said
that it was very desirable that the public should know the truth
of what had taken place between the King and Melbourne, both in
conversation and by letter, because it would be seen that the
former was in no way to blame. [This case, such as Lyndhurst
described it to me, was afterwards put hypothetically in the
'Times,' to which it was furnished probably by Scarlett, but the
Whigs emphatically declare that it is not correct, and that it
will be found, when Melbourne states the truth (as he will
require the King's permission to do), that his Majesty had no
case at all. In the midst of these conflicting assertions time
must show.--November 26th.] Melbourne told him that, as he had
only undertaken to carry on the Government in consideration of
having the assistance of Althorp in the House of Commons, his
removal made it necessary to adopt a new organisation altogether,
that some considerable concessions to the principle of Reform
were judged to be necessary, and the appointment of a successor
to Althorp, who should carry them into effect; that he was of
opinion that without these the Government could not go on, and at
the same time it was necessary to state that there were members
of the Cabinet who did not coincide with these views, and who
would retire when Parliament met if they were adopted. These were
Lord Lansdowne and Spring Rice; Lord John Russell was to lead in
the House of Commons, but the loss of Rice would be a severe blow
to them. The concessions related principally to Church reform.
The disunion of the Cabinet being thus exhibited, it was clear
the Government could not go on without some material alteration
in its composition. The King urged this and asked Melbourne from
what quarter the necessary accession of strength was to be
procured, and whether he could hope for it from the Conservative
interest. He owned that nothing was to be expected from that
quarter. It remained, then, that it was only from the more
extreme party that their ranks could be recruited. To this the
King would not consent, and he therefore imparted to him his
resolution of placing the Government in other hands.[1]
[1] [This account of the transaction is confirmed in almost
every particular by the statement drawn up by King
William himself (or by his directions) for the
information of Sir Robert Peel, and first published in
Baron Stockmar's 'Memoirs' in 1872.]
Lyndhurst then went off upon the difficulties of their position. I
told him that the Duke had said to me, 'If the King had been a
very clever man, he would probably have played a more adroit game,
by letting them go on till Parliament met, and then taking the
opportunity which would soon present itself of breaking them up;'
that I disagreed with the Duke, and thought it infinitely more
convenient that this change should take place while Parliament was
not sitting, to which Lyndhurst fully agreed. He said that they
must dissolve as soon as Peel came home, that they had no
alternative; that it would not do to _try_ this Parliament, to run
the chance of a failure and dissolve after having experienced it,
that this would be too great a risk. He said that they had several
seats quite safe in consequence of their superior management about
the registration, such as Leeds and Ripon, where they were sure of
both members. He then talked of the tactics to be used, and said
they must direct their hostility against the Whigs rather than the
Radicals, and make it their principal object to diminish the
number of the former. I said I thought this a very perilous game
to play, and that if it was avowed and acted upon, it would
infallibly produce a reunion between the Whigs and Radicals, who
would coalesce to crush their Government; that the Radicals were
now very angry with the Whigs, who they thought had deserted the
principles they professed, and it should rather be their care to
keep Whigs and Radicals asunder than provoke a fresh alliance
between them. He said the Whigs were certain to join the Radicals.
I asked him if he had seen the 'Times,' said what had passed
between the Duke and me, and told him he would do well to
endeavour to obtain its support. He said he desired nothing so
much, but in his situation he did not like personally to
interfere, nor to place himself in their power. I told him I had
some acquaintance with Barnes, the editor of the paper, and would
find out what he was disposed to do, and would let him know, which
he entreated I would. The Duke had said, laughing, 'I hear they
call me a Reformer.' I said, 'They think you will make as good a
Reformer as the present men, if, as Brougham said in Scotland,
they would have done less this session than they did the last.' I
asked Lyndhurst if he had seen or heard of the Duke's letter to
the Oxford people, and told him that it was very desirable that
credit should be given them for intending to carry on their
government upon principles as liberal as that letter evinced, that
I hoped there would be no foolish declarations fulminated against
Reform, and that they would all be convinced now that matters had
been brought to such a state (no matter how and by whom) that the
old principle of hostility to all reforms must be abandoned. He
said that Peel would, he trusted, be _flexible_, that if such
declarations were made, and such principles announced, they must
be upset, but the Tories would be difficult to manage, and
discontented if there was not a sufficient infusion of their
party; and, on the other hand, the agricultural interest had
assembled a force under Lord Chandos, a sort of confederation of
several counties, and that Chandos had told him that he and the
representatives of their counties would not support any Ministry
that would not pledge itself to repeal the malt tax; that they
would agree to re-enact the beer tax, but the malt tax must cease.
[Page Head: LYNDHURST ON BROUGHAM.]
Brougham had written to Lyndhurst saying he should be ready to
resign the Great Seal in a few days, and only wished first to
give some judgments, that he was rejoiced at retiring from office
and at the prospect of being able to do what was his great
delight--devote himself to State affairs without being trammelled
and having to fear the imputation of imprudence and indiscretion.
'He will be,' Lyndhurst said, 'the most troublesome fellow that
ever existed, and do all the mischief he can.' I said, 'What can
he do? he was emasculated when he left the House of Commons.'
'Yes,' he said, 'he knows that, but he will come down night after
night and produce plans of Reform upon any subject; he will make
speeches two or three hours long to very thin Houses, which will
be printed in all the newspapers or published by himself and
circulated--in fact, a series of pamphlets.' I said that he had
damaged himself so much that I did not think he could do a great
deal of harm, with all his speeches and pamphlets. He said he had
damaged himself in more ways than one. He then went off upon his
admirable social qualities and his generous conduct to his
family, both of which may most justly be praised, and said what a
melancholy thing it was to see a man with such fine talents mar
their effect by his enormous errors in judgment.
Lord Holland, who came out last of all his colleagues, upon his
crutches, stopped in great good-humour and said to the Duke, 'you
can't get me out, I can tell you, without going into Lancashire,
for my seal is there.'
The Duke told me that he did not mean to make the slightest
alteration in the transaction of the current business in the
different offices, which would go on as usual through the
under-secretaries, whom he should request to continue at their
posts for the purpose. As, however, a disposition was evinced on
the part of the late Cabinet not to afford him any facilities,
he began to think that this might not impossibly extend to the
subordinates, and he said that at all events he would have two
people ready to put into the Treasury to transact the business
there. I told him if he was in any difficulty he might make any
use he pleased of me. There can hardly be any difficulty,
however, when there are permanent under-secretaries in all the
offices.
Thus ended this eventful day; just four years ago I witnessed the
reverse of the picture. I think the Whigs upon this occasion were
much more angry and dejected than the Tories were upon that. They
had perhaps some reason, for their case is one of rare
occurrence--unceremoniously kicked out, not resignations following
ineffectual negotiations or baffled attempts at arrangement, but in
the plenitude of their fancied strength, and utterly unconscious of
danger, they were discarded in the most positive, summary, and
peremptory manner. Great, therefore, is their indignation,
mortification, and chagrin, and bitter will no doubt be their
opposition. They think that the new Government have no chance of
getting a House of Commons that will support them, and certainly if
they do not, and if the Tories are compelled after a fruitless
struggle to resign, miserable will be the condition of the King and
the House of Lords, and not very enviable that of any Government
that may succeed them.
To speculate upon probabilities is impossible; the new Government at
present consists of the Duke, Lyndhurst, and Peel, and till it shall
be seen of what materials the complete structure is composed, and
what principles they enunciate, it is idle to discuss the matter.
Lyndhurst and I agreed cordially that all the evils of the last four
years--the breaking up of their Government, and the Reform Bill that
was the consequence of that catastrophe--were attributable to the
High Tories. Whatever may be their wishes now, they can hardly play
the same game over again; they must support this Government, even
though it shall not act upon the highflying principles which they so
fondly and obstinately cherish. Their salvation and that of all the
institutions to which they cling require that they should support
the Duke and Peel in carrying on the government upon those
principles on which, from the circumstances of the times and the
events which have occurred, an Administration _must_ act in order to
have a shadow of a chance of being tolerated by the House of Commons
and the country. Lyndhurst is sensible of this; I wish Peel may be
so likewise. If they both are I have little fear for the Duke.
November 19th, 1834 {p.154}
[Page Head: DUKE OF WELLINGTON IN OFFICE.]
Laid up these two days with the gout in my knee, so could not go
out to hear what is going on. The Duke, I find, after the Council
on Monday (losing no time), repaired to the Home Office and
ordered the Irish papers to be brought to him, then to the Foreign
Office, where he asked for the last despatches from Spain and
Portugal, and so on to the Colonial Office, where he required
information as to the state of their department. I have no doubt
he liked this, to play the part of Richelieu for a brief period,
to exercise all the functions of administration. They complain,
however, and not without reason, of the unceremonious and somewhat
uncourteous mode in which without previous notice he entered into
the vacant offices, taking actual possession, without any of the
usual preliminary civilities to the old occupants. Duncannon, who
had been in the Home Office up to the time of the Council on
Monday, and whose papers were unremoved, if he had returned after
it, would have found the Duke seated in his still warm chair,
issuing directions to Phillips, the under-secretary, while
Macdonald, Duncannon's private secretary, was still at his
vocation in the adjoining room. Pretty much the same thing he did
in the other three offices. He has fixed his head-quarters at the
Home Office, and occasionally roves over the rest. All this is
unavoidable under existing circumstances, but it is enough to
excite merriment, or censure, or suspicion, according to different
tastes and tempers. The King offered to make Melbourne an earl and
to give him the Garter, but he declined, and begged it might be
given to the Duke of Grafton.
In consequence of what passed between Lyndhurst and me concerning
the 'Times' (at St. James's) I made Henry de Ros send for Barnes
(who had already at his suggestion adopted a conciliatory and
amicable tone towards the embryo Government), who came and put on
paper the terms on which he would support the Duke. These were:
no mutilation of the Reform Bill, and the adoption of those
measures of reform which had been already sanctioned by votes of
the House of Commons last session with regard to Church and
corporations, and no change in our foreign policy. I have sent
his note to Lyndhurst, and begged him to call here to talk the
matter over.
Powell, a Tory solicitor and _ame damnee_ of the Speaker's, has
just been here; he declares that the Tories will be 420 strong in
the new Parliament, which I mention for the purpose of recording
their expectations and being able to compare them hereafter with
the event. They have already put themselves in motion, despatched
messengers to Lord Hertford and Lowther, and probably if ever
these men could be induced to open their purse strings, and make
sacrifices and exertions, they will do it now.
_Six o'clock._--Lyndhurst has just been here; he had seen the
Duke, who had already opened a negotiation with Barnes through
Scarlett. I offered to get any statement inserted of the _causes_
of the late break-up, and he will again see the Duke and consider
the propriety of inserting one. He said, 'Why Barnes is the most
powerful man in the country.' The 'Standard' has sent to offer
its support; the Duke said he should be very happy, but they must
understand that the Government was not yet formed.
November 21st, 1834 {p.156}
To-day there was a Council at St. James's, at which Lyndhurst was
sworn in Chancellor. Brougham took leave of the Bar this morning,
and I hear did it well. The King speechified as usual, and gave
them a couple of harangues; he said it was just four years since
he had very unwillingly taken the Seal from Lord Lyndhurst, and
he now had great pleasure in restoring it to him. He was all King
to-day--talked of having 'commanded the ex-Ministers to retire;'
'desired Lord Brougham to give up the Seal,' which is true, for
the Duke wrote to him for it, and instead of surrendering it in
person Brougham sent it to Sir Henry Taylor. The King compared
this crisis with that which befell his father in 1784, when he
had placed the government in the hands of the Marquis of
Rockingham; he said that the present was only a provisional
arrangement, but that there was this difference, that the country
was now in a state of excitement and disquiet, which it was free
from then, but that he had full reliance on the great firmness of
the Duke (here the Duke bowed); that the Administration which was
then formed had lasted seventeen years (of course he meant that
of Pitt, which succeeded the coalition), and he hoped that this
which was about to be formed would last as long, although at his
time of life if it did he could not expect to see the end of it.
November 22nd, 1834 {p.157}
I read Brougham's speech on quitting the Court of Chancery this
morning, and admirable it is--not a syllable about himself, but
with reference to the appointment of Pepys, brief, dignified, and
appropriate. _Si sic omnia_, what a man he would be.
November 23rd, 1834 {p.157}
This morning I received a note from Henry de Ros enclosing one
from Barnes, who was evidently much nettled at not having received
any specific answer to his note stating the terms on which he
would support the Duke. Henry was disconcerted also, and entreated
me to have an explanation with Lyndhurst. I accordingly went to
the Court of Exchequer, where he was sitting, and waited till he
came out, when I gave him these notes to read. He took me away
with him, and stopped at the Home Office to see the Duke and talk
to him on the subject, for he was evidently a little alarmed, so
great and dangerous a potentate is the wielder of the thunders of
the press. After a long conference he came out and gave me a note
the Duke had written, saying he could not pledge himself nor Sir
Robert Peel (who was to be the Minister) before he arrived, and
eventually I agreed to draw up a paper explanatory of the position
of the Duke, and his expectations and views with regard to the
'Times' and its support. This I sent to him, and he is to return
it to me with such corrections as he may think it requires, and it
is to be shown to Barnes to-morrow.
[Page Head: BROUGHAM ASKS FOR THE CHIEF BARONSHIP.]
On the way Lyndhurst told me an incredible thing--that Brougham
had written to him proposing that he should be made Chief Baron,
which would be a great saving to the country, as he was content
to take it with no higher salary than his retiring pension and
some provision for the expense of the circuit. He said he would
show me the letter, but that he had left it with the Duke, so
could not then. He knows well enough that, whatever may be the
fate of this Government, he has no chance of recovering the Great
Seal, but I own I do not comprehend what object he can have in
taking this appointment, or what there is of importance enough to
induce him to apply for it to his political opponents, and incur
all the odium that would be heaped upon him if the fact were
generally known. He would not consider himself tongue-tied in the
House of Lords any more than Lyndhurst was, for though the former
took the situation under a sort of condition, either positive or
implied, that he was to observe something like a neutrality, he
considered himself entirely emancipated from the engagement when
the great Reform battle began, and the consequence was that the
secret article in the treaty was also cancelled, and Denman got
the Chief Justiceship instead of him. I imagine that the King
would not agree to Brougham's being Chief Baron even though the
Duke and Lyndhurst should be disposed to place him on the bench.
There might be some convenience in it. He must cut fewer capers
in ermine than in plaid trousers. [As might have been expected,
this intended stroke of Brougham's was a total failure. Friends
and foes condemn him; Duncannon tried to dissuade him; the rest
of his colleagues only knew of it after it was done. Duncannon
told me he neither desired nor expected that his offer would be
accepted.--November 30th.]
November 24th, 1834 {p.158}
I sent Lyndhurst a paper to be read to Barnes, which he returned
to me with another he had written instead, which certainly was
much better. The Duke's note and this paper were read to him, and
he expressed himself quite satisfied, was much gratified by an
offer Lyndhurst made to see him, and proposed a meeting; so,
then, I leave the affair. I took a copy of Lyndhurst's paper, and
then returned it and the note to him.
At night I went to Holland House, where I found Brougham, Lord
John Russell, and Lord Lansdowne. Lady Holland told me that she
had been the channel of communication by which the arrangement of
giving the Chief Baronship to Lyndhurst had been carried on, and
she declared that there was no secret article in it. I believe,
however, that there was one concluded between Brougham and
Lyndhurst, when they met to settle it in Burlington street. Leach
brought the original message from Alexander, who offered to
resign in favour of Lyndhurst. I hear of nothing but the
indignation of the ex-Ministers at the uncourteousness of the
Duke's conduct towards them; but though there is too much truth,
there is also some exaggeration in the complaints. It is
necessary to be on one's guard against what one hears, as I
verified yesterday in a particular case.
November 26th, 1834 {p.159}
[Page Head: THE WHIGS ON THE RECENT CHANGE.]
Barnes is to dine with Lord Lyndhurst, and a gastronomic
ratification will wind up the treaty between these high
contracting parties. I walked home with Duncannon last night; he
declared to me that though he could not tell me what did pass
between the King and Melbourne, what is stated to have passed is
not the truth. I heard elsewhere that the Whigs insist upon it
there was no disunion in the Cabinet, and that Lord Lansdowne and
Rice had seen the Irish Tithe Bill (the Irish Chancellor being the
supposed subject of disunion), and that they both agreed to its
provisions. Duncannon said that if the King had insisted upon the
dismissal of Brougham, and had consented to go on with the rest,
he would have put them in a grand dilemma, for that such a
requisition would have met the concurrence of many of their
friends and of the public. He thinks Brougham would not have
_resigned_ even then, and that it would have been very dangerous
to turn him out. All this speculation matters little now. He is
thoroughly convinced that the present appearances of indifference
and tranquillity in the country are delusive, and that the
elections will rouse a dormant spirit, and that the minor
differences of Reformers and Liberals of all denominations will be
sunk in a determined hostility to the Government of Peel and the
Duke. He says that the Irish Church must bring the question
between the two parties to an immediate and decisive test; that if
the new Government are beaten upon it, as he thinks inevitable,
out they must go; that the return of the Government just broken up
will be out of the question, and the King must submit to receive
one of still stronger measures. Duncannon does not conceal the
ultra-Liberal nature of his opinions, and he would not regret the
accomplishment of his predictions. It cannot be concealed that
there is nothing very improbable in them, although I am far from
regarding the event as so certain as he does; still less can I
partake of the blind confidence and sanguine hopes of the Tories.
One thing is, however, very clear, that the Whigs and the Radicals
will join (as Lyndhurst said they were sure to do), and that they
will both declare war to the knife against the Tory Government.
The best hope and chance is that a number of really independent
men, unpledged, may be returned, who will hold something like a
balance between the extreme parties, resist all violent
propositions, protect the King from insult and peremptory
dictation, and afford the new Government a fair trial, and on the
other hand declare at once and without reserve their determination
to continue without interruption the course of rational and
effectual reform, making a virtual abandonment of High Tory maxims
and acquiescence in the desires of the country with respect to the
correction of abuses the indispensable conditions of the present
Government's retention of office.
November 27th, 1834 {p.160}
[Page Head: POLICY OF THE PEEL GOVERNMENT]
Yesterday Lord Wharncliffe came to me. He had just been with the
Duke, who received him very cordially, and showed him the
correspondence and minutes of conversations between the King and
Melbourne. He says that it is evident that Melbourne despaired of
being able to carry on the Government, and that the gist of the
King's objection was the nomination of Lord John Russell to lead
the Government in the House of Commons, which His Majesty said he
could not agree to, because he had already declared his
sentiments with regard to the Church and his resolution of
supporting it to the bishops and on other occasions, and that
Lord John Russell had signalised himself in the House of Commons
by his destructive opinions with regard to the Establishment. I
should be glad to see this correspondence and judge for myself,
but I can't go to the Duke on purpose. Wharncliffe says that he
is quite satisfied from his conversation that the Duke is
thoroughly convinced of the necessity of adopting a line of
conduct in conformity with the state of public opinion and
determination in the country, and that he is prepared to abandon
(as far as he is concerned) the old Tory maxims. So far so good;
but there is no concealing that, however this may (if Peel
concurs) facilitate the formation and secure the duration of the
new Government, there is a revolting inconsistency in it all,
involving considerable loss of character. He gave no indication
of such a disposition during the last session; it is all reserved
for the period when he is possessed of power. It is, however, at
present all very vague, and we shall see what his notion is of a
Liberal course of policy. I fear that he and Peel are both too
deeply committed on the Irish Church question to suffer them to
propose any compromise likely to be satisfactory with regard to
it, and then the difficulties of the question are so enormous
that it seems next to impossible to compose them. The respective
parties drive at different objects; one wants to appropriate the
surplus revenue, the other wants to secure to the parsons their
tithes, and while they are quarrelling with unmitigable
fierceness upon these points, the Irish settle the question by
refusing to pay any tithe, and by evading every attempt that is
made to procure the payment in some other shape or under some
other denomination.
The Duke told Wharncliffe that both he and the King were fully aware
of the importance of the step that his Majesty had taken--that this
is, in fact, the Conservatives' last cast--and that he (the King) is
resolved neither to flinch nor falter, but having embarked with
them, to nail his flag to the mast and put forth all the
constitutional authority of the Crown in support of the Government
he is about to form. I am strongly inclined to think that this
determination, when properly ascertained, will have considerable
influence, and that, provided a respectable and presentable Cabinet
be formed and Liberal measures adopted, they will succeed. Though
the Crown is not so powerful as it was, there probably still remains
a great deal of attachment and respect to it, and if the King can
show a fair case to the country, there will be found both in
Parliament and out of it a vast number of persons who will reflect
deeply upon the consequences of coming to a serious collision with
the Throne, and consider whether the exigency is such as to justify
such extremities. It may be very desirable to purify the Irish
Church, to remodel corporations, and to relieve the Dissenters in
various ways, and nobody can entertain a shadow of doubt that all
these things must and will be done; but the several cases are not of
great and pressing urgency. The fate of the nation does not depend
upon their being all accomplished and arranged off-hand, and if the
Government which the King may form exhibits no spirit uncongenial to
the public feeling generally, and wars not with the genius of
Reform, which is dear to the people, it is my belief that a great
majority of the nation will shrink from the mere possibility of a
direct breach with the King, and from offering him an insult in the
shape of dictation and peremptory demand, which he would consider
himself bound in honour and in conscience to resist.
I walked home with Duncannon at night, and I told him this; he
seemed struck by it, but still maintained that Parliament would,
in his opinion, not accept the new Ministry on any terms. If Peel
makes a High Tory Government, and holds High Tory language, I
think so too, and I can scarcely hope that it should be
otherwise. My mind, I own, misgives me about Peel; I hope
everything from his capacity and dread everything from his
character.
November 28th, 1834 {p.162}
This morning I got a letter from my uncle the Duke of Portland,
complaining of the Weights and Measures Bill, and begging that, if
possible, an Order in Council might be passed suspending the
operation of the Act. I availed myself of this opportunity to see
the Duke of Wellington, and went to the Home Office to consult him
on the contents of this letter. After settling this business I began
about the recent negotiation between Lyndhurst and Barnes, and this
led to a discussion of the circumstances and situation of affairs,
in the course of which he told me everything that had occurred. I
asked him if _he_ had sent the 'Statement' which appeared in the
'Times.' He said no, and that he was utterly at a loss to guess how
they had got it, but that by whatever means it was as near as
possible to the truth. I said that this was utterly and peremptorily
denied by the other side, on which he called Algy,[2] and desired
him to bring a letter which he had written to certain Peers of his
party--a circular--which he read to me. In this he explained in
general terms (without going into particulars) the causes of the
break-up of the late Government and the advice he had given the
King, and he told me that he had got papers and letters in
confirmation of every word that he had written (Melbourne's
correspondence with the King and the minute of the conversation),
all which he said he would show me then, but that it would take up
too much time. However, as we proceeded to talk it over he told me
all that these papers contained, or at least all that was material.
The substance as I gathered it and as I remember it was this:--Lord
Melbourne had written to the King and descanted on the great
difficulty in which the Government was placed in consequence of Lord
Spencer's death, and had intimated that the measures which he should
find it necessary to propose to him would produce a difference of
opinion in the Cabinet--in point of fact that it was, to say the
least, probable that Rice and Lansdowne would retire. When he went
down to Brighton, and they talked it over, Lord Melbourne put it to
his Majesty whether under existing circumstances he would go on,
placing himself in their hands, or whether he would dispense with
their services, only recommending that if he resolved not to
endeavour to go on with this Government (with such modifications as
circumstances demanded) he would declare such resolution as speedily
as possible.[3] The Duke says he did not actually tender his or
their resignations, did not throw up the Government, but _very near
it_. The King suggested the difficulty of his situation, and
Melbourne told him 'he had better send for the Duke of Wellington,
and depend upon it he would get him out of it.' 'In fact,' said the
Duke, 'Melbourne told him I should do just what I did.' Accordingly
the King did send for the Duke, and it is true that Melbourne
offered to be the bearer of his Majesty's letter. When some question
was asked about the messenger, Melbourne said, 'No messenger will go
so quick as I shall; you had better give it to me.' The Duke said
that no man could have acted more like a gentleman and a man of
honour than Melbourne did, and that his opinion of him was greatly
raised. I told him that I thought Melbourne could not have given his
colleagues an exact and correct account of what had passed, for that
they could not conceive themselves to have been so ill-treated if it
was so, and that if he had told them _all_ they would probably have
thought he had abandoned their interests. He said that it was
evident Melbourne was very happy to disengage himself from the
concern. (As all this case will probably be discussed in Parliament,
we shall see that the debate will turn principally upon the fact of
disunion, and I have little doubt that Rice and Lansdowne will
declare that they had no intention of quitting. So much depends upon
verbal niceties, and the bounds between truth and falsehood are so
narrow, the partition so thin, that they will, I expect, try to back
up their party without any absolute breach of veracity.) When the
King was reading the papers to him (the Duke), and telling him all
that had passed, _he was in a great fright_ lest the Duke should
think he had acted imprudently, and should decline to accept the
Government. Then the Duke said, 'Sir, I see at once how it all is.
Your Majesty has not been left by your Ministers, but something very
like it;' and His Majesty was rejoiced when the Duke at once
acquiesced in taking office.
[2] [Mr. Algernon Greville, brother of Mr. Charles
Greville, was private secretary to the Duke of
Wellington both in and out of office.]
[3] [This statement has certainly not been confirmed by the
subsequent publication of papers or by the narrative of
the King himself. It is very extraordinary that the
Duke of Wellington should have been led to believe it;
but this is only another proof of the extreme
difficulty of arriving at an exact knowledge of what
passes in conversation between two persons, even when
both of them are acting in perfect good faith.]
The Duke said he had received very satisfactory letters from all
(or many) of the Peers to whom he had written--from the Duke of
Newcastle and Lord Mansfield, the most violent of the Tories. I
said, 'Are they ready to place themselves in your hands, and
agree to whatever you may think it necessary to do?' He said, 'I
think they are; I think they will do anything.' He told me that
affairs were left in a wretched state in the Treasury, that the
late Ministers were no men of business, and minutes had been
proposed to him finding fault with various things; but he had
refused to do any such thing, and he would repair any error he
could without casting any blame on others. On the whole he
thought everything looked well, and that he should, when Peel
arrived, put the concern into his hands in a satisfactory state.
It is perfectly clear, in the midst of assertion on one side and
contradiction on the other, that in the first instance there was
neither plot nor plan on the part of the King or anybody else.
The death of Lord Spencer really did create an enormous
embarrassment, which Melbourne felt much more than any of his
colleagues; and though he told the King 'that he was ready to go
on with the Government if such was his pleasure,' he felt no
desire to be taken at his word, and no confidence or expectation
that the arrangements he proposed would be palatable to the King
or of a permanent nature. He seems to have been candid and
straightforward in all that he said, and to have contemplated his
dismissal as a very probable result of his correspondence and
conversations with his Majesty. The Irish Church has evidently
caused _the split_; the intended reforms in it and the elevation
of Lord John Russell to the post of leader were more than the
King could digest. I wish I had seen the papers, for the sake of
knowing what it is they proposed to the King, and how far he was
disposed to go.
November 29th, 1834 {p.165}
[Page Head: LORD STANLEY'S POSITION.]
I told the Duke yesterday what I had learnt from George Bentinck
(and he from the Duke of Richmond) of Lord Stanley's[4]
disposition. He is not at all desirous to be mixed up in the new
concern, but has no objection to take office under Peel, and he
is ready to _listen_ to any proposition that may be made to him;
but he is very much afraid of being accused of dereliction of
principle by his old colleagues and friends. It is clear,
therefore, that he would reject any overture unless it included
an agreement that the Government should be conducted upon Liberal
principles, and unless his friends were invited to join the
Government with him. The Duke took very little notice of this.
[4] [Edward, 12th Earl of Derby, died on October 21, 1834,
from which date his grandson, afterwards 14th Earl of
Derby, assumed the courtesy title of Lord Stanley.]
December 1st, 1834 {p.166}
Went to St. Paul's yesterday evening, to hear Sydney Smith preach.
He is very good; manner impressive, voice sonorous and agreeable,
_rather_ familiar, but not offensively so, language simple and
unadorned, sermon clever and illustrative. The service is
exceedingly grand, performed with all the pomp of a cathedral and
chanted with beautiful voices; the lamps scattered few and far
between throughout the vast space under the dome, making darkness
visible, and dimly revealing the immensity of the building, were
exceedingly striking. The Cathedral service thus chanted and
performed is my _beau ideal_ of religious worship--simple,
intelligible, and grand, appealing at the same time to the reason
and the imagination. I prefer it infinitely to the Catholic service,
for though I am fond of the bursts of music and the clouds of
incense, I can't endure the undistinguishable sounds with which the
priest mumbles over the prayers.
I heard yesterday that there has been a breeze between Duncannon
and Melbourne, arising out of his speech at Derby. This was in
answer to an address they voted him, and it was exceedingly
temperate and reserved. In the course of it he said that 'he had
no personal cause of complaint.' A warfare has been raging
between the 'Standard' and the 'Chronicle' about what passed, and
the articles in the latter have been supplied by Duncannon or
some of them; these are at variance with Melbourne's avowal, and
they are very angry with him for what he said, and want him to
make some statement (or to authorise one) of a different kind and
more corresponding with their own declarations and complaints.
This he refuses to do, and they have been squabbling about it
with some vivacity. All this induces me the more to think that
Melbourne has never told his colleagues how very easily and
contentedly he gave up the reins of Government, not intending to
deceive them, but from a desire to avoid exasperating people whom
he found so much disturbed and so bitter.
December 2nd, 1834
[Page Head: LORD LYNDHURST'S DINNER TO MR. BARNES.]
Dined with Lord Lyndhurst yesterday; the dinner for Mr. Barnes. He
had collected a miscellaneous party, droll enough--Mrs. Fox, Baron
Bolland, Follett, Hardinge, &c. The Duke and Lord Chandos were to
have been there. Barnes told Hardinge there was a great cry
getting up in the country against the Duke. After dinner I had a
long conversation with Hardinge, on the whole satisfactory. He
said that he had been instrumental in bringing the Duke and Peel
together again, after a considerable coldness and estrangement had
existed between them; that after the failure in May 1832, when
Peel refused to have anything to do with the concern, he had
called upon him and insisted upon taking him to Apsley House and
spontaneously consulting with the Duke how he should withdraw from
the business; that with great difficulty he had persuaded him, and
together they went, from which time the Duke and he have again
become friends. He is convinced that Peel will at once make a fair
and cordial overture to Stanley, and thinks it of the greatest
importance that Stanley's disposition and probable demands should
be ascertained before Peel arrives. I told him what I had before
told the Duke, and what I had reason to believe were Stanley's
sentiments. He asked whether Stanley would insist upon Richmond
and Ripon coming in with him; he said that for the former he
(Hardinge) was sure Peel would never admit him without the Duke's
full and especial consent, which, however, he has no doubt the
Duke would give without hesitation, and overlook any personal
cause of offence, to facilitate a desirable arrangement; that
there was some dispute among his friends whether it would be
better that Stanley should join now or only support (if he would)
at first and join afterwards. I said, 'Unquestionably it is better
he should join at once,' to which Hardinge assented, though he
added that many thought otherwise, that if Stanley made
difficulties and declined the junction, he was persuaded Peel
would keep nothing open, and would not make provisional
arrangements to admit him and his party when they should think it
more safe and convenient to unite their future to his. What they
would like evidently is to take Stanley and Graham and wash their
hands of Ripon and Richmond, but I think they will be forced to
admit them all, for Lyndhurst owned to me that he did not think
they could stand without Stanley; and the King is so anxious for
it that if Stanley insists on terms which are not very unreasonable
(under the circumstances) they will not be refused. Hardinge said
that four seats in the Cabinet would be a large share, but that
the best men among them were prepared to make every sacrifice of
their own just expectations or claims to render any arrangement
feasible that circumstances might require, that 'all was right
with the Speaker,' and as for the High Tories, the sooner they cut
the connection with them the better, but that they (the High
Tories) were now at their feet.
[Page Head: SIR H. HARDINGE ON THE LATE CRISIS.]
He then went into the details of the King's case with his late
Ministers--much to the same effect as I had before heard from the
Duke and Lyndhurst, but perhaps rather more clearly. He said that
Melbourne had stated to the King that questions must soon be
brought under the consideration of the Cabinet relating to the
Irish Church on which a considerable difference of opinion
prevailed, and that if the opinion of the majority of the Cabinet
should be acquiesced in by his Majesty, the secession of two or
more members of it would in all probability follow; that if the
desire of his Majesty to compromise these differences of opinion
and prevent any separation should have the effect of preventing
such discussions in the Cabinet as should lead to any disunion
_for the time_, it was only fair and right to own to him that it
would be in the power of any member of the House of Commons who
should become acquainted with the difference of opinion which
prevailed to bring the question to an issue; and if such a thing
should occur, the resignations, he apprehended, would only be
retarded. The King, under these circumstances, asked how he
proposed to fill up the vacancies that would thus occur, whether
from any but what is called the extreme party, and whether he
(Melbourne), with a knowledge of the King's sentiments, could
advise him to have recourse to Lord Durham and others of the same
opinions. Melbourne acknowledged that he could look nowhere else,
and that he certainly could not give the King such advice, upon
which he said that as the breach sooner or latter appeared
inevitable, he thought it better that the dissolution of the
Government should take place at once, and he preferred making the
change during the recess, when he should have time to form other
arrangements, rather than have it forced upon him during all the
excitement of the session of Parliament. This, I think, was the
pith of the thing, and in my opinion it forms a good case.
Hardinge said that if the King had been a clever man he would
have postponed his decision and spun out the correspondence, in
the course of which he would have acquired pretexts sufficient.
This, however, explains what the other side means by insisting
that there was _no difference_ of opinion in the Cabinet; there
was none _actual_, but it was on the prospective disunion so
clearly announced to the King, and impending at such an
indefinite and probably inconvenient time, that he took his
resolution. Melbourne appears to have been bullied into a sort of
exculpatory letter on account of his speech at Derby, saying that
he spoke of having no personal cause of complaint because the
King was very civil to him.
December 5th, 1834 {p.169}
The dinner that Lyndhurst gave to Barnes has made a great uproar,
as I thought it would. I never could understand the Chancellor's
making such a display of this connexion, but whatever he may be as
a lawyer, and how great soever in his wig, I suspect that he is
deficient in knowledge of the world and those nice calculations of
public taste and opinion which are only to be acquired by
intuitive sagacity exercised in the daily communion of social
life.
Melbourne has had to make another speech, which smells of the
recent reproaches of his colleagues; without exactly recanting
what he had said, he has amplified, modified, and explained, so
as to chime in to a certain degree with their assertions.
Brougham has been made to recall his letter offering to be Chief
Baron. It matters not what he does for the present; his star is
totally eclipsed, but not, I think, for ever quenched; his vast
abilities must find scope and produce effect. It is true he can
never thoroughly inspire confidence, but if adversity teaches him
wisdom, and cools the effervescence of his temper and imagination,
nothing can prevent his political resurrection, thought not in
'all his original brightness.'
December 6th, 1834 {p.170}
The Chancellor called on me yesterday about getting young
Disraeli into Parliament (through the means of George Bentinck)[5]
for Lynn. I had told him George wanted a good man to assist in
turning out William Lennox, and he suggested the above-named
gentleman, whom he called a friend of Chandos. His political
principles must, however, be in abeyance, for he said that Durham
was doing all he could to get him by the offer of a seat, and so
forth; if, therefore, he is undecided and wavering between
Chandos and Durham, he must be a mighty impartial personage. I
don't think such a man will do, though just such as Lyndhurst
would be connected with.
[5] [Lord George Bentinck was member for Lynn Regis. It is
curious that this, the first mention of Mr. Disraeli in
political life, should have originated with the man who
afterwards became his most powerful coadjutor and
ally.]
Melbourne's two speeches at Derby, and the history connected with
them, exhibit him in a very discreditable and lamentable point of
view--compelled by the menaces and reproaches of Duncannon and
the rest to eat his words; and all this transacted by a sort of
negotiation and through the mediation of his vulgar secretary,
Tom Young, and Mrs. Lane Fox. Such a thing it is to be without
firmness and decision of character. Melbourne is a gentleman,
liberal and straightforward, with no meanness, and incapable of
selfish trickery and intrigue, but he is habitually careless and
_insouciant_, loves ease, and hates contests and squabbles, and
though he would never tell a lie, he has probably not that stern
and rigid regard for truth which would make him run any risk
rather than that of concealing anything or suffering a false
impression to be formed or conveyed with respect to any matter he
might be concerned in.
Lyndhurst told me that Peel's letter was short and cautious, but
satisfactory. He (Lyndhurst) is doing all he can to draw closer
the connexion between the 'Times' and the Government, and
communicates constantly with Barnes. He said they must make a
liberal and comprehensive Government, and sketched an outline of
such a Cabinet as he would like--four Stanleys, six of their own
people, and two High Tories, Chandos certainly, and Knatchbull
probably; but even if Stanley's other scruples can be got over,
how he is to be induced to unite with Chandos and Knatchbull or
any such men I guess not. However, the time is drawing very near.
December 7th, 1834 {p.171}
In a letter from the Duke of Portland to George Bentinck
yesterday he says that the Duke of Newcastle had been there the
day before, had talked politics, and declared that in his opinion
the leaders of his party ought not to give way upon any one
point. This is so different from what the Duke of Wellington
understood from his letter to him that I sent the letter to the
Duke, and afterwards I met him. He said he thought the Duke of
Portland must be mistaken, for the Duke of Newcastle's letter to
him was quite in another sense. This is one of the silliest of
the High Tories, but there will yet be some trouble with the
tribe. John Russell, in a speech somewhere, has made assertions
still more positive and unqualified than Melbourne's, which, if
correct, throw over the King and his case. There is a fearful lie
somewhere, which I suppose will come out in time. It is
impossible to make up one's mind in the midst of statements so
different and yet so positive. George Bentinck sent to Sturges
Bourne to know if he would come in for Lynn, but he declined.
Disraeli he won't hear of.
December 8th, 1834 {p.171}
[Page Head: LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S SPEECH AT TOTNESS.]
[Page Head: INCONSISTENCIES OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.]
I read John Russell's speech at Totness last night; it was a very
masterly performance, suitable to the occasion, and effective. He
endeavoured to establish these points: first, that the Duke of
Wellington had continually opposed all Reform measures and been
the enemy of all Reform principles; secondly, that they (the late
Government) had done a great deal, without doing too much; and
thirdly, that there really had occurred no circumstances in the
Cabinet, or with the King, sufficient to account for their summary
dismissal. There is no denying that his first position is
incontrovertible, that he makes out a very fair case for his
second, and his argument on the third throws great doubt upon the
matter in my mind, having previously had no doubt that the King
had a good case to show to the world. It is not so much the Duke's
opposition to this or that particular measure, but the whole tenor
of his conduct and opinions, which it puts one in despair to look
at. There would be no gross inconsistency in his maintaining our
foreign relations in their present state, notwithstanding his
repeated attacks upon Palmerston's policy. He need not refuse to
suffer any legislative interference with the Church, English or
Irish, merely because he opposed the Tithe Bill last year (great,
by the way, as I always thought that blunder was, and as events
will prove it to have been), but in his opposition to the one or
the other we look in vain for some saving declaration to prove
that it is to the specific measure he is hostile, and not to the
principles from which it emanates. If he now comes into office
with a resolution to carry on the investigations that have been
set on foot, and to propose various measures of reform in
consequence of them, however wisely he may act in bending to
circumstances, there is no escaping from the fact that his conduct
in opposition and in office is as different as light from
darkness, and that he adopts when in office those principles in
the gross which he utterly repudiates and opposes with all his
might when he is out. I should like much to have a conversation
with the Duke, and (if it were possible to speak so freely to him)
to set before him all the _apparent_ inconsistencies of his
conduct, to trace his political career step by step, and tell him
concisely all that he may have read scattered through a hundred
newspapers, and then hear what he would say, what his notions are
of political honour and consistency, and how he reconciles his
general conduct with these maxims. I am persuaded that he deludes
himself by some process of extraordinary false reasoning, and that
the habits of intense volition, jumbled up with party prejudices,
old associations, and exposure to never-ceasing flattery, have
produced the remarkable result we see in his conduct; notwithstanding
the enormous blunders he has committed, and his numerous and
flagrant inconsistencies, he has never lost his confidence in
himself, and what is more curious, has contrived to retain that of
a host of followers. In each particular act, and on every fresh
occasion, there appear in him a decision, singleness of purpose,
and straightforwardness which are inseparable from a conviction of
being in the right, and he never seems to apprehend for a moment
that he can be liable to the imputation of any selfish or
dishonourable motive. And strange and paradoxical as it may
appear, I do not think he is justly liable to it except when he is
under the influence of some strong personal feeling. Such was his
jealousy and dislike of Canning, and this led him into perhaps the
most enormous of all his political misdeeds, the overthrow of the
Corn Bill of 1827. Upon other occasions I attribute his conduct to
the circumstance of his being governed by one leading idea, and to
his incapability of taking enlarged and comprehensive views of
political affairs, such as embrace not only the complex relations
of the present, but the ostensible probabilities of the future.
His judgment, instead of being determined by profound habits of
reflection, an extensive knowledge of history, and accurate
acquaintance with human nature, seems to be wholly influenced by
his own wishes and his own conception of what the exigencies of
the moment require. It would not be difficult, I think, and
perhaps I may hereafter attempt to apply this delineation of his
disposition to the events of his life, and to show how the leading
idea in his mind has been the constant guide which he has
followed, sometimes to the detriment of the best interests of the
country and sometimes to that of his own reputation.