CHAPTER XXVIII.

Lord Grey and Sir James Graham express Conservative Views--

Opinions of Lord Stanley--Lord Grey sees the King, but is not

asked to resume Office--Lord Melbourne's Second

Administration--His Moderation--A Difficulty--Spring Rice--A

Joyless Victory--Exclusion of Brougham--The New Cabinet--Lord

John Russell defeated in Devonshire--Lord Alvanley and

O'Connell--Duel with Morgan O'Connell--Lord Wellesley resigns

the Lord Stewardship--The Eliot Convention--Swift _v._ Kelly--

The Kembles--London University Charter discussed at the Privy

Council--Corporation Reform--Formation of the Conservative

Party--The King's Habits--Secretaryship of Jamaica--Lord

Melbourne's Tithe Bill--The Pope rejects the Recommendation of

the British Government--Relations with Rome--Carlists and

Christinos in Spain--Walcheren--The King's Address to Sir

Charles Grey--Stanley and Graham cross the House--Failure of

Stanley's Tactics--Alava and the Duke of Cumberland--A Sinecure

Placeman--Lord Glenelg and the King--Concert at Stafford

House--The King's Aversion to his Ministers and to the

Speaker--Decision on the Secretaryship of Jamaica--Archbishop

Whateley--Irish Church Bill--Payment of Catholic Clergy--Peel

and Lord John Russell--Factious Conduct of Tory Peers--The

King's Violence--Debate on the Corporation Bill.

April 9th, 1835 {p.248}

Yesterday the Ministers resigned. Peel announced it to the House of

Commons in a short but admirable speech by all accounts, exactly

suitable to the occasion, and to his principal object--that of

setting himself right with his own supporters, who begin to

acquiesce, though rather sulkily, in the course he has pursued. Lord

Grey is to be with the King this morning. He was riding quietly in

the Park yesterday afternoon, and neither knew nor cared

(apparently) whether he had been sent for or not. His daughter told

me (for I rode with them up Constitution Hill) that his family could

not wish him to return to office, but would not interfere. She then

talked, much to my surprise, of the possibility of a junction

between him and Peel; she owned that Peel had done wonders, but

said that she could not wish for such a junction _now_, however it

might be possible and desirable that it should take place some

little time hence. This shows a very Conservative spirit and a

marvellous thaw in the rigidity of the Grey politics.

[Page Head: SIR JAMES GRAHAM ON PEEL AND STANLEY.]

In the morning I went to Graham to ask him to advocate my cause in

the Sinecure Committee and defend my interests there. After

talking over my case (about which he was very obliging and

promised his zealous assistance) we discussed general politics at

great length. It is very evident that he and Stanley have no

leaning towards the Whigs, and look _now_ solely to a junction

with Peel and the construction of a Liberal and Conservative party

and Government. He talked of this, and of the mode of accomplishing

it, with as much zeal and fervour as if he had been a member of

the Cabinet which has just fallen, and I think his opinions

coincide very much with my own. He wants the King to be well

_endoctrine_, and that his firmness (if he has any) should be

directed to one or two points, and his mind not puzzled with

complicated instructions. He should be advised never to admit

O'Connell to any office, and to resist a creation of Peers. He

thinks, if his Majesty is stout on these points, that things will

come round, and he by no means despairs of the feeling and animus

of the country. I told him the Tories and late Government people

still contended that if he and Stanley had joined the thing would

have gone on, which he vehemently denied, and declared that they

could not have saved Peel and should have entirely compromised

themselves; he talked with great admiration of Peel, and of the

reception he had met with from him in the interview they had on

his return, which he said was cordial and obliging to the greatest

degree, and without any appearance of that coldness and reserve of

which he has been so often accused. He then talked of Stanley with

great openness--of his talents, character, and political views. I

told him that Stanley had not raised himself this session, that he

had given much offence by the general levity of his conduct, and

especially to the Tories by the occasional flippancy or severity

of his attacks upon them, that as it was clear that any

Conservative Government must depend upon the great body of the

Tory party for support, it was improvident in him to make himself

obnoxious to them, and that he would do well to exert his

influence over Stanley for the purpose of restraining those

sallies in which he was too apt to indulge, and showing him the

expediency of conciliating that not very wise but still powerful

body. He asked in what way Stanley had offended. I told him

generally in the sarcastic or reprobating tone he had used, and

particularly in his personal attack on the Duke for holding the

offices. He owned there was truth in this, 'but what could you do?

it was impossible to change a man's character, and Stanley's was

very peculiar. With great talents, extraordinary readiness in

debate, high principles, unblemished honour, he never had looked,

he thought he never would look, upon politics and political life

with the seriousness which belonged to the subject; he followed

politics as an amusement, as a means of excitement, as another

would gaming or any other very excitable occupation; he plunged

into the _melee_ for the sake of the sport which he found it made

there, but always actuated by honourable and consistent principles

and feelings, and though making it a matter of diversion and

amusement, never sacrificing anything that honour or conscience

prescribed.' I said that this description of him (which I had no

doubt was true) only proved what I already thought--that, with all

his talents, he never would be a great man. He said he always must

be very considerable; his powers, integrity, birth, and fortune

could not fail to raise him to eminence. All this I admitted--that

nothing could prevent his being very considerable, very important,

as a public man--but I argued that one who was animated by motives

so personal, and so wanting in gravity, to whom public care was a

subsidiary and not a primary object, never could achieve permanent

and genuine greatness. He said that Stanley had a great admiration

for Peel, without any tincture of jealousy, and that he was quite

ready to serve under him, though he could not help doubting

whether it would be possible for two such men, so different in

character, to go on well together in the same Cabinet. I told him

what Wharncliffe had told me, that no man was ever more easy to

act with, more candid and conciliatory, and less assuming than

Peel in the Cabinet, and Graham said that Stanley was likewise

perfect as a colleague, so that it may be hoped there would not be

any such incompatibility if they were to come together. I was with

him two hours and a half, and we discussed very fully all

political contingencies with the freedom of twenty years ago, when

we were great friends.

April 10th, 1835 {p.251}

[Page Head: DISTRESS OF THE KING.]

Nothing decisive yesterday. Lord Grey was with the King in the

morning; he there met Lord Melbourne, Lord Holland, Lord John

Russell, and Lord Lansdowne, and went back to St. James's. It was

said in the evening that Lord Grey was to assist in the formation

of the Government, but not to take office himself.

April 11th, 1835 {p.251}

The intention of Lord Grey evidently was to avoid office if he

could, but if strongly urged by the King, and his feelings

appealed to, to yield. The King, however, did not urge him at

all, probably much to his astonishment, but assuming apparently

that he would under no circumstances return to office, consulted

him as to the course he should adopt. All my information as to

what has hitherto taken place amounts to this:--His Majesty has

been in a very composed state of mind, has received the Whig

leaders in a way that has given them complete satisfaction, and

as far as personal intercourse goes the embarrassment appears to

be removed. He has given Melbourne _carte blanche_ to form a

Government, and he is proceeding in the task. Notwithstanding the

good face which the King contrives to put upon the matter in his

communications with his hated new-old Ministers and masters, he

is really very miserable, and the Duchess of Gloucester, to whom

he unbosoms himself more than to anybody, told Lady Georgiana

Bathurst that with her he was in the most pitiable state of

distress, constantly in tears, and saying that 'he felt his crown

tottering on his head.'

It is intended to leave O'Connell out of the arrangement, and at

the same time to conciliate him and preserve his support. In this

they have apparently succeeded. O'Connell 'has behaved admirably

well,' and the difficulty with regard to him is at an end. Of the

Radicals some are to be included and no notice taken of the rest.

Brougham is to be set at defiance; his fall in public estimation,

his manifold sins against his own colleagues, and his loss of

character all justify them, and enable them (as they think) to do

so with impunity. Melbourne, who when Lamb[1] is here is greatly

influenced by him, is strongly against any Radical measures or

Radical colleagues, and has no thought of a creation of Peers or

of any desperate expedients, and he is not at all satisfied with

the resolution which John carried, and which was the immediate

cause of Peel's resignation, being fully alive to all the

inconvenience of it.

[1] [Meaning Sir Frederick Lamb, his brother, usually

residing abroad in the diplomatic service.]

Just now Tavistock was here, having come from St. George's

Church, where he went to assist at Lord John Russell's marriage,

and as the ceremony could not begin for half an hour, he came

over to pass the interval with me.[2] He told me that 'there

still existed _one_ difficulty, one only, which I should not

think of, apparently unimportant, but which circumstances

rendered important, and if this was got over, the Government

would be formed and go on, that he thought it was an _even bet_

whether it was got over or not. What this difficulty is, so

little obvious, but so important, I do not guess; but in such

affairs _one_ difficulty will not stand in the way of completing

an arrangement the consummation of which has cost such incredible

exertions, and such sacrifices of consistency and of public

interests to the interests or ambition of a party.

[2] [Lord John Russell married, in April 1835, Theresa,

widow of Lord Ribblesdale. Mr. Greville lived at this

time on the north side of Hanover Square.]

April 12th, 1835 {p.252}

[Page Head: SIR R. PEEL'S MINISTRY.]

Nothing settled yesterday, and great doubts if anything would be.

Lord John was married in the morning; he returned to Kent House

with his bride, and Melbourne was to have sent him word at _one_

what was definitively settled; he waited till two, when no news

arriving from Melbourne, he went off to Woburn. He was at that

time by no means sanguine as to the arrangements being completed,

and talked in doubt of the Foreign Office, to which he is to go.

However, Melbourne was to be with the King this morning to

announce that the Ministry would or would not do. Sefton told me

last night that the _difficulty_ proceeds from Spring Rice; if it

should fail (which it will not, I expect) Peel must stay in and

take in the Dilly, who would not then scruple to join him. The

Government would be formed upon the _principle_ of not settling

this eternal Irish Church question, which I think so great an

evil that it is on the whole better that Melbourne should form a

Government and go on as long as he can--that is, till something

decisive is done about the Irish Church. I met the whole Dilly at

dinner yesterday at Stafford House, and when I told Stanley and

Graham that I understood Spring Rice made the difficulty, they

both said that it must be what they called 'his conundrum,' which

I had never heard of before; but it means his determination to

apply the surplus to the purposes of _general education_, but not

to go a jot further, and they suppose that this is not far enough

for the others, and hence the difficulty.

April 13th, 1835 {p.253}

Nothing positively known yesterday, but that the thing is settled

in some way, Clusterings and congregations of Whigs about

Brookes', audiences with the King, and great doubt whether Grey

took office, and the Foreign Office.

April 14th, 1835 {p.253}

Yesterday it was understood that everything was settled, but

after all it was only the night before last that Melbourne was

definitively charged with the formation of a Government. The

difficulties were O'Connell and Spring Rice; the former was got

over by his waiving all claim to employment and promising his

gratuitous support. By what underhand management or persuasion,

and what secret understanding, this was effected will be a

mystery for the present, but nobody doubts that it has been

accomplished by some juggle. Spring Rice wanted to wash his hands

of the concern; he did not think it promised sufficient

stability, and without some assurance of its lasting he wished to

decline taking office. They would not hear this, and represented

to him that he was indispensable, and it ended in his giving way.

It certainly would have been very unjustifiable of him, after

going all lengths with them, to hold back at last, but it shows

the opinion of the best men among them of the rottenness of the

concern. Lord Grey declined taking office, but wrote to say that

the Government should have all his support, and that he wished

Howick to be included in it, which is the same thing as if he

were there himself. Nothing was settled about the cast of

offices, and they were waiting for Lord John's arrival from

Woburn to discuss that matter. Between the pretensions of one

man, the reluctance of another, and the hymeneal occupation of

the leader the matter hobbled on very slowly. I certainly never

remember a great victory for which Te Deum was chanted with so

faint and joyless a voice. Peel looks gayer and easier than all

Brookes' put together, and Lady Holland said, 'Now that we have

gained our object I am not so glad as I thought I should be,' and

that I take to be the sentiment of them all.

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

[Page Head: THE NEW WHIG CABINET.]

At Newmarket the day before yesterday, and came here to-day,

where I find the Duke and Duchess of Cleveland and two or three

others. I know nothing but by my letters from London, by which I

learn that nothing is yet settled, but they go on negotiating and

endeavouring to arrange their rickety concern. Having concluded

their bargain with O'Connell, they have taken fright about

Brougham, and degraded as he is, and contemptuous and confident

as they were about him, they are endeavouring to make terms with

him, and it will probably end in his recovering the Great Seal.

When this is done they will have consummated their disgrace.

Sheil said, 'The difficulty is how to deal with a bully and a

buffoon,' and as they have succumbed to and bargained with the

one, now they are going to truckle to the other; there is not one

of them who has scrupled to express his opinion of Brougham, but

let us see if he really does come in or much indignation may be

thrown away. The general opinion (I am told) is that this

Ministry will last a very short time and that ultimately a

coalition must take place under the direction and supremacy of

Sir Robert Peel. This is jumping to a conclusion over many

difficulties. However, nothing can be more meagre than the

triumph of the Whigs nor more humiliating than their position;

even my Whig-Radical friends write me word that 'O'Connell holds

the destiny of the Government in his hands, and is acknowledged

to be the greatest man going.' It was hardly worth while (in a

national point of view, whatever it may have been in a party one)

to turn out Sir Robert Peel in order to produce this result.

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

At Newmarket all last week, here since Monday. I know nothing of

politics but from newspapers and my letters; racing and hawking

are my present occupations. There seems to be an impression that

the present Government will not last very long, but as the

grounds of that opinion are the badness of its composition, I do

not see that its speedy dissolution is so certain; the public

seems to have got very indifferent as to who governs the country.

I was curious to hear how the Council went off at which the

Ministers took their seats, and how the King comported himself.

He seems to have got through it tolerably, though it must have

been a bitter ceremony to him. He made no speeches and took no

particular notice of anybody except Lord Howick, to whom he was

very civil, on account probably of his father, and because he is

a new man. The threatened contests of most of them ended in

smoke. Devonshire and Yorkshire will, however, be important and

severe. Of all the appointments those that are most severely

criticised are Mulgrave's and Morpeth's. It is said that Charles

Kemble and Liston might as well have been sent, as the former has

always imitated the one, and the latter involuntarily resembles

the other. Mulgrave, however he may be sneered at, has been tried

and found capable, and I think he will do very well; he has

courage and firmness and no want of ability. He is besides

hospitable, generous, courteous, and agreeable in private

life.[3]

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

follows:--

First Lord of the Treasury Viscount Melbourne.

Lord President of the Council Marquis of Lansdowne.

First Lord of the Admiralty Lord Auckland.

Lord Privy Seal Viscount Duncannon.

Home Secretary Lord John Russell.

Foreign Secretary Viscount Palmerston.

Colonial Secretary Lord Glenelg.

Board of Control Sir John Cam Hobhouse.

Secretary at War Viscount Howick.

Board of Trade Mr. Poulett Thomson.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Spring Rice.

Irish Secretary Viscount Morpeth.

The Earl of Mulgrave was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,

The Great Seal was put in Commission.]

May 1st, 1835 {p.256}

Morpeth made an excellent speech on introducing his Irish Tithe

Bill, and has raised himself considerably. Morpeth is (as it

appears to me) ill selected for the difficult post he occupies;

he has very fair ability of a showy kind, but I doubt the

solidity and strength of his material for the rough work which is

allotted to him.

[Page Head: LORD ALVANLEY'S DUEL.]

The last day of Parliament was distinguished by a worse attack of

O'Connell upon Alvanley for what he had said the day before in

the House of Lords. Alvanley has sent him a message through

Dawson Damer demanding an apology or satisfaction, and the result

I don't yet know.[4]

[4] [O'Connell had called Lord Alvanley a 'bloated

buffoon,' and as usual took refuge in his vow never to

fight another duel. Upon this his son, Morgan

O'Connell, offered to meet Lord Alvanley in lieu of his

father, which was accepted and the duel took place.]

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

Newmarket and gout have between them produced an interval of

unusual length in my scribblings, though I am not aware of having

had anything particularly interesting to record. We had Stanley at

Newmarket the second week as well as the first, taking a lively

interest in John Russell's defeat in Devonshire. This defeat was a

great mortification to his party, and was not compensated by the

easy victory which Morpeth obtained in Yorkshire. These elections

and the affair between Alvanley and O'Connell have been the chief

objects of attention; all the newspapers are full of details,

which I need not put down here. Alvanley seems to have behaved

with great spirit and resolution. There was a meeting at De Ros's

house of De Ros, Damer, Lord Worcester, and Duncombe to consider

what was to be done on the receipt of Morgan O'Connell's letter,

and whether Alvanley should fight him or not. Worcester and

Duncombe were against fighting, the other two for it. Alvanley at

once said that the boldest course was the best, and he would go

out. It was agreed that no time should be lost, so Damer was

despatched to Colonel Hodges, and said Alvanley was ready to meet

Morgan O'Connell. 'The next morning,' Hodges suggested. 'No,

immediately.' The parties joined in Arlington Street and went off

in two hackney coaches; Duncombe, Worcester, and De Ros, with Dr.

Hume, in a third. Only Hume went on the ground, for Damer had

objected to the presence of some Irish friend of O'Connell's, so

that Alvanley's friends could only look on from a distance. The

only other persons who came near them were an old Irishwoman and a

Methodist parson, the latter of whom exhorted the combatants in

vain to forego their sinful purpose, and to whom Alvanley replied,

'Pray, sir, go and mind your own affairs, for I have enough to do

now to think of mine.' 'Think of your soul,' he said. 'Yes,' said

Alvanley, 'but my body is now in the greatest danger.' The

Irishwoman would come and see the fighting, and asked for some

money for her attendance. Damer seems to have been a very bad

second, and probably lost his head; he ought not to have consented

to the third shots upon any account. Alvanley says he execrated

him in his heart when he found he had consented to it. Hodges

acted like a ruffian, and had anything happened he would have been

hanged. It is impossible to know whether the first shot was fired

by mistake or not. The impression on the minds of Alvanley's

friends is that it was _not_, but it is difficult to believe that

any man would endeavour to take such an advantage. However, no

shot ought to have been fired after that. The affair made an

amazing noise. As O'Connell had threatened to mention it in the

House of Commons, Damer went to Peel to put him in possession of

all the circumstances, but he said that he was sure O'Connell

would not venture to stir the matter there.

Lord Wellesley's resignation of the White Wand has set conjecture

afloat as to his motives, and it is asserted on one side, but

denied on the other, that disgust at O'Connell's predominance is

the reason, following disappointment at not having been himself

reinstated. I do not know the truth of the matter. Lord John

Russell takes his seat on Monday, after which business will begin

again in earnest in the House of Commons. There is an impression

that this Government will not be of long continuance, and that

the Ministers are themselves aware that their tenure of office

must be brief. They will at all events get through this session,

for much remains to be done in the way of approximation and

combination between different sections of public men before any

satisfactory arrangement can be made for replacing the present

Ministers. If it was not for the Irish question, and the apparent

impossibility of bringing that to any final adjustment, I should

not despair of the introduction of a better state of feeling and

the mitigation of the bitterness and animosity which set men of

different parties so irreconcilably against each other. At

present there is certainly a great calm after the storm which

raged so fiercely a little while ago. I have been so out of the

world between Newmarket and the gout that I know but little of

what has been passing, and merely throw in this brief notice to

keep up the chain of my observations and remarks.

May 24th, 1835 {p.258}

Came from Newmarket on Thursday night. Melbourne is said (by his

friends) to be doing very well in the House of Lords, but the

discussion on Friday about Lord Wellesley's resignation gave him

great annoyance. Lord Wellesley declined to say why he had

resigned, and merely declared it was not on account of Mulgrave's

procession, but he did not contradict any one of the assertions

that the cause was disgust at O'Connell's ascendency. When Lord

Harrowby said that 'if he had been Mulgrave he would rather have

been torn in pieces than have marched in under such banners as

were displayed,' Lord Wellesley loudly cheered him. Peel's speech

at the dinner the other day has made a great deal of noise, for

he is supposed to have thrown over his High Tory friends very

completely in it, and to have exhibited a determination to adapt

his opinions and conduct to the spirit of the times. However, the

Tories affect to be satisfied, laud it to the skies, and

distribute it through the country. In the House of Commons up to

this time nothing has been done; Peel has made over his

Dissenters Bill to the Government, who will probably do nothing

with it this session. Nobody expects the present Administration

to last long, as it is said, not even themselves; but nothing is

prepared for the formation of a better and more durable Cabinet.

Lord Eliot[5] and Colonel Gurwood have returned from Spain,

satisfied that the Carlist party cannot be put down, and having

had a conversation with Louis Philippe, the substance of which

appeared in the 'Times,' and very correctly. Great indignation is

expressed at the indiscretion which let this out, and it is

understood that Gurwood has been chattering about what passed in

all directions. The King of France, it is clear, will not

interfere, and so they must fight it out. Spanish stock fell 15

per cent, in one or two days. The King is in such a state of

dudgeon that he will not give any dinners to anybody.

[5] [Lord Eliot (afterwards Earl of St. Germans) had been

sent to Spain by the Duke of Wellington, in March 1835,

to endeavour to mitigate the atrocities which at that

time disgraced the leaders on both sides in the civil

contest raging in Spain. He was eminently successful in

his mission, and a Convention (commonly known as the

Convention of Bergara) was signed under his Lordship's

mediation at Logrono on the 27th of April, 1835. A

narrative of this mission was printed by Lord St.

Germans in 1871.]

[Page Head: THE APPEAL OF SWIFT _v._ KELLY.]

Yesterday Swift and Kelly's[6] case came on before the Privy

Council. It was to have been heard the Monday before, when it

would have been argued and decided, because every day in the week

was disposable for the purpose, but Brougham thought fit to

interfere. He insisted upon being there to hear it, and compelled

Lord Lansdowne to put off the hearing till Saturday, to the

extraordinary inconvenience of all parties. On Saturday the court

met, but no Brougham. They began, and in about two hours he made

his appearance, read his letters, wrote notes, corrected some

paper (for the press, as I could see), and now and then attended

to the cause, making flippant observations, much to the terror of

Jervaise--Miss Kelly's uncle--for all his interruptions appeared

to be directed adversely to them. I told Mr. Jervaise he need not

pay any attention to what Brougham said. As he came late, so he

went away early, breaking up the court at half-past three, and as

other engagements occupied the Judges the rest of the week, it

was put off till the 18th of June.

[6] [The curious case of Swift v. Kelly was heard by the

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and is

reported in Knapp's 'Privy Council Reports,' vol. iii.

p. 257. Mr. Greville had known something of the parties

in Rome, and their adventures are related in a former

part of these Journals, vol. i. p. 379.]

May 30th, 1835 {p.260}

On Wednesday last went to Charles Kemble's in the evening;

singing and playing; Mrs. Arkwright, Miss Strutt, old Liverati

(horrible squabbling), and Miss Adelaide Kemble. The father and

mother both occupied with their daughter's book, which Kemble

told me he had 'never read till it appeared in print, and was

full of sublime things and vulgarities,' and the mother 'was

divided between admiration and disgust, threw it down six times,

and as often picked it up.'

Thursday night. {p.260}

To Horace Twiss's what he called 'a Judy party'--a supper and

jollification, where all were expected to contribute to the

amusement of the company who possessed wherewithal. The

contributors were Twiss himself, Mrs. Arkwright, Miss Cooke,

Dance, Miss Dance, Planche, Mrs. Blood, Mrs. Groom, Theodore

Hook, Billy something, who imitated Cooper and Ward. I stayed

till two, and they went on till three. It was sufficiently

amusing altogether, though noisy and vulgar; company very

miscellaneous, but everybody ready to amuse and be amused.

Friday. {p.260}

[Page Head: LONDON UNIVERSITY CHARTER.]

The Committee of Council met on the matter of the London

University; Brougham of course the great performer; the same

persons were summoned who had attended before, but great changes

had since taken place, which made the assembly curious. There

were Melbourne, Lord Lansdowne and certain of his colleagues,

Brougham and Lyndhurst--both ex-Chancellors since the last

meeting--Richmond, Ripon, Stanley and Graham, the Dilly complete,

and Lord Grey. When they came to discuss the matter nobody seemed

disposed to move; at last Brougham proposed a resolution 'that

the King should be advised to grant a charter making the

petitioners an University, the regulations and restrictions to be

determined hereafter.' The Bishop of London objected on behalf of

King's College to any advantages being conferred on the London

University which would place the latter institution in a better

condition than the former. After much tedious discussion the

words 'university,' &c., were omitted, and the resolution moved

was '_to grant a charter_.' The Duke of Richmond formally opposed

it, his principal objection being to the insolvent state of the

concern. Brougham sat in contemptuous silence for a few minutes

while the Duke spoke, and then replied. There was a squabble

between them, and an evident inclination on the part of the

majority present to refuse the charter, but the address of the

Commons with the King's answer were read, which presented a very

difficult case to act upon. The King's answer amounted very

nearly to an engagement to grant a charter; the Privy Council was

bound to decide without reference to the address and answer, and

the bias _there_ was to advise against the grant. Brougham, after

much ineffectual discussion, said in a tone of sarcastic contempt

that 'their hesitation and their scruples were ridiculous, for

the House of Commons would step in and cut them both short and

settle the question.' This is doubtless true, and he can effect

it when he will; but how monstrous, then, was the vote. The House

of Commons had never heard a tittle of the evidence or the

argument; the Council had heard it all, and were bound to report

upon it, when the House, while the judgment of the Privy Council

was still pending, voted an address to the Crown for the purpose

of obtaining an adjudication of the matter one particular way,

without reference to the proceedings before the tribunal. They

all seemed agreed that if it was expedient to grant a charter it

required much consideration to decide under what restrictions and

regulations it should be conceded, and Lord Grey declared that if

he was called upon, without reference to any proceedings

elsewhere, to decide upon the arguments they had heard at the

bar, he should decide against giving the charter, but if he were

called upon to advise the Crown what under all the circumstances

it was expedient to do, his advice might be very different.

Graham said he could not divest his mind of the knowledge he

possessed of what had passed in the House of Commons, and he

thought the Government ought to advise the Crown on its own

responsibility what course it was expedient to adopt. After

wasting an hour and a half in a very fruitless and not very

interesting discussion (everybody looking bored to death except

Brougham, who was talking all the time) the Council broke up

without doing anything, and agreed to meet again on Friday next.

Old Eldon was very busy and eager about it, and had all the

papers sent to him; he could not attend, being wholly disabled by

the gout. Of course the charter (at least _a_ charter) will be

given, because the House of Commons in the plenitude of their

ignorance, but of their power, have so decided.

June 14th, 1835 {p.262}

[Page Head: THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.]

Taken up with Epsom since I last wrote, and indisposed to

journalising, besides having nothing to say. I did not attend the

second meeting at the Privy Council on the London University

question. Lord Eldon came to it, and there was some discussion,

but without any violence; it ended by a report to the King,

requesting he would dispense with the advice of the Council; so

the matter remains with the Government. It is clear that they

would have advised against granting the charter but for the

answer which the King made to the address of the House of

Commons, which was in fact a _promise_ to grant it. This answer

was the work of Peel and Goulburn, and I can't imagine what

induced them to put such an one into his Majesty's mouth, when

they might have so properly made him say that he had referred the

matter to the Privy Council, and was waiting for their report.

The calm and repose which have succeeded to the storms of the

early part of the session are really wonderful; all parties seem

disposed to lay aside their arms for the present, one reason of

which is that parties are so evenly balanced that neither wishes

to try its strength. Then the line which Peel is taking precludes

any immediate renewal of hostilities. The measures of Government

are confined to one or two questions, of which the Corporation

Reform has alone been brought forward. Peel made a very able and

dexterous speech upon John Russell's introduction of that

measure, in which he exhibited anew his great superiority, and at

once declared his intention of admitting the whole principle of

it, reserving to himself to deal as he thought fit with the

details. It has been asserted on both sides that the Whigs and

the High Tories are equally disgusted at his speech, the former

for cutting the ground from under his feet, the latter for his

departure from good old High Tory principles. There may be some

truth in this, but the Tories profess generally to be satisfied

and convinced, and to be quite ready to follow him in the liberal

course on which he has entered; so much so that it is now said

there is no longer such a thing as a Tory. Peel clearly does not

intend that there shall be (as far as he is concerned as their

leader) a _Tory_ party, though of course there must be a

_Conservative_ party, the great force of which is the old Tory

interest, and his object evidently is to establish himself in the

good opinion of the country and render himself indispensable--to

raise a party out of all other parties, and to convert the new

elements of democratic power into an instrument of his own

elevation, partly by yielding to and partly by guiding and

restraining its desires and opinions. Neither is there any

mystery in his conduct; his object and his intentions are evident

to all, and it is perhaps advantageous that he has nothing to

conceal. At the same time he plays this game with great prudence

and ability. It is not his interest to strike great blows, but

constantly to augment the reputation and extend the influence he

has acquired, and this he does visibly and sensibly. There seems

to be an universal impression that nothing can keep him out of

office long. This Government may probably scramble through the

session; there is no particular question on which they are likely

to be overturned, but there is a conviction that any Government

must be provisional in which Peel is not included, and that

before long the country will insist upon his return to power.

June 19th, 1835 {p.264}

[Page Head: KING WILLIAM'S PERSONAL HABITS.]

At Stoke for the Ascot races. Alvanley was there--nobody else

remarkable; fine weather and great luxury. Riding to the course

on Wednesday, I overtook Adolphus Fitzclarence in the Park, who

rode with me, and gave me an account of his father's habits and

present state of mind. The former are as follows:--He sleeps in

the same room with the Queen, but in a separate bed; at a quarter

before eight every morning his _valet de chambre_ knocks at the

door, and at ten minutes before eight exactly he gets out of bed,

puts on a flannel dressing-gown and trousers, and walks into his

dressing-room. Let who will be there, he never takes the

slightest notice of them till he emerges from this sanctuary,

when, like the _malade imaginaire_, he accosts whoever may be

present with a cheerful aspect. He is long at his ablutions, and

takes up an hour and a half in dressing. At half-past nine he

breakfasts with the Queen, the ladies, and any of his family; he

eats a couple of fingers and drinks a dish of coffee. After

breakfast he reads the 'Times' and 'Morning Post,' commenting

aloud on what he reads in very plain terms, and sometimes they

hear 'That's a damned lie,' or some such remark, without knowing

to what it applies. After breakfast he devotes himself with Sir

Herbert Taylor to business till two, when he lunches (two cutlets

and two glasses of sherry); then he goes out for a drive till

dinner time; at dinner he drinks a bottle of sherry--no other

wine--and eats moderately; he goes to bed soon after eleven. He

is in dreadfully low spirits, and cannot rally at all; the only

interval of pleasure which he has lately had was during the

Devonshire election, when he was delighted at John Russell's

defeat. He abhors all his Ministers, even those whom he used

rather to like formerly, but hates Lord John the most of all.

When Adolphus told him that a dinner ought to be given for the

Ascot races he said, 'You know I cannot give a dinner; I cannot

give any dinners without inviting the Ministers, and I would

rather see the Devil than any one of them in my house.' I asked

him how he was with them in his inevitable official relations. He

said that he had as little to do with them as he could, and bowed

them out when he gave any of them audiences as fast as possible.

He is peculiarly disgusted with Errol, for whom he has done so

much, and who has behaved so ungratefully to him; but it is a

good trait of him that he said 'he hoped the world would not

accuse Errol of ingratitude.' He did not invite Errol to the

Castle even for the Ascot races, and has seen little or nothing

of him since the change. Adolphus said that he believed he was

saving money. He has L120,000 a year, of which L40,000 goes in

pensions; the rest is at his own disposal. He gives up his

Hanoverian revenue--about L16,000 a year--to the Duke of

Cambridge.

June 21st, 1835 {p.265}

Yesterday I dined with Lord Ripon; Lord Grey and Stanley and

Graham dined there. I sat next to the latter, who holds nothing

but Tory language. He talked of Stanley's letter to Sir Thomas

Hesketh, and of the great offence it has given the Tories. Graham

thought it indiscreet and uncalled for, though in the principles

(anti-clubbism and anti-associations) he agreed. Graham is very

full of the expedition to Spain,[7] and expresses much alarm at

the idea of an army being formed which is to act independently of

the control and authority of the Government, to be composed of

Irish Catholics, supplied by O'Connell (who, he says, has been to

Alava and offered him any number of men) and commanded by Evans,

who is a Republican. He believes that Peel entertains the same

sentiments of aversion and alarm that he does; but he said that

when he attempted to draw from him his opinion the other night he

could not succeed; that Stanley has no alarm on the subject;

expects that on Wednesday next Peel will make a severe attack

upon the Government on this matter; [but this fell to the

ground].

[7] [This was the Spanish Legion, commanded by General de

Lacy Evans. Licence was given under the Foreign

Enlistment Act for British subjects to enter the

service of Queen Isabella.]

In the morning yesterday I was in court for the unfortunate case

of Swift and Kelly, about which I cannot help taking an interest

from having been originally concerned in it, and because I think

there has been great villany somewhere. Some of the circumstances

connected with this appeal are curious, as showing the accidents

on which the issue of matters of vital importance to the parties

often depend, and how the mistakes or selfishness of individuals

concerned may influence the result, and in a way they little

expected or calculated upon.

June 27th, 1835 {p.266}

I am again tormented to death with the Committee on West India

places, and menaced with a report that will be fatal to my

case.[8] Graham has been very obliging about it, and attended the

Committee on Thursday to see what they were about and give me

notice. I went to Lord Melbourne yesterday and stated my case to

him, invoking his protection, and he appeared extremely well

disposed to do what he could for me. I told him I did not wish

him to pledge himself till he had seen the case and considered

it, such as I had laid it before the Committee; and then, if he

is satisfied that I stand upon tenable grounds, I will ask him to

exert his influence and authority in my behalf. However, I much

doubt whether, strive and struggle as I may, I shall ever escape

from the determination of this morose and rigid millionaire

[Francis Baring, who was not, however, a millionaire or anything

like it, either _in praesenti_ or _in futuro_] to strip me of my

property; and I have made up my mind to its loss, though resolved

to fight while I have a leg to fight upon.

[8] [Mr. Greville held the sinecure office of Secretary of

the Island of Jamaica, which was threatened at this

time by a Committee of the House of Commons. He

succeeded, however, in retaining it, until he

voluntarily resigned the appointment many years

afterwards. His salary as Clerk of the Council was

diminished by L500 a year as long as he held the two

offices.]

Yesterday we were again occupied all day with Swift and Kelly,

which to-day will be brought to a close. The conduct of Brougham

on this trial exceeds all imagination and belief. From the

beginning he has taken a one-sided view of the case, and

apparently set out with a bias which has continually increased,

till he has become altogether identified, and in a manner

passionately identified, with the appellant's side; and he

exhibits this bias by one continual course of advocacy, battling

every argument and every point with the respondent's counsel with

a virulence and an intemperance that are so disgusting that my

blood boils while I listen to him. But his conduct in all other

respects displays the most extraordinary contrast with that of the

other judges who sit there; they, at least, listen attentively and

consecutively to the whole case, and when they do interrupt it is

for the purpose of obtaining explanations and elucidations, and

without the exhibition of any bias. But he is writing letters,

reading newspapers, cutting jokes, attending only by fits and

starts; then, when something smites his ear, out he breaks, and

with a mixture of sarcasm and ribaldry and insolence he argues and

battles the point, whatever it may be.

[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL.]

_Afternoon._ I am just come from the court. Lushington finished

his speech at two, and when Pemberton was about to reply Brougham

announced that he must go away to the London University, where he

was to distribute prizes. The consequence was that the reply was

deferred till next Wednesday, and the parties will be put to the

expense of L60 more. His conduct to-day was exactly of a piece

with that which he has exhibited throughout the trial. With all

the ingenuity and astuteness of which he is master he has

attacked every part of the respondent's case; and, to do him

justice, he has often displayed great acuteness and expressed

himself with admirable force and precision; but it was the

conduct of an advocate and not of a judge, and a much better

advocate has he been for Swift than either of those he retained.

(Pemberton, however, conducted the case with consummate skill and

judgment.) He finished by declaring that as far as he was

concerned he should not desiderate a reply, except on one or two

points on which he wished to hear it. After the court broke up

Baron Parke came into my room and asked my opinion, at the same

time telling me his own, which was as decidedly against the girl

as Brougham's. I argued the case with him, especially the points

which Lushington failed to enforce as strongly as I think he

might have done, but his mind was made up. Shadwell, on the

contrary, leans the other way, and agreed with me in my view of

it. It is, however, very clear that nothing can prevent the

reversal of Sir John Nicholl's judgment; for Erskine will very

likely go with Brougham and Parke, and if he does not Lord

Lansdowne undoubtedly will; but if I were to attend this court a

hundred years I should never forget the conduct of Brougham on

this trial. My disgust would not have been a jot less had he

espoused the same side that I do; and if I were myself engaged in

a suit, and he were to take up my own cause in such a barefaced

and outrageous manner, with such an utter contempt of dignity and

decency, I should feel the utmost shame at such partiality,

though exerted in my behalf.

June 30th, 1835 {p.268}

I went to Melbourne on Sunday and carried him my case.[9] He told

me he had already desired Spring Rice to speak to Baring on the

subject, and I believe he will do what he can; but these great

people, however well disposed, can seldom be urged into

sufficient resolution and activity to take an energetic way of

settling the matter, and they have always so much consideration

for each other that Melbourne will probably, with all his

good-nature, feel a sort of delicacy to his subordinate colleague

in rescuing me from his clutches. Yesterday I went to the Duke of

Wellington and gave him my case to read, requesting him to exert

his influence with his Tories, and get them to attend the

Committee and defend me there. He read it, approved, and promised

to speak to both Peel and Herries. I had previously desired

George Dawson to speak to Peel. I might certainly, after the very

essential services I rendered Peel and his Government, go with

some confidence to Peel or any of them and ask for their aid in

my difficulty; but it is not wise to remind men of an obligation;

if they do not feel it without being reminded they will not be

made to do so by any hint, and an accusation of ingratitude will

be implied, which will only excite their resentment; if they are

sensible of the obligation they will return it without any

reminder.

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

[Page Head: THE POPE AND THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.]

After I had said what I had to say to Melbourne he asked me what

was thought of the Tithe Bill. I told him it was thought a very

outrageous measure by the Tories, but that I thought it useless

and that it did not go far enough. 'I know you do,' he said, 'but

such as it is it will very likely overturn the Government.' He

then talked over the Irish question, and owned that nothing could

settle it, that _they_ might perhaps bolster up the Irish Church a

little longer than the other party could, that they, however,

could not do _more_ than this now, and it was only doubtful if

they could do _this_. He talked the language of reason, and with a

just sense of the insuperable difficulties which present

themselves on all sides with respect to this question, but at the

same time of their eventual (though as to time uncertain)

solution. I told him that I had long been of opinion that the only

practicable and sound course was to open a negotiation with Rome,

and to endeavour to deal with the Catholics in Ireland and the

ministers of the Catholic religion upon the same plan which had

been _mutatis mutandis_ adopted universally in Germany and almost

all over the Continent, and that there was nothing the Church of

Rome desired so much as to cultivate a good understanding with us.

He then told me a thing that surprised me, and which seemed to be

at variance with this supposition--that an application had been

made to the Pope very lately (through Seymour) expressive of the

particular wish of the British Government, that he would not

appoint M'Hale to the vacant Catholic bishoprick, _anybody but

him_, notwithstanding which the Pope had appointed M'Hale; but on

this occasion the Pope made a shrewd observation. His Holiness

said that 'he had remarked for a long time past that no piece of

preferment of any value ever fell vacant in Ireland that he did

not get an application from the British Government asking for the

appointment.' Lord Melbourne supposed he was determined to show

that he had the power of refusing and of opposing the wishes of

Government, and in reply to my question he admitted that the Pope

had generally conferred the appointment according to the wishes of

Government. Can anything be more absurd or anomalous than such

relations as these? The law prohibits any intercourse with Rome,

and the Government whose business it is to enforce the law has

established a regular but underhand intercourse, through the

medium of a diplomatic agent, whose character cannot be avowed,

and the Ministers of this Protestant kingdom are continually

soliciting the Pope to confer appointments, the validity, even the

existence, of which they do not recognise, while the Pope, who is

the object of our orthodox abhorrence and dread, good-humouredly

complies with all or nearly all their requests. These are the

national and legislative follies of this wise and prosperous

people, and such is the false position into which we are drawn by

a long course of detestable policy--policy arising at first out of

circumstances, and eventually adhered to from those powerful

prejudices which struck their roots so deep into the soil that the

force of reason and philosophy has not yet been sufficient to tear

them up. Peel, in one of his speeches on Catholic emancipation,

bade the House of Commons not to deceive itself, and to be aware

that if that Bill was carried, we must have Episcopal (or

Protestant) England, Presbyterian Scotland, and Catholic Ireland.

He prophesied well and truly no doubt, and to that consummation

affairs will eventually come, as they ought to come, though not

without many a struggle, through many a year. The prophecy of Peel

is advancing to its accomplishment, but he has either forgotten it

or finds it convenient to forget it.

[Page Head: THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON ON SIR W. NAPIER.]

Yesterday the Duke of Wellington talked about the Spanish war,

the nature of which he described very well, and expressed his

opinion that on the whole the Christinos have the best chance; he

said Zumalacarreguy was an able man, and that his death must have

a very important influence on the result. We talked of Napier's

controversy with Perceval.[10] He said Napier had not fairly

treated Perceval's character in the controversy, said he had

never read a syllable of the book, in order to keep clear of

discussions, but that when the work was completed, and all

controversies were silenced, he might probably look it over, and

if he discovered any errors tell the author of them. He said that

no doubt the army had been greatly in want of money, but that

this was not the fault of the Government. It was a great mistake

to suppose that any advantage had been derived (as to obtaining

funds) from the bank restriction; certainly the raising of loans

was facilitated by it, but the war would have been much less

expensive without it, and he had always been of opinion that the

immediate cause of the bank restriction was the Loyalty Loan.

This loan had drained the bankers and individuals of ready money,

and the consequence was a stagnation in commerce, and therefore

in circulation, which rendered the bank restriction necessary. He

then talked of the Walcheren expedition, and said that though it

was wretchedly conducted and altogether mismanaged, it was not

ill-planned, and if they had gone straight to Antwerp it might

have rendered very great service to the general cause, and have

put Bonaparte in great difficulties. I had always fancied that he

had disapproved of that expedition.

[10] [The Duke referred to Sir William Napier's 'History of

the Peninsular War.']

July 1st, 1835 {p.271}

This morning Pemberton was heard in reply in Swift's case, and

after a short discussion the court came to a resolution to upset

Sir John Nicholl's decision. Brougham behaved very decently

to-day, and stated fairly enough his opinion, but he was quite

clear, and so was Baron Parke, as to the judgment. The Vice-Chancellor

with hesitation acquiesced, and Erskine said nothing; the Lord

President went with them, so that the court was unanimous.

From thence I went to St. James's to swear in Sir Charles Grey[11]

and Charles Fitzroy Privy Councillors, when we had a most curious

burst of eloquence from his Majesty. This is the first time I have

seen him and his present Ministers together, and certainly they do

not strike me as exhibiting any mutual affection. After Sir Charles

Grey was sworn the King said to him, 'Stand up,' and up he stood. He

then addressed him with great fluency and energy nearly in these

words:--'Sir Charles Grey, you are about to proceed upon one of the

most important missions which ever left this country, and, from your

judgment, ability, and experience, I have no doubt that you will

acquit yourself to my entire satisfaction; I desire you, however, to

bear in mind that the colony to which you are about to proceed has

not, like other British colonies, been peopled from the mother

country--that it is not an original possession of the Crown, but

that it was obtained _by the sword_. You will take care to assert

those undoubted prerogatives which the Crown there possesses, and

which I am determined to enforce and maintain, and I charge you by

the oath which you have just taken strenuously to assert those

prerogatives, _of which persons who ought to have known better have

dared even in my presence to deny the existence_.' His speech was

something longer than this, but the last words almost precisely the

same. The silence was profound, and I was amused at the astonishment

depicted on the faces of the Ministers. I asked Lord Lansdowne and

Lord Holland who it was that he alluded to. Neither knew, but the

former said he thought it might be Ellice, and that the King

referred to something Ellice had said to him when he was Minister.

Somebody said they thought it was Spring Rice, but that could not be

when Rice was sitting at the table. I have heard many specimens of

his eloquence, but never anything like this. After this he had to

give Durham an audience on his embassy, which must have been very

agreeable to him, as he hates him and the Duchess of Kent, whose

'magnus Apollo' Durham is.

[11] [Sir Charles Grey had just been appointed Governor of

Jamaica. He had previously filled for a short time the

office of Chief Justice of Bengal, and enjoyed at this

time a considerable reputation in society. The Minister

to whom the King referred in his concluding observation

was Lord Glenelg as will be seen presently.]

July 3rd, 1835 {p.272}

[Page Head: LORD STANLEY AND GRAHAM CROSS THE HOUSE.]

The night before last Lord Stanley and Graham quitted their

neutral seats below the gangway, and established themselves on

the opposite bench below Peel. This was considered as an

intimation of a more decided hostility to the present Government,

and as an abandonment of the neutrality (if such it can be

called) which they have hitherto professed. Last night O'Connell

made a very coarse attack upon Stanley in consequence of this

change, which lashed him into a fury, and a series of retorts

followed between them, without any result. O'Connell half

shuffled out of his expressions, but refused to apologise; the

chairman (Bernal) took no notice, and the matter ended by a

speech from Stanley and a few remarks upon it from Lord John

Russell. The former stated his reasons for this ostentatious

locomotion, which amounted to this: that he had been rudely

treated in the House by ironical cheers and other intelligible

sounds, and attacked by the Government newspapers, and he had,

therefore, departed from a society for which he owned he was not

fitted. It was not, I think, dignified or judicious, and George

Bentinck, the most faithful of his followers, was not satisfied

with the proceeding or the explanation. His party, such as it

was, was finally extinguished by this act, though it hardly had

any existence before; some five or six men, among whom were Gally

Knight, George Bentinck, Stratford Canning, and Sir Matthew

Ridley, went over to the Opposition benches; the others dispersed

where they chose.

The real history of the transaction is this: it originated with

Graham, and it is not the first time he has lugged Stanley into

what may be called a scrape. He was returning from some division

to his usual seat when he was assailed by those cheers, and some

voice cried out, 'Why don't you stay where you are?' on which he

bowed in acquiescence to the quarter whence the recommendation

proceeded, and instantly retreated to the other side. The next

day he told Stanley that _he_ must now stay where he was, and at

the same time he produced the 'Globe' newspaper, which contained

a very coarse attack upon Stanley himself. This article, together

with Graham's representation, determined him to take up his

position on the Opposition bench, and accordingly there he went,

but without any intimation to his friends, who, to their great

surprise, found him there, and only got from him the above

explanation that evening in the House. Lord John Russell's reply

to Stanley's speech was very courteous, and rather well done as

far as it went, for he only said a few words. Lord Stanley is

certainly fallen from his high estate, and is in a very different

position from that which he aspired to occupy at the beginning of

the session. He is without a party, and without any authority in

the House except what he derives from his own talents for debate.

He has now no alternative but to unite himself with Peel's party,

and to act under him, without any pretension to competition, and

without the possibility of being considered as a separate element

of political power. He has been brought to this by a series of

false steps from his first refusal to join Peel, followed by his

flippant and undecided conduct throughout the great contest. The

Whigs and the Tories both hate him, and neither will be very

ready to forgive him. There is a mixture of contempt in the

dislike of the former, and an undisguised satisfaction among the

most violent at having got rid of him, which make any future

approximation to their side impossible, and the Tories, though

they will receive him in their ranks, will never forgive him for

his conduct, to which they attribute the failure of the

Conservative effort, for his presumption in endeavouring to set

up a middle party and render himself the arbiter of the contest,

and especially for his affectation of want of confidence in Peel

and his attacks upon the Duke. In the meantime this move of

Stanley's has rather served to strengthen the Government in the

House of Commons; between the disposition of many to go with

Government, the lukewarmness and indolence of the Conservatives,

and the steady attendance of a phalanx of Radicals, they have got

good, regular, steady-working majorities, and appear as strong in

the House of Commons as any Government need be.

July 4th, 1835 {p.274}

Yesterday Brougham gave judgment in the case of Swift and Kelly--a

written judgment and at great length. I thought it remarkably well

done, embracing all the points of the case, and laying down the law

and the reasons for reversing the decree of the court below in a

very forcible and perspicuous manner. He must have written this

judgment with great rapidity, for it was only on Tuesday afternoon

that it was settled to be given on Thursday, all of which is a proof

of his admirable talents. His conduct on the last day of the hearing

and this judgment in some degree made up for his previous

intemperance and violence. He said that he had shown the judgment to

Lord Lyndhurst, who entirely agreed with him. A negotiation had been

previously opened to endeavour to get the other side to concur in an

application to the court to stay the judgment and to consent to a

pecuniary compromise, but it was quite ineffectual.

[Page Head: ALAVA AND THE DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.]

A night or two ago there was a breeze at Lady Jersey's between

the Duke of Cumberland and Alava, and many stories made of it,

more than were true. The Duke, who had frequently taunted him

before, was again attacking him about his expedition and Spanish

affairs generally, when Alava got into a fury and said to him,

'Monseigneur, Don Carlos peut etre roi d'Espagne, mais il ne sera

jamais le roi du general Alava.' This Lord Jersey told me, and

that the other things he is reported to have said to the Duke are

not true.

July 7th, 1835 {p.275}

I can't deny that many persons have shown a very kind disposition

to assist me in this business of my Jamaica place, of different

political persuasions, and with most of whom I have but a very

slight personal acquaintance, among these none more than Mr.

Gladstone and Lord Lincoln, neither of whom did I know to speak

to till I put myself into communication with them on this

business. On the other hand Charles Wood, who is against me in

his opinion, has been the channel of communication with Baring

and shown generally a good will towards me. These demonstrations

are agreeable enough, and contribute to put one in harmony with

mankind, but it is after all a humiliating position, and I feel

unutterable disgust, and something akin to shame, at being

compelled to solicit the protection of one set of men, and the

friendly offices of another, in order to be maintained in the

possession of that which is in itself obnoxious to public feeling

and opinion. A placeman is in these days an odious animal, and as

a double placeman I am doubly odious, and I have a secret kind of

whispering sensation that these very people who good-naturedly

enough assist me must be a little shocked at the cause they

advocate. All that can be said in my favour is not obvious, nor

can it be properly or conveniently brought forward, and all that

can be said against me lies on the surface, and is universally

evident. The funds from which I draw my means do not somehow seem

a pure source; formerly those things were tolerated, now they are

not, and my prospects were formed and destiny determined at a

remote period, while I incur all the odium and encounter all the

risks consequent upon the altered state of public feeling on the

subject.

July 15th, 1835 {p.276}

[Page Head: THE KING AND HIS MINISTERS.]

Sefton told me that a correspondence has taken place between Lord

Glenelg and Sir Herbert Taylor about that speech of the King's at

the Council on Wednesday se'nnight. Glenelg felt himself called

upon to enquire whether the blow was aimed at him, and it was

evident from the tenor of the reply that it was. I heard from

Stephen a day or two afterwards the real truth of this matter. It

was Lord Glenelg that the King intended to allude to in his

speech. Lord Melbourne spoke to his Majesty on the subject,

remonstrated, and said it was impossible to carry on the

government if he did such things. He said that he was greatly

irritated, and had acted under strong feelings in consequence of

what Glenelg had said to him. Melbourne rejoined, 'Your Majesty

must have mistaken Lord Glenelg.' 'Not at all,' said the King,

and he then went into a dispute they had had about the old

constitution of Canada--I forget what, but something the King

asserted which Glenelg contradicted. He repaired to the Colonial

Office and told Stephen, who informed him that the King was right

and he was wrong. (The King, in fact, had got it up, and had the

thing at his fingers' ends.) This was awkward; however, it ended

in the King's making a sort of apology and crying _peccavi_ for

the violence of his language, and this will probably be somewhat

of a lesson to him, though it will not diminish the bitterness of

his sentiments towards his Ministers.

I expressed my astonishment that any man could consent to stay in

office after receiving such an insult as this was, to which

Stephen replied that they were all thoroughly aware of their

position relatively to the King and of his feelings towards them;

but they had undertaken the task and were resolved under all

circumstances to go through with it, and, whatever he might say

or do, they should not suffer themselves to be influenced or

shaken. This is the truth; they do not look upon themselves as

_his_ Ministers, and perhaps they cannot do otherwise as things

now are. It is, however, a very melancholy and mischievous state

of affairs, and does more to degrade the Monarchy than anything

that has ever occurred: to exhibit the King publicly to the world

as a cypher, and something less than a cypher, as an unsuccessful

competitor in a political squabble, is to take from the Crown all

the dignity with which it is invested by that theoretical

attribute of perfection that has been so conveniently ascribed to

it. Both King and Ministers have been greatly to blame, the one

for the egregious folly which made him rush into this sea of

trouble and mortification without calculation or foresight; the

other for the unrelenting severity with which they resolved to

gratify their revenge and ambition, without considering that they

could not punish him without degrading the throne of which he is

the occupant, and that the principle involved in his impunity was

of more consequence in its great and permanent results than any

success of theirs. But it would have required more virtue,

self-denial, wisdom, and philosophy than falls to the lot of any

public man individually in these days to have embraced all these

considerations, and it would have been a miracle if a great mob

of men calling themselves a party could have been made to act

under the influence of such moral restraints. The King's present

behaviour only makes matters worse. When he found himself

compelled to take these people back, and to surrender himself a

prisoner into their hands, he should have swallowed the bitter

pill and digested it, and not kept rolling it in his mouth and

making wry faces. He should have made a very bad business as

tolerable as he could, by yielding himself with a good grace; and

had he treated them with that sort of courtesy which one

gentleman may and ought to show to all those with whom he is

unavoidably brought into contact, and which implies nothing as to

feeling and inclination, he would have received from them that

respect and attention which it would have been equally their

interest and their desire to show. This would have rendered their

relations mutually much more tolerable, a decent veil would have

been thrown over all that was humiliating and painful, and the

public service must have gained by the tacit compromise; but

extreme folly, great violence in those about the King, and hopes

of emancipation secretly cherished, together with the intensity

of his hatred of his Ministers, have conspired to keep his

Majesty in his present unwise, irksome, and degrading posture.

The night before last there was a great concert on the staircase at

Stafford House, the most magnificent assembly I ever saw, and such

as I think no crowned head in Europe could display, so grand and

picturesque. The appearance of the hall was exactly like one of Paul

Veronese's pictures, and only wanted some tapestry to be hung over

the balustrades. Such prodigious space, so cool, so blazing with

light; everybody was _comfortable_ even, and the concert combined

the greatest talents in Europe all together--Grisi, Malibran,

Tamburini, Lablache, Rubini, and Ivanhoff. The splendour, the

profusion, and the perfect ease of it all were really admirable.

Dined yesterday with the Vice-Chancellor; sixteen people whom I

never saw before, almost all lawyers and lawyeresses. He told me

that he believed Melbourne had no intention as long as he was

Minister of changing the present arrangement with regard to the

Great Seal,[12] that he was of opinion that a Chancellor was of

no use, and that it was more convenient to keep in his own hands

the law patronage of the Great Seal, that this obviated the

disputes between Ministers and Chancellors, which have generally

been very violent, as between Thurlow and Pitt, and still more

between Eldon and Liverpool, which were incessant, and that

nothing could exceed the hatred Eldon had for Lord Liverpool, as

he knew.

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

Tavistock told me a day or two ago that his Majesty's Ministers

are intolerably disgusted at his behaviour to them and his

studied incivility to everybody connected with them. The other

day the Speaker was treated by him with shocking rudeness at the

drawing-room. He not only took no notice of him, but studiously

overlooked him while he was standing opposite, and called up

Manners Sutton and somebody else to mark the difference by

extreme graciousness to the latter. Seymour, who was with him as

Serjeant-at-Arms, said he had never seen a Speaker so used in the

five-and-twenty years he had been there, and that it was most

painful. The Speaker asked him if he had ever seen a man in his

situation so received at Court. Since he has been Speaker the

King has never taken the slightest notice of him. It is

monstrous, equally undignified and foolish.

July 18th, 1835 {p.279}

[Page Head: DECISION OF THE WEST INDIA COMMITTEE.]

Yesterday I sat all day at my office wondering why I heard nothing

of the Committee, till at half-past four o'clock Graham and Lord

Lincoln came in with smiling countenances, that announced good

news. They had had an angry debate of three hours' duration.

Baring moved that my holding the office of Secretary of Jamaica

was against the spirit of the Act of Parliament. Graham moved that

holding it with the leave of absence was in accordance with the

Act, and the division was nine to seven. A teller on each side and

Baring, who as chairman did not vote, made the numbers ten to

nine. They told me that Baring and Vernon Smith were furious. The

former endeavoured to turn off his defeat by proposing that the

question should be reopened on framing the report; but even Grote

opposed that, and he was forced to own that he was wrong in

proposing it. I must say that Gladstone told me that Baring

behaved very well after the division. I will not conceal the

truth, much as I have reason to complain of the man. I owe this

victory to the zealous assistance of the Conservatives, for not

one Whig or Radical voted with me; some of the former stayed away,

whether designedly or not I don't know, except Stanley, Secretary

to the Treasury, who told me he could not make up his mind to go

and vote against me. The majority consisted of Herries, Fremantle

(Sir Thomas), Gladstone, Nicholl, Graham, Lord Lincoln, Bethell,

Fector, Bramstone, and Pringle; the minority, Baring, Vernon

Smith, Pendarves, Ruthven, Scholefield, Evans, Grote, Hume, R.

Stewart. I never had any intimacy with any one of those who

supported me except with Graham, and we were friends, and very

intimate friends, twenty years ago. He dropped me all of a sudden

from caprice or calculation, and we have been on very decent but

scarcely cordial terms ever since. On this occasion I whipped up

the old friendship, and with great effect, for he has served me

very zealously throughout the business. I scarcely knew any of the

other before, Lord Lincoln and Gladstone only on this occasion,

and Fector, Nicholl, Bramstone, Bethell, and Pringle I do not know

now by sight. It is really amusing to see the joy with which the

news of Baring's defeat has been hailed by every member of his own

family, and all others who have heard of it. The goodwill of the

world (a very inert but rather satisfactory feeling) has been

exhibited towards me, and there is mixed up with it in all who are

acquainted with the surly reformer who is my adversary a lively

pleasure at his being baffled and mortified.

July 23rd, 1835 {p.280}

[Page Head: IRISH CHURCH BILL.]

Dined with Bingham Baring[13] yesterday, and met Whateley,

Archbishop of Dublin, a very ordinary man in appearance and

conversation, with something of pretension in his talk, and

telling stories without point, which smelt of the Common room;

nevertheless he is a very able man, and they told me that when he

is with such men as Senior, and those with whom he is very

intimate, he shines. I was greatly disappointed with what I saw

and heard of him. The Church Bill has been in the House of Commons

these two nights. Peel introduced his motion for dividing the Bill

in a very able speech, well adapted to the purpose, if anything

was to be gained in such a House of Commons; but the fact is, both

parties look beyond the immediate question: one wants to bolster

up the present system, the other to overthrow it, and though I go

along with Peel on his _point_, I go along with his opponents on

their _principle_. He stated, however, very forcibly the dilemma

in which his opponents are placed, and said, 'Why don't you make

the Establishment Catholic at once, openly and avowedly, or

abstain from doing what has that inevitable tendency?' Melbourne

said there was no escape from this, and I replied that I would

take him at his word, and that it must come to this, and he might

immortalise himself by settling the question. It certainly would

be a glorious field for a statesman to enter upon to brush away

all the obstacles which deeply rooted prejudices and chimerical

fears founded on false reasoning throw in his way, and bend all

his energies to a direct and vigorous course of policy, at once

firm and determined, looking the real evil in the face, and

applying the real remedy to it. If I were Prime Minister I would

rather fall in the attempt than work on through a succession of

expedients none of which were satisfactory to myself, to hold

language at variance with my opinions, and to truckle to

difficulties which it is now time boldly to face. I am as

satisfied as of my existence that if the heart's core of Peel

could be laid open, it would be found that he thinks so himself.

His is not the conduct of conviction, and he has been led into

contradictions and inconsistencies which must ever beset and

entangle those who persist in the attempt to maintain positions

which have ceased to be tenable.

[13] [Afterwards the second Lord Ashburton.]

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

To Petworth on Saturday and here on Monday; a smaller party than

usual, and no women on account of the Duchess of Argyll's death;

far better not to have women at a racing party. Tavistock told me

that a man (he did not say who) had been to Lord John, evidently

commissioned, though not avowedly, to tell him on the part of

Peel and Lord Stanley that they would both support him if he

would bring forward a proposition to pay the Irish Catholic

clergy. John, however, 'timet Danaos et dona ferentes,' and

hinted that his own popularity would be sacrificed if he did.

This is curious, however. John also told him that he never saw

Peel laugh so much as during Graham's speech the other night, and

he meant (but forgot it) to ask him why he laughed so. To Peel it

is nuts to see Stanley and Graham drawing down unpopularity on

themselves and every day widening the breach between them and

their old friends; but I was somewhat struck with the apparent

intimacy which was evinced in what John Russell said about Peel,

and asked his brother if they were on very good personal terms.

He said, 'Oh, excellent'--a sort of House of Commons intimacy.

Peel told John all he meant to do in the Committee on the Church

Bill--that he should propose so and so, and when they came to the

appropriation clauses he should make his bow and leave them.

Tavistock remarked (which had escaped me) that Peel had in his

last famous speech (certainly one of extraordinary ability)

omitted all mention of the principle of appropriation, and

confined himself to the proof that there was no surplus; but what

is most remarkable perhaps of all is this: Peel said to John, 'If

you _will_ appropriate, I will show you a much better plan than

your own,' and he accordingly did show him a plan by which there

would be a considerably greater surplus, and John acknowledged

that Peel's plan would be better than his own. I wonder what the

High Tories and the King would think of all this. While he is

quarrelling with Johnny and his friends for Peel's sake, and

undergoing martyrdom in his social relations with them, there

they are hand and glove, and almost concerting together the very

measures which are the cause of all the animosities and all the

political violence which agitate and divide the world. There is

something extremely ludicrous in all this.

I hear to-day that Peel is going into the country for good, and

leaves the Lords to deal with the Bills. He probably expects them

to commit some follies, and fancies he may as well be out of the

way.

August 4th, 1835 {p.283}

[Page Head: TORY PEERS AND THE CORPORATION BILL.]

Came to town on Sunday, having slept at Winchester on Saturday

night to see the town and the cathedral, and hear the service in

the latter, which was very moderate; the cathedral, however, is

worth seeing. When I got to town I found the Tory Lords had been

worked into a frenzy by Wetherell and Knight[14] at the bar of the

House of Lords (the latter of whom is said to have made a very

able speech), and Newcastle and Winchelsea bellowed and blustered

in grand style. Lord Rosslyn had told me some time ago that the

Duke would have great difficulty in managing his people, but that

I think was _a propos_ of the Church Bill. Yesterday at two

o'clock there was a great assemblage of Peers at Apsley House to

determine what was to be done, and amazed was I when I learnt at

about five o'clock that they had resolved to move that evidence

should be heard against the principle of the Municipal Corporation

Bill, which was accordingly moved by Carnarvon last night. At

dinner I met Stuart, to whom I expressed my astonishment at the

course they had adopted, and he owned that it was 'rather

hazardous,' and said that it was adopted at the suggestion of

Lyndhurst, who had insisted upon it at Apsley House, and that the

Duke had given way. He said that this had followed as a necessary

consequence of Brougham proposing that counsel should be heard

upon the details, as it appeared that the evidence on which the

Bill was founded was not to be relied on. He owned that it was

probable Peel would disapprove of the proceedings of the Lords,

and a breach between him and them be the consequence. He told me

that at a dinner on Saturday, at which the Dukes of Wellington and

Cumberland, Peel, and Wetherell were present, the question had

been argued; that Sir Charles Wetherell had urged all the leading

arguments he had used in his speech, and Peel had contested every

part and particle of his argument, while the Duke of Cumberland

did not utter a word. Stuart added that he heard the Government

meditated something very strong, and I repeated what Hobhouse had

told me in the morning, when I met him in the Park--that Melbourne

would probably adjourn the House, that there would be a call of

the House of Commons, and some strong resolution proposed there.

Some Whigs, however, who were present last night, suggested that

it would be better to adjourn the House of Commons, and let the

Lords go on with their evidence while they pleased to hear it, and

then reassemble the Commons in case the Bill was sent back to

them. Hobhouse said, 'Depend upon it, it is the _commencement de

la fin_'. It does certainly appear to me that these Tory Lords

will never rest till they have accomplished the destruction of the

House of Lords. They are resolved to bring about a collision with

the House of Commons, and the majority in each House grows every

day more rabid and more desperate. I am at a loss to comprehend

the views by which Lyndhurst, the ablest of the party, is

actuated, or how he can (if it be so, which from Stuart's account

is probable) fancy that any object is attainable which involves in

it a breach or separation between Peel and the great body of the

Tories. I would give much to see the recesses of his mind, and

know what he really thinks of all these proceedings, and to what

consequences he believes that they will lead.

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

August 6th, 1835 {p.284}

Yesterday to Brighton, to see my horse Dacre run for the Brighton

stake, which he won, and back at night. The day before I met the

Vice-Chancellor[15] at Charing Cross, going down, to the House of

Lords. 'Well,' said he, shrugging his shoulders, 'here I am going

to the House of Lords, after hearing evidence all the morning, to

hear it again for the rest of the evening.' 'What is to happen?'

I asked him. 'O Lord, it is the greatest bore; they have heard

Coventry and Oxford; they got something of a case out of the

first, but the other was beyond anything tiresome; they are sick

to death of it, and Brougham and Lyndhurst have agreed that _it

is all damned nonsense_, and they will hear nothing more after

Saturday next.' So this is the end of all this hubbub, and here

are these two great comedians thundering against each other in

the House of Lords overnight with all imaginable vehemence and

solemnity, only to meet together the next morning and agree that

_it is all damned nonsense_. There is something very melancholy

and very ludicrous in all this, and though that great bull calf

the public does not care about such things, and is content to

roar when he is bid, there are those on the alert who will turn

such trilling and folly to account, and convert what is half

ridiculous into something all serious. Winchelsea and Newcastle

after all did not vote the other night; they said they wanted no

evidence, that they would have no such Bill, and would not meddle

with the discussion at all except to oppose it point-blank. Fools

as they are, their folly is more tolerable and probably less

mischievous than the folly of the wise ones.

[15] The Great Seal being in Commission, the Vice-Chancellor

of England (Sir Lancelot Shadwell) sat as one of the

Commissioners on the Woolsack.

August 9th, 1835

[Page Head: THE KING AND LORD TORRINGTON.]

On Wednesday last at the levee the King made a scene with Lord

Torrington, one of his Lords of the Bedchamber, and a very

disgraceful scene. A card was put into Torrington's hands of somebody

who was presented, which he read, 'So and so, _Deputy-Governor_.'

'Deputy-Governor?' said the King, 'Deputy-Governor of what? I

cannot tell your Majesty,' replied Torrington, 'as it is not upon

the card.' 'Hold your tongue, sir,' said the King; 'you had better

go home and learn to read;' and shortly after, when some bishop

presented an address against (I believe) the Irish Tithe Bill, and

the King was going as usual to hand over the papers to the Lord in

waiting, he stopped and said to Lord Torrington, who advanced to

take them, 'No, Lord Torrington; these are not fit documents to be

entrusted to your keeping.' His habitual state of excitement will

probably bring on sooner or later the malady of his family.

Torrington is a young man in a difficult position, or he ought to

have resigned instantly and as publicly as the insult was offered.

The King cannot bridle his temper, and lets slip no opportunity of

showing his dislike, impotent as it is, of the people who surround

him. He admits none but Tories into his private society, wherever

he goes Tories accompany him; at Windsor Tories only are his

guests. This provokes his Ministers, but it necessarily makes them

more indifferent to the cultivation of his favour, and accustoms

them to consider themselves as the Ministers of the House of

Commons and not of the Crown.

My brother writes me from Paris very interesting details of the

funeral of the victims of the assassination plot,[16] which was

an imposing and magnificent ceremony, admirably arranged, and as

it has produced a burst of enthusiasm for the King, and has

brought round the clergy to him, it will serve to strengthen his

throne. His undaunted courage ingratiates him with the French.

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

August 15th, 1835

[Page Head: DEBATE ON THE CORPORATION BILL.]

On Wednesday the Lords commenced proceedings on the Corporation

Bill. The Ministers were aware that they meant to throw it out,

for Lord John Russell and Lord Lansdowne both told me at the

levee that they had heard such was the intention of the Tories.

However, they never had such a design, and the second reading

passed without a division; on Thursday they went into Committee,

and the freeman's clause was carried against Government by a

majority of 93--130 to 37--the debate being distinguished by

divers sallies of intemperance from Brougham, who thundered, and

menaced, and gesticulated in his finest style. When somebody

cried, 'Question,' he burst out, 'Do you think to put me down? I

have stood against 300 of the House of Commons, and do you think

I will give way to _you_?' This was uttered with all imaginable

rage and scorn.[17] This amendment was always anticipated, and

though the Government object to it, Lord Lansdowne told me that

as the rate-paying clause had passed without opposition, he did

not care for the other alterations, but the minority appeared to

everybody bordering upon the ridiculous; a Minister who could

only muster thirty-seven present, and who was in a minority of

three to one, presented a novel spectacle. Nobody could account

for the carelessness of their muster, for many Peers were absent

who might easily have been there, and several who belong to

Government by office or connexion. It did not, however, occur to

anybody that they would feel themselves compelled to resign upon

it, except perhaps to a few Tories, who hinted their notion that

Melbourne could not go on with such a majority against him,

which, however true it may be in the long run, signifies nothing

as to any immediate change.

[17] Brougham had some reason to be angry. Lyndhurst did not

reply to him on Wednesday, when he might have done so,

pleading the fatigue of late hours and his own

indisposition, and on Thursday he attacked him when he

was absent; he therefore gave him good ground of

complaint. Brougham's insolence and violence have done

great injury to the House of Lords by lowering the

style and character of their debates and introducing

coarseness and acrimony such as never were known there

before. Hardly a night passes without some

discreditable scene of squabbling and vituperation

bandied between him and the High Tory Lords, one or

other of them; their hatred of him and his scorn of

them are everlastingly breaking out. He and Lyndhurst,

though constantly pitted against each other, are great

friends all the time, but with the others it is a rabid

passion of hatred and contempt, mutually felt and

continually expressed.

[Page Head: ENERGY OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.]

Last night the qualification clause was carried against Government

by an equally large majority, or nearly so, and this time

Government does not seem disposed to take it so patiently. It was

well understood that a qualification would be imposed, and many of

the supporters of the Bill said they did not object thereto, but

they had no notion of such a qualification as Lyndhurst proposed

and carried last night, and the Duke of Richmond (whom I met at

Crockford's) told me that it would be fatal to the Bill. He saw

Lord John Russell after the division, who told him so, and that

the Commons would never take the Bill with such an alteration as

this. Richmond himself goes entirely with Government in this

measure, and I was rather surprised to hear him say that 'it had

been urged that Lord Stanley was opposed to this part of the Bill,

but that if this were so a man must judge for himself in so

important a matter,' which looks a little as if he meant to back

out of the dilly, and I should not be very much surprised if he

came into office again with these people, if they stay in. I asked

him what in his opinion would happen, and he replied that he

thought the House of Lords was nearly done for, that he expected

the Commons would reject their amendments and pass some very

strong resolutions; he should not be surprised if they refused to

pass the Appropriation Bill. I said they would hardly do that,

because it would be a measure against Government, and would compel

these Ministers to resign. This he admitted, but he went on to say

that he expected it would throw the House of Commons into a

ferment, that they would adopt some violent course, and then there

would be a 'row royal.' What astonishes me most in all this is

that Lyndhurst, a man of great abilities, and certainly, if

wishing for anything, wishing for the success of the party he

belongs to, should urge these desperate courses. He it was who

proposed the fatal postponement of Schedule A, which led to such

utter ruin and confusion, and now it is he who manages this Bill,

and who ventures to mutilate the Ministerial measure in such a

manner as will in all probability bring down all the wrath of the

Commons on him and his Conservative majority. I am not at all sure

but that the Government is content to exhibit its paltry numbers

in the House of Lords, in order that the world may see how

essentially it is a Tory body, that it hardly fulfils the

conditions of a great independent legislative assembly, but

presents the appearance of a dominant party-faction which is too

numerous to be affected by any constitutional process and too

obstinate to be turned from its fixed purpose of opposing all the

measures which have a tendency to diminish the influence of the

Conservative party in the country. It is impossible to look at the

disposition exhibited by this great majority and not admit that

there is very small chance of its acting harmoniously with the

present House of Commons, and that some change must take place in

order to enable Government and legislation to go on at all. It is

anything but clear that the nation desires the destruction of the

House of Lords, nor is it clear that the nation cares for its

preservation. It is, I think, exceedingly probable that a majority

of those who return members to Parliament, and in whom collectively

the supreme power really resides, though they might be content to

retain the House of Lords, if it could be made to act in harmony

with, and therefore necessarily in subordination to, the House of

Commons, would not hesitate for an instant to decree its downfall

if it became clear that there was no other way of crushing the

Tory faction which now rules triumphant in that House. At all

events the Lords are playing a desperate game; if it succeeds,

they who direct the energies of the party are great and wise men;

but what if it fail? They seem to have no answer to this but that

if they

Screw their courage to the sticking place,

It will _not_ fail.