Emperor Nicholas's Speech at Warsaw--His respect for opinion in
England--Burdett proposes the expulsion of O'Connell from
Brookes's--Club law--George Villiers at Madrid--Lord Segrave
Lord-Lieutenant of Gloucestershire--Dispute between France and
America--Allen's account of Mackintosh and Melbourne--
Prolongation of a Patent--Should Dr. Arnold be made a Bishop?--
Frederic Elliot--O'Connell's mischievous influence--Bretby--
Chesterfield MSS.--The Portfolio--Lord Cottenham and Lord
Langdale--Opening of Parliament--The Judicial Committee--
Poulett Thomson at the Board of Trade--Mr. Perceval's
interviews with the Ministers--Prospects of the Tories--Lord
Stanley's relations to them--Holland House Anecdotes--
Mischievous Effects of the division on his Address--The youth
of Macaulay--Brougham and Macaulay--Lord William Bentinck--
Review of Sir R. Peel's conduct--Dr. Hampden's appointment--The
Orange Lodges.
November 17th, 1835 {p.319}
Since I have been in London, on my return from the Newmarket
meetings, I have had nothing to note. The O'Connell and Raphael
wrangle goes on, and will probably come before Parliament. It
appears to make a greater sensation at Paris than here; there,
however, all other sensations are absorbed in that which the
Emperor of Russia's speech at Warsaw has produced, and which
indicates an excitement, or ferocity, very like insanity.[1]
Melbourne mentioned at dinner on Sunday that it was not only
quite correctly reported--rather _under_stated--but that after
he had so delivered himself, he met the English Consul in the
street, took him by the arm, walked about with him for an hour,
and begged him not to be _too hard_ upon him in his report to his
Government. I was not present, but Henry de Ros was, who told it
me. I am thus particular from, as it seems to me, the exceeding
curiosity of the anecdote, evincing on the part of the autocrat,
in the midst of the insolence of unbridled power, a sort of
consciousness of responsibility to European opinion, and a
deferential dread of that of England in particular.
[1] [This was the first time the Emperor Nicholas had
visited Poland since the Revolution of 1830, and he
took the opportunity to express himself in language of
excessive severity to the municipality of Warsaw,
threatening to lay the city in ruins if the Poles
rebelled again.]
November 22nd, 1835 {p.320}
My brother Algy showed me a few days ago a letter from the Duke
of Wellington to the Duke of Cumberland--a gossiping letter about
nothing, but in which there was this which struck me as odd. He
said that he was informed that the English who had been to the
reviews at Kalisch had been very ill received, and that even
those to whom _he_ had given letters of introduction had
experienced nothing but incivility, and that he regretted having
had the presumption to imagine that any recommendation of his
would be attended to by the Sovereigns or their Ministers--a
curious exhibition of pique, for what I believe to be an
imaginary incivility. It is a strange thing that he is very
sensitive, and yet has no strong feelings; but this is after all
only one of the forms of selfishness.
[Page Head: SOCIAL LAW.]
Burdett has written a letter to the managers of Brooks's, to
propose the expulsion of O'Connell. It will do no good; these
abortive attempts do nothing towards plucking him down from his
bad eminence, and their failure gives him a triumph. So it was in
Alvanley's case; there a great deal of very proper indignation
was thrown away, and O'Connell had the satisfaction of baffling
his antagonists, and obtaining a sort of recognition of his
assumed right to act as he does. It is a case which admits of a
good argument either way. On the one side is the perilous example
of any club taking cognizance of acts of its members, private or
political, which do not concern the club, or have no local
reference to it--a principle, if once admitted, of which it would
be next to impossible to regulate and control the application,
and probably be productive of greater evils than those it would
be intended to remedy. On the other hand, the case of O'Connell
is altogether peculiar; it is such a one as can hardly ever occur
again, and therefore may be treated as deserving an exception
from ordinary rules, because it not only cannot be drawn into a
precedent, but the very circumstance of its being so treated must
prevent the possibility of its recurrence. There exists a code of
social law, which is universally subscribed to, as necessary and
indispensable for the preservation of social harmony and decorum.
One man has given public notice that he is self-emancipated from
its obligations; that he acknowledges none of the restraints, and
will submit to none of the penalties, by which the intercourse of
society is regulated and kept in order; and having thus
surrounded himself with all the immunities of irresponsibility,
'out of the reach of danger he is bold, out of the reach of shame
he is confident.' Instead of feeling that he is specially bound
to guard his language with the most scrupulous care, and to
abstain religiously from every offensive expression, he mounts
into regions of scurrility and abuse inaccessible to all other
men, and he riots in invective and insult with a scornful and
ostentatious exhibition of his invulnerability, which renders him
an object of execration to all those who cherish the principles
and the feelings of honour.
November 29th, 1835 {p.321}
There are gloomy letters from George Villiers at Madrid; he
attributes the Spanish difficulties more to the conduct of Louis
Philippe than anything else, who, he says, is playing false
diabolically. Mendizabal is very able, but ill surrounded; no
other public man of any merit. Parties are violent and individuals
foolish, mischievous, and corrupt; the country poor, depopulated,
ignorant--out of such elements what good can come? His letters (to
his mother and brothers) are very interesting, very well written,
clever, lively; he seems a little carried away by the vanity and
the excitement of the part he plays, and I observe a want of
steadiness in his opinions and a disposition to waver in his views
from day to day; whereas it does not appear to me as if the state
of Spain depended upon diurnal circumstances and events, but more
upon the workings of great causes interwoven with, and deeply
seated in, the _positive_ state of society and the moral and
political condition of the nation.
December 4th, 1835 {p.322}
A letter I wrote the other day about O'Connell appeared on
Tuesday in the 'Times.' It rather took, for the evening (Tory)
papers all copied it, and I heard it was talked of. Yesterday
there appeared an answer of O'Connell's to Burdett's letter--very
short, but very clever; and those who know Burdett say, well
calculated to mortify and annoy him. I called on Stanley
yesterday, who said that he thought the Raphael case ought to and
would be made something of in the House of Commons, and that
Spring Rice, whom he had lately seen, had told him he thought it
a clear case of bribery. Lord Segrave has got the Gloucestershire
Lieutenancy, and this appointment, disgraceful in itself,
exhibits all the most objectionable features of the old
boroughmongering system, which was supposed to be swept away. (He
turned out a good Lord-Lieutenant.) He was in London as soon as
the breath was out of the Duke of Beaufort's body, went to
Melbourne, and claimed this appointment on the score of having
three members, which was more than any other man in England now
returned. 'My brothers,' he said, 'the electors do not know by
sight; it is my influence which returns them.' The appeal was
irresistible, and 'We are three' was as imperative with Melbourne
as 'We are seven' was with the Duke of Newcastle. The scarcity of
the commodity enhances its value, and now that nominations are
swept away, the few who are still fortunate enough to possess
some remnants are great men; and Segrave's three brothers, thrown
(as they would without scruple have been) into the opposite
scale, would have nearly turned it. There is a very respectable
Whig (Lord Ducie) in the county, whom everybody pointed out as
the fittest successor to the late Duke; but he has not three
members, and if he had, he would not shake them _in terrorem_
over Melbourne's head.
December 10th and 11th, 1835 {p.322}
[Page Head: AMERICA AND FRANCE.]
Our Government are in a great alarm lest this dispute between the
French and Americans should produce a war, and the way in which we
should be affected by it is this:[2]--Our immense manufacturing
population is dependent upon America for a supply of cotton, and
in case of any obstruction to that supply, multitudes would be
thrown out of employment, and incalculable distress would follow.
They think that the French would blockade the American ports, and
then such obstruction would be inevitable. A system like ours,
which resembles a vast piece of machinery, no part of which can be
disordered without danger to the whole, must be always liable to
interruption or injury from causes over which we have no control;
and this danger must always attend the extension of our
manufacturing system to the prejudice of other interests; so that
in case of a stoppage or serious interruption to the current in
which it flows the consequences would be appalling; nor is there
in all probability a nation on the Continent (our good ally Louis
Philippe included) that would not gladly contribute to the
humiliation of the power and diminution of the wealth of this
country.
[2] [This dispute arose from the detention of American
ships by the Emperor Napoleon under the Continental
system. The Americans claimed large damages, and the
negotiation lasted twenty years. At length General
Jackson, the American President, insisted on payment,
and the French Government settled the matter for
twenty-five millions of francs; but the question led to
a change in the French Ministry.]
December 16th, 1835 {p.323}
Dined with Sefton the day before yesterday to meet the Hollands;
sat between Allen and Luttrell. Melbourne was there in roaring
spirits; met me very cordially, and after dinner said, 'Well, how
are you? I had a great deal to say to you, but I forget what it
was now.' To which I replied, 'Oh, never mind now; we are here to
amuse ourselves, and we won't talk of other things.' I could not
have _settled_ anything with him there, so there was no use in
beginning; and this put him at his ease, instead of making him
hate the sight of me, and fancying wherever he met me that I
should begin badgering him about my affairs.[3] In the world men
must be dealt with according to what they are, and not to what
they ought to be; and the great art of life is to find out what
they are, and act with them accordingly.
[3] [This referred to some private affairs of Mr.
Greville's which were then under discussion, and on
which Lord Melbourne's influence was important.]
Allen talked of Mackintosh, and of his declaration of religious
belief on his deathbed, when he had never believed at all during
his life. He said that Mackintosh was not very deeply read in
theology. Melbourne, on the contrary, is, and being a very good
Greek scholar (which Mackintosh was not), has compared the
Evidences and all modern theological works with the writings of
the Fathers. He did not believe that Melbourne entertained _any
doubts_, or that his mind was at all distracted and perplexed
with much thinking and much reading on the subject, but that his
studies and reflections have led him to a perfect _conviction_ of
unbelief.[4] He thought if Mackintosh had lived much with
Christians he would have been one too. We talked of Middleton,
and Allen said that he believed he really died a Christian, but
that he was rapidly ceasing to be one, and if he had lived would
probably have continued the argument of his free enquiry up to
the Apostles themselves. He urged me to read Lardner; said he had
never read Paley nor the more recent Evidences, the materials of
all of which are, however, taken from Lardner's work. Luttrell
was talking of Moore and Rogers--the poetry of the former so
licentious, that of the latter so pure; much of its popularity
owing to its being so carefully weeded of everything approaching
to indelicacy; and the contrast between the _lives_ and the
_works_ of the two men--the former a pattern of conjugal and
domestic regularity, the latter of all the men he had ever known
the greatest sensualist.
[4] [John Allen was himself so fierce an unbeliever, and so
bitter an enemy to the Christian religion, that he was
very fond of asserting that other men believed as
little as himself. It was almost always Allen who gave
an irreligious turn to the conversation at Holland
House when these subjects were discussed there.]
Yesterday Lyndhurst and Brougham both came to the Council Office
to hear the first application for the renewal of a patent, and
though there was no opposition, they scrutinised the petition and
evidence with the utmost jealousy, which they did in order to
intimate that the granting a prolongation of the patent, even
when unopposed, was not to be a matter of course. It was a
pianoforte invention, and the instrument was introduced into the
Council Chamber, and played upon by Madame Duelcken for the
edification of their Lordships.
December 18th, 1835 {p.325}
Melbourne told me (the other night at Sefton's) that he had been
down to Oatlands to consult F. and H. about Dr. Arnold (of
Rugby), and to ascertain if he could properly make him a bishop;
but they did not encourage him, which I was surprised at,
recollecting the religious correspondence which formerly passed
between them and him. Arnold, however, shocks the High Churchmen,
and is not considered orthodox; and Melbourne said it would make
a great uproar to put him on the Bench, and was out of the
question. He had been reading his sermons, which he thought very
able.
December 20th, 1835 {p.325}
[Page Head: FREDERIC ELLIOT.]
The Treasury have sent a proposed draft of a minute in my case. When
it is over I shall not much care, for I have long since abandoned
all expectation of being rich, and there are none of my expensive
pursuits which I could not resign very cheerfully. Up to a certain
point riches contribute largely to the happiness of life, but no
farther. To be free from the necessity of daily self-denial and
continual calculation is indispensable to happiness, but the major
luxuries--ostentatious superfluities--contribute little or nothing
to rational enjoyment. I have just seen an excellent letter from
Frederic Elliot to Taylor, with a description of the state of
parties and politics in Lower Canada, which has been shown to the
Ministers, who think it the ablest _expose_ on those heads that has
been transmitted from thence. I have very little doubt that he will
_go far_; he has an admirable talent for business, a clear head,
liberal and unprejudiced opinions, and he writes remarkably well.[5]
[5] [This prediction was fulfilled. Mr. Frederic Elliot was
the youngest son of the Rt. Hon. Hugh Elliot, and
nephew of the first Earl of Minto. He went to Canada in
1835 with Lord Gosford, entered the Colonial Office on
his return to England, rose to be Assistant-Under-Secretary
in that department, and is now (1873) Sir T. Frederic
Elliot, K.S.M.G.]
December 24th, 1835 {p.326}
The Northamptonshire election has greatly elevated the spirits of
the Conservatives, and though the Whigs affect to hold it cheap,
they are not a little disconcerted by the magnitude of the
majority, so unexpected by both parties. Impartial moderate men
(such, for example, as the judges who sit in my Court) attribute
it to a strong prevailing feeling against O'Connell; and it would
appear to be so, because Hanbury, and even Vernon Smith, were
compelled to hold language very adverse to him on the hustings.
This O'Connell connection will, after all, probably end in
destroying the Government; his last letter against the Peers is a
very despicable performance, and he will be more injured by his
own than by Burdett's productions.
December 26th, 1835 {p.326}
The adherents of Government are certainly alarmed at the present
aspect of things. Lord William Bentinck, who is as Radical as
need be, wrote to his wife at Paris, 'Tory matters are certainly
looking up here; that senseless cry against O'Connell has
produced a great effect.' Nevertheless they affect at Brooks's to
hold it all very cheap.
December 30th, 1835 {p.326}
Wednesday at Roehampton--since Monday; for the first time since
Lord Dover's death. Luttrell, Poodle Byng, Baring Wall; Lady
Dover still in weeds. Lord Clifden not a jot altered from his
usual gaiety; such is the difference between the feelings of
youth and age.
The exultation of the Tories at the Northamptonshire election has
been woefully damped by the result of the Corporation elections,
nine out of ten of which have gone for the Radicals, and in many
places all the persons elected are of that persuasion. The
constituency is certainly different, and a desire to make _maison
nette_ of these dens of corruption is not unnatural; but it
affords a plausible subject for triumph on the Radical side, and
has a formidable appearance.
* * * * *
1836.
Melton Mowbray, January 20th, 1836 {p.327}
[Page Head: THE CHESTERFIELD PAPERS.]
I went with Henry de Ros from London to Middleton last Saturday
fortnight, stayed till the Thursday following, and then to
Badminton--eighteen years since I had been there. Last Thursday
to Bretby; slept at Worcester on Thursday night, stopped to see
the Cathedrals at Gloucester, Worcester, and Lichfield, and the
Church at Tewkesbury--all well worth seeing, and containing
curious monuments, especially that of Bishop Hough at Worcester
by Roubiliac, exceedingly grand; and in Lichfield Cathedral a
chapter-house of surpassing beauty. At Bretby the Duke of
Wellington had been, and Peel still was, but he departed early
the next morning. I had been anxious to go there to look over the
Chesterfield MSS., but I was disappointed; there were only three
large volumes of letters come-at-able out of thirty, the other
twenty-seven being locked up, and the key was gone to be mended.
These three I ran over hastily, but though they may contain
matter that would be useful to the historian of that period (from
1728 to about 1732), there was little in any way attractive, as
they consisted wholly of diplomatic letters to Lord Chesterfield
during his Embassy at the Hague. As this correspondence occupied
twenty volumes (for the three I found were the second, third, and
twentieth), I fear the others may not contain anything of greater
general interest.
I was desirous of seeing the Duke to hear what he says to the
Portfolio,[6] which makes so much noise here. Peel told me that
the Duke was not at all annoyed by it, and that he did not see
why Matuscewitz need be either; that Matuscewitz wrote what he
thought and believed at the time, as he was bound to do, and long
before his intimacy with the Duke began. He said that the letters
are certainly authentic, though possibly there may be some
omissions. But the Duke's women endeavour to stir up his
resentment, and to make him think himself ill-used, though he is
disposed to treat the matter with great good-humour and
indifference. Of politics I have heard little, and learnt
nothing; the Tory houses I have successively been at are all on
the alert, and fancy they are to do great things this next
session, but I expect it will all end in smoke.
[6] [A collection of diplomatic papers and correspondence
between the Russian Government and its agents,
published about this time by Mr. Urquhart, which was
supposed to throw light on the secret policy of the
Cabinet of St. Petersburg. They were, in fact, copies
of the original documents which had been sent to Warsaw
for the information of the Grand Duke Constantine when
Viceroy of Poland, and they fell into the hands of the
insurgents at the time of the Polish Revolution of
1830. Prince Adam Czartoryski brought them to England,
where the publication of them excited great attention.]
The law appointments of Pepys[7] and Bickersteth are reckoned
very good, and they have certainly been made with especial
reference to the fitness of the men to preside over their
respective Courts. Pepys's is perhaps one of the most curious
instances of elevation that ever occurred: a good sound lawyer,
in leading practice at the Bar, never heard of in politics, no
orator, a plain undistinguished man, to whom expectation never
pointed, and upon whom the Solicitor-Generalship fell as it were
by accident, finds himself Master of the Rolls in a few months
after his appointment, by the sudden death of Leach, and in
little more than one year from that time a peer and Chancellor. I
fancy there were considerable difficulties in settling these
appointments, and in satisfying disappointed expectants, but of
the details of the difficulties I know nothing. They will
probably confer some strength on the Government. We came here
yesterday, and are comfortably lodged at Wilton's.
[7] [Sir Christopher Pepys, Master of the Rolls, was raised
to the Peerage as Lord Cottenham, and received the
Great Seal. Mr. Bickersteth succeeded him as Master of
the Rolls, and was raised to the Peerage with the title
of Lord Langdale. These appointments were much
discussed, and at last decided by a vote of the
Cabinet, several of the Ministers being in favour of
making Bickersteth Lord Chancellor, because he promised
more as a Law Reformer.]
London, January 30th, 1836 {p.328}
[Page Head: PROSPECTS OF THE SESSION.]
Dinner yesterday for the Sheriffs.[8] The plan I had adopted
(which was not completely executed, owing to the absence of some
of the judges from the Exchequer on 'the morrow of St. Martin's')
did very well, and we had few difficulties with the English
counties. There was Lord Cottenham, for the first time, and
Howick and Poulett Thomson, their first appearances as Cabinet
Ministers. Parliament opens on Thursday, and as far as I can
judge with a favourable prospect for the present Government.
Stanley has openly expressed his opinion that no changes are
desirable, and Peel will not be anxious to thrust himself in,
with a doubtful chance of keeping his place if he can get it; so
the hot and sanguine Tories, who have been vastly elevated at the
prospect they thought was before them, will have to fret and fume
and chew the cud of disappointment. There was a great Tory
gathering at Drayton the other day, but I have not heard what
they resolved upon. Lord Lansdowne told me yesterday that Stanley
has declared openly the opinion above stated, and he seems to
think they are pretty safe. Tavistock wrote me word that the
Government meant to be moderate, and that any concessions would
be made by, and not to, the violent section. The great questions
likely to be discussed are the Appropriation clause and the Irish
Corporation Bill. The Government and O'Connell are not likely to
differ on anything but this, and if a strong measure passes the
House of Commons, the Lords will throw it out, and probably
Government will not in their hearts be sorry for it. In the
balanced state of parties, the tranquillity and prosperity that
prevail, possession is everything, and I am therefore quite
satisfied that nothing but some unforeseen circumstance or event
will disturb these people. Brougham is seriously ill at Brougham.
Melbourne has been in correspondence with him, and these
arrangements are by way of having been made with his concurrence.
Nothing whatever is settled as to ulterior law matters; the
Vice-Chancellor told me so yesterday, and the Chancellor told
him. They talk of a permanent judge in the Privy Council, which
would be a virtual repeal of the principal part of Brougham's
famous Bill; for if there was one permanent judge with a casual
_quorum_, the permanent judge would in point of fact be the real
administrator of the law, as he used to be under the old system.
[8] The Lord President of the Council gives an annual
dinner to his colleagues, at which the list of Sheriffs
for the ensuing year is settled. The arrangements are
made by the Clerk of the Council, after the nomination
of the Sheriffs by the Judges.
I had a great deal of conversation with Poulett Thomson last night
after dinner on one subject or another; he is very good-humoured,
pleasing, and intelligent, but the greatest coxcomb I ever saw,
and the vainest dog, though his vanity is not offensive or
arrogant; but he told me that when Lord Grey's Government was
formed (at which time he was a junior partner in a mercantile
house, and had been at most five years in Parliament), he was
averse to take office, but Althorp declared he would not come in
unless Thomson did also, and that, knowing the importance of
Althorp's accession to the Government, he sacrificed a large
income, and took the Board of Trade; that when this was offered to
him, he was asked whether he cared if he was President or
Vice-President, as they wished to make Lord Auckland President if
he (Poulett Thomson) had no objection. He said, provided the
President was not in the Cabinet, he did not care; and accordingly
he condescended to be Vice-President, knowing that all the
business must be done in the House of Commons, and that he must be
(as in fact he said he was) the virtual head of the office. All
this was told with a good-humoured and smiling complacency, which
made me laugh internally. He then descanted on the inefficiency of
his subordinates; that Auckland did not like writing, that nobody
else could write, and consequently every paper had been drawn up
by himself since he first entered the office. To do him justice I
believe he is very industrious. When he got into the Cabinet he
said he could no longer go on in this way, and accordingly he has
superannuated Lack, and is going to appoint the best man he can
find in his place. This operation has led to the removal of Hay,
whom Stephen replaces at the Colonial Office.
[Page Head: PERCEVAL'S APOSTOLIC MISSION.]
February 1st, 1836 {p.330}
Howick gave me an account yesterday of Spencer Perceval's
communications to the Ministers, and other Privy Councillors. He
called on Howick, who received him very civilly. Perceval began,
'You will probably be surprised when you learn, what has brought
me here.' Howick bowed. 'You are aware that God has been pleased
in these latter times to make especial communications of His will
to certain chosen instruments, in a language not intelligible to
those who hear it, nor always to those by whom it is uttered: I
am one of those instruments, to whom it has pleased the Almighty
to make known His will, and I am come to declare to you, &c...'
and then he went off in a rhapsody about the degeneracy of the
times, and the people falling off from God. I asked him what
Perceval seemed to be driving at, what was his definite object?
He said it was not discoverable, but that from the printed paper
which he had circulated to all Privy Councillors (for to that
body he appears to think that his mission is addressed), in which
he specifies all the great acts of legislation for the last five
years (beginning with the repeal of the Test and Corporation
Acts), as the evidences of a falling off from God, or as the
causes of the divine anger, it may perhaps be inferred that he
means they should all be repealed. It is a ridiculous and
melancholy exposure. His different receptions by different people
are amusing and characteristic. Howick listened to him with
patient civility. Melbourne argued with and cross-questioned him.
He told him 'that he ought to have gone to the Bishops rather
than to him,' to which Perceval replied, that one of the brethren
(Henry Drummond) was gone to the Archbishop. Stanley turned him
out at once. As soon as he began he said, 'There is no use, Mr.
Perceval, in going on this way with me. We had, therefore, better
put an end to the subject, and I wish you good morning.' He went
to Lord Holland, and Lady Holland was with great difficulty
persuaded to allow him to go and receive the Apostles. She
desired Lord John Russell (who happened to be in the house) to go
with him, but John begged to be excused, alleging that he had
already had his interview and did not wish for another. So at
last she let Lord Holland be wheeled in, but ordered Edgar and
Harold, the two pages, to post themselves outside the door, and
rush in if they heard Lord Holland scream. Perceval has been with
the King, and went to Drayton after Sir Robert Peel, but he
complains that he cannot catch the Duke of Wellington.
February 3rd, 1836 {p.332}
[Page Head: LYNDHURST ON THE HOUSE OF LORDS.]
A meeting at the Council Office yesterday on another patent case,
a gun--Baron Heurteloup, the famous lithotritic doctor and
inventor--which was clicked off for the information of their
Lordships. Since this Patent Bill, we have got very noisy between
percussion guns and pianofortes. I walked away with Lyndhurst to
hear what he had to say. He said that he understood Peel was come
to town with the intention of being very active, but that the Duke
talked of staying at Strathfieldsaye till after Easter; and if the
Duke did not attend the House of Lords, no more would he; he said
it was impossible to turn out the Government--what could they do?
that it would never do for them to come in again without a
considerable majority, and _that_ they had not, nor would have.
What would a dissolution do for them? Not, I said, anything
considerable, if the new Corporations were to have the influence
he always attributed to them, and I asked him whether the working
of the Municipal Bill promised to be as mischievous as he had
expected. He said, 'Yes, I think so;' but I could see that he does
not think so very badly of it as he once told me. However, I
gather from him that the leaders are aware that the time is not
come for attempting to push out the Government, and that they will
not try; their difficulty will be to deal with their own rash and
impatient followers, who are always for desperate courses.
Lyndhurst told me that he thought Peel felt very bitterly towards
Stanley, and that it must end in their decided opposition to each
other. I confess I never had much faith in any union between them
which was likely to be durable or satisfactory. Stanley has been
living constantly with the Whigs, and probably looks forward to
joining them again, when the settlement, or some settlement, of
the Church question will allow him; and it will be much more
congenial to his tastes and character to be the rival of Peel than
his subordinate. I told Lyndhurst that I hoped the House of Lords
would be moderate, confine their opposition to certain great
measures, and not thwart the Government without necessity. He said
he was desirous so to do, to deal with great measures of
legislation as they might see fit, but no more. I asked him why
they threw out certain Bills last year, among others the Dublin
Police Bill, to which there really had seemed to be no objection.
He said, for two reasons; one was that they did not choose to
admit the practice that after Parliament had been sitting many
months, during which Bills might have been sent up, and plenty of
time afforded for their consideration, they should be laid upon
the table of the House of Lords just at the end of the session,
when they were to be hurried over, and passed without that mature
deliberation which they required; and particularly as to the
Dublin Police Bill, that they well knew it was a mere job to
provide for certain of O'Connell's friends. He then mentioned a
fact in justification of the first of the above reasons--that, in
discussing with Duncannon one of the Irish Bills of which he had
the management, he alluded to one particular clause. Duncannon
asserted that there was no such clause in the Bill. He repeated
that there was, when Duncannon went away, and soon afterwards
returned and acknowledged that he had been in error, that the
clause was there, though he was not aware of it, nor had it been
inserted in the copy with which he had been first furnished.
I heard a great deal more about Perceval's proceedings, and those
of his colleagues yesterday; they continue to visit the Privy
Councillors. Lyndhurst told me he had been with him for an hour,
Lord Lansdowne the same. When he gave Lord Lansdowne his book, as
he glanced over it, Perceval said, 'I am aware it is not well
written; the composition is not perfect, but I was not permitted
to alter it; I was obliged to write it as I received it.'
Drummond went in a chaise and four to the Archbishop of York at
Nuneham, who endeavoured to stop his mouth with a good luncheon,
but this would not do. He told the Archbishop the end of the
world was approaching, and that it was owing to the neglect of
himself and his brethren that the nation was in its present awful
state. Perceval told Lord Lansdowne that their sect was
increasing greatly and rapidly; they have several congregations
in London, two clergymen of the Church of England have joined
them, and two men who still occupy their pulpits are only waiting
for the call which they daily expect to receive.
February 5th, 1836 {p.334}
Parliament met yesterday; the King received with great apathy.
The Tories have not begun very well. After boasting of their
increased numbers, and of the great things they had accomplished
by elections during the recess, they got beaten on a division by
41--a greater number than they were ever beaten by last year on
any great question. The speech was a very milk-and-water
production, and scarcely afforded a peg to hang an amendment
upon. It is true that on the point on which the amendment was
made (not pledging the House to adopt the principle of the
English Corporation Act in the Irish Bill) the Duke was probably
right, but a protest would have done just as well, and there was
no need to press an amendment on such a trifle. The other side
felt this in the House of Lords, and gave it up, though there
were so many Ministerial peers in the House that the division
would have been very near; but in the House of Commons Lord John
Russell would not give way, and what is more, Peel never had any
intention of moving any amendment, for there was a great meeting
in the morning at his house, and there it was resolved that none
should be moved; and certainly very few people expected any. At
last he moved it, because it had been moved in the House of
Lords, but it seems to have been a foolish, bungling business
altogether. The Tories are always hot for dividing, and the silly
idle creatures who compose the bulk of the party apologise for
their continual absence by saying, 'Oh, you never divide, so
what's the use of coming up,' as if divisions must be got up for
them when it suits their convenience to quit their hunting and
shooting and run up to town. Stanley made a strong speech against
the Government, to my great amazement, and, having been
ironically cheered by the Treasury bench, he got angry. He sat,
too, on the Opposition bench (the same on which Peel sits),
nearer the Speaker; still I do not believe that he will join the
Opposition; however, they are surprised and pleased at the tone
he took. Some fancy that the division and majority last night
will be useful to the Government, and make it out to be very
important, which, however, I think is making much more of it than
it deserves. The debate was very bad; everybody spoke wretchedly.
February 6th, 1836 {p.335}
I only heard last night what passed at Peel's meeting; for he
desired it might not be repeated, and that the meeting should be
considered confidential; he made them a speech, in which he
indicated in pretty plain terms, but without mentioning names,
that it was of great consequence to shape their proceedings so as
to get the support of Stanley, and that they never would be sure
what line he would take; so that he does look to Stanley,
notwithstanding what Lyndhurst says of his real sentiments
concerning him, which, no doubt, is correct.
February 7th, 1836 {p.335}
[Page Head: LORD HOLLAND'S ANECDOTES.]
Last night I went to Holland House; found my Lord and my Lady
sitting _tete-a-tete_. About twelve she went to bed, and Standish
and I stayed with him till two o'clock, hearing his accounts of
speeches and speakers of old times, and anecdotes, some of which
I had heard before, and some not, but they bear repeating. He is
marvellously entertaining in this way; the stories so good, so
well told, his imitations of the actors in the events which he
narrates giving you such a conviction of their fidelity. If Lord
Holland has prepared any memoirs, and put down all he remembers,
as well as all he has been personally concerned in, it will make
a delightful book. I asked him if his uncle and Pitt were in
habits of communication in the House of Commons, and on terms of
mutual civility and good-humour, and he said, 'Oh yes, very; I
think they had a great respect for each other; latterly I think
my uncle was more bitter against him'--I enquired whether he
thought they would have joined? He thought they might have done
so. He thinks the finest speeches Fox made (if it were possible
to select out of so many fine ones) were on the war, on the
Scrutiny, and on Bonaparte's overtures. Grattan complimenting him
on his speech on the war, he said, 'I don't know if it was good,
but I know I can't make a better.' Fox never wrote his speeches,
was fond of preparing them in travelling, as he said a postchaise
was the best place to arrange his thoughts in. Sheridan wrote and
prepared a great deal, and generally in bed, with his books, pen,
and ink, on the bed, where he would lie all day. Brougham wrote
and rewrote, over and over again, whole speeches; he has been
known to work fifteen hours a day for six weeks together.
It is inconceivable the effect the division on the address has
had. Holland said last night he thought it had given them a new
lease, and Hobhouse, whom I met in the morning in high glee,
talked with great contempt of the tactics and miserable
composition of the Tory party. He said that he knew to a vote
what their numbers would be on the Church question, and _on
everything else_ they should beat them hollow (he did not mean,
of course, to include the Irish Corporation Bill in this). The
sensible Tories admit it to have been a great blunder, but the
authors of the folly affect to bluster and put a good face on it,
though it is easy to see that they are really in doleful dumps.
But of all bad hits Stanley certainly made the worst. He went on
to the last moment living with the Ministers with the utmost
cordiality, and giving them to understand that he was generally
friendly to them; talked strong anti-Tory language, and impressed
on them the conviction that he was with them on everything but
the Church. (Exactly like his conduct to Peel and his former
colleagues on the matter of Free Trade when he separated from
them--1847.) If he had contented himself with declaring that he
did not mean to be committed to any particular course by the
address, and deprecated a division, he would not only have
prevented it, but he would have at once placed himself in a
respectable position as a sort of mediator and arbiter between
the two parties, and would have had the satisfaction of showing
the world that both were disposed to treat him with deference and
respect. A word from Stanley would have made Peel abstain from
moving his amendment or withdraw it. I met Graham the day before
yesterday in the Park, but only exchanged a few words with him.
He said the division was a very bad business.
February 9th, 1836 {p.337}
[Page Head: MACAULAY AND BROUGHAM.]
I was talking yesterday with Stephen about Brougham and Macaulay.
He said he had known Brougham above thirty years, and well
remembers walking with him down to Clapham, to dine with old
Zachary Macaulay, and telling him he would find a prodigy of a boy
there of whom he must take notice. This was Tom Macaulay. Brougham
afterwards put himself forward as the monitor and director of the
education of Macaulay, and I remember hearing of a letter he wrote
to the father on the subject, which made a great noise at the
time; but he was like the man who brought up a young lion, which
finished by biting his head off. Brougham and Macaulay disliked
each other. Brougham could not forgive his great superiority in
many of those accomplishments in which he thought himself
unrivalled; and being at no pains to disguise his jealousy and
dislike, the other was not behind him in corresponding feelings of
aversion. It was unworthy of both, but most of Brougham, who was
the aggressor, and who might have considered the world large
enough for both of them, and that a sufficiency of fame was
attainable by each. Stephen said that, if ever Macaulay's life was
written by a competent biographer, it would appear that he had
displayed feats of memory which he believed to be unequalled by
any human being. He can repeat all Demosthenes by heart, and all
Milton, a great part of the Bible, both in English and (the New
Testament) in Greek; besides this his memory retains passages
innumerable of every description of books, which in discussion he
pours forth with incredible facility. He is passionately fond of
Greek literature; has not much taste for Latin or French. Old Mill
(one of the best Greek scholars of the day) thinks Macaulay has a
more extensive and accurate acquaintance with the Greek writers
than any man living, and there is no Greek book of any note which
he has not read over and over again. In the Bible he takes great
delight, and there are few better Biblical scholars. In law he
made no proficiency, and mathematics he abominates; but his great
forte is history, especially English history. Here his superhuman
memory, which appears to have the faculty of digesting and
arranging as well as of retaining, has converted his mind into a
mighty magazine of knowledge, from which, with the precision and
correctness of a kind of intellectual machine, he pours forth
stores of learning, information, precept, example, anecdote, and
illustration with a familiarity and facility not less astonishing
than delightful. He writes as if he had lived in the times and
among the people whose actions and characters he records and
delineates. A little reading, too, is enough for Macaulay, for by
some process impossible to other men he contrives to transfer as
it were, by an impression rapid and indelible, the contents of the
books he reads to his own mind, where they are deposited, always
accessible, and never either forgotten or confused. Far superior
to Brougham in general knowledge, in fancy, imagination, and in
the art of composition, he is greatly inferior to him in those
qualities which raise men to social and political eminence.
Brougham, tall, thin, and commanding in figure, with a face which,
however ugly, is full of expression, and a voice of great power,
variety, and even melody, notwithstanding his occasional prolixity
and tediousness, is an orator in every sense of the word.
Macaulay, short, fat, and ungraceful, with a round, thick,
unmeaning face, and with rather a lisp, though he has made
speeches of great merit, and of a very high style of eloquence in
point of composition, has no pretensions to be put in competition
with Brougham in the House of Commons. Nor is the difference and
the inferiority of Macaulay less marked in society. Macaulay,
indeed, is a great talker, and pours forth floods of knowledge on
all subjects; but the gracefulness, lightness, and variety are
wanting in his talk which are so conspicuous in his writings;
there is not enough of alloy in the metal of his conversation; it
is too didactic, it is all too good, and not sufficiently
flexible, plastic, and diversified for general society. Brougham,
on the other hand, is all life, spirit, and gaiety--'from grave to
gay, from lively to severe'--dashing through every description of
folly and fun, dealing in those rapid transitions by which the
attention and imagination are arrested and excited; always
amusing, always instructive, never tedious, elevated to the height
of the greatest intellect, and familiar with the most abstruse
subjects, and at the same moment conciliating the humble
pretensions of inferior minds by dropping into the midst of their
pursuits and objects with a fervour and intensity of interest
which surprises and delights his associates, and, above all, which
puts them at their ease.
[_Quantum mutatus!_ All this has long ceased to be true of
Brougham. Macaulay, without having either the wit or the _charm_
which constitutes the highest kind of colloquial excellence or
success, is a marvellous, an unrivalled (in his way), and a
delightful talker.--1850.]
February 12th, 1836
[Page Head: LORD WILLIAM BENTINCK.]
Lord William Bentinck has published an address to the electors of
Glasgow which is remarkable, because he is the first man of high
rank and station who has publicly professed the ultra-Radical
opinions which he avows in this document. It is by no means well
done, and a very silly address in many respects. He is a man
whose success in life has been greater than his talents warrant,
for he is not right-headed, and has committed some great blunder
or other in every public situation in which he has been placed;
but he is simple in his habits, popular in his manners, liberal
in his opinions, and magnificently hospitable in his mode of
life. These qualities are enough to ensure popularity. Here is
the inscription for the column, or whatever it be, that they have
erected to his honour in India, written by Macaulay:--
TO
WILLIAM CAVENDISH BENTINCK,
who during seven years ruled India with eminent prudence,
integrity, and benevolence;
who, placed at the head of a great empire, never laid aside the
simplicity and moderation of a private citizen;
who infused into oriental despotism the spirit of British
freedom;
who never forgot that the end of government is the happiness
of the governed;
who abolished cruel bites;
who effaced humiliating distinctions;
who gave liberty to the expression of public opinion;
whose constant study it was to elevate the intellectual and moral
character of the nations committed to his charge;
THIS MONUMENT
was erected by men
who, differing in race, in manners, in language, and in religion,
cherish with equal veneration and gratitude
the memory of his wise, upright, and paternal administration.
February 20th, 1836 {p.340}
[Page Head: LORD SANDON'S OPINION OF PEEL.]
I walked home with Lord Sandon last night, and had much talk
about the state of parties, particularly about Peel and the
events at the close of the last session. He talked upon the usual
topic of Peel's coldness, uncommunicative disposition, want of
popular qualities, and the consequent indifference of his
followers to his person. With respect to last year, he said that
Peel had arranged with the Duke of Wellington and Lyndhurst the
course that it would be advisable to adopt with regard to the
Corporation Bill, and that he was put exceedingly out of humour
by the House of Lords adopting a different line; that the leaders
of the Lords found their party impracticable, and they were
compelled (or thought themselves so) to give way to the
prejudices of the majority. But Peel did not understand this
_knocking under_ to violence and folly, and his pride was
mortified, because it was a sort of renunciation of his authority
as leader and chief of the whole party. Accordingly it was with
reference to these proceedings that Peel spoke with great
bitterness to Sandon, and said that 'he never would be the tool
of the Lords,' He left town in high dudgeon, and was probably not
sorry to display his resentment at the same time with his power,
when he suddenly returned and made his speech on the Lords'
amendments. Sandon confirmed the statement of his having done
this without any communication with the Duke and Lyndhurst, in
which he thinks he was to blame. I think he ought to have seen
the Duke, and have imparted to him his intentions and his
motives; but with Lyndhurst he probably felt very angry for the
part he took. He has now, however, put himself more openly and
decidedly at the head of the party, and Sandon considers that
Stanley already virtually belongs to it, inasmuch as they sit
together and consult together, and the other day when he went to
Peel's house he found Stanley there.
February 21st, 1836 {p.341}
There is a mighty stir about the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the
Regius Professorship of Divinity at Oxford, on the ground of his
having put forth doctrines or arguments of a Socinian tendency.
The two Archbishops went to Melbourne with a remonstrance, but he
told them the appointment was completed, and that he had not been
aware of any objections to Dr. Hampden, and had taken pains to
ascertain his fitness for the office. It will give the Churchmen a
handle for accusing Melbourne of a design to sap the foundations
of the Church and poison the fountain of orthodoxy; but he
certainly has no such view.
February 23rd, 1836 {p.341}
Had some conversation with Lord Wharncliffe the other day, who
has always been a great alarmist. I asked him if he was so still.
He said yes; that he was convinced the House of Lords and the
House of Commons could not go on, that the Lords would not pass
their Bills; a ferment would be produced, which would finish by
an open dissension. 'What, then, would be the result?' I asked.
'Why, the Lords would be beaten.' He then complained bitterly of
the Government, and of their conduct and language, and said he
was convinced Lord John Russell had originally introduced that
clause for the purpose of effecting a permanent quarrel between
the two Houses. I told him I was satisfied there was no danger if
their party would act a prudent, temperate, and honourable part;
if they would not aim at office, but be satisfied to exert the
strength they possessed not for party, but for Conservative
purposes; and on this I dilated, showing what they ought to do.
He said that the Tories never would be contented so to act.
'Then,' I said, 'I certainly won't pretend to answer for the
consequences, but I am sure you have a good game enough in your
hands, if you choose to play it; if you will throw it away, that
is another thing.' He told me one thing of Melbourne rather
droll. Wharncliffe gave notice of a motion (which comes on
to-night) about Lord John Russell's appointment of magistrates
under the new Act, which he declares to have been very partially
and improperly done. After speaking to Melbourne about it,
Melbourne came over to him (Wharncliffe) and said, 'Now tell me,
have we been very bad in our appointments?'
[Page Head: DR. HAMPDEN'S APPOINTMENT.]
Last night I sat next to Poulett Thomson at dinner, who told me a
great deal about Dr. Hampden's appointment,[9] which makes such an
uproar among the Tories and High Churchmen. He declares that
Melbourne consulted various authorities, and the Archbishop of
Canterbury among the rest, who made no objection to the
appointment; that when the Oxford remonstrance was sent up the
Archbishop wrote a very Jesuitical letter, in which he endeavoured
to reconcile his former approbation of the appointment with his
present concurrence in the remonstrance. Melbourne sent for him,
and asked whether he had any charge to make against Hampden; he
replied that he had none; when Melbourne said that he could not,
then, cancel the appointment, which had been already notified to
him. [This account of Poulett Thomson's was, however, untrue.
William Cowper, Melbourne's private secretary and nephew, gave me
another, which I doubt not is more correct, and puts the matter in
a very different point of view. Melbourne sent to the Archbishop
and desired him to give him a list of six names, which he
accordingly did; but Melbourne would not take any of them, and
without consulting the Archbishop about Hampden, appointed him. He
did consult Coplestone and some others, but not the Archbishop. I
believe the cry against Hampden to be a senseless cry, and that it
is raised by mere bigotry and spite, but I think Melbourne behaved
neither prudently nor properly. When he desired the Archbishop to
give him a list of six, the latter must certainly have conceived
that he would select one out of the number, and would not have
divined that he would pass them all over and appoint another man
without consulting him at all.--February 28th.] I have read the
pamphlet written against Hampden, and though some of his
expressions are perhaps imprudent as giving occasion to malicious
cavil, it contains no grave matter, and nothing to support an
accusation of heterodoxy. If he had been a Tory instead of a
Liberal in politics, we should probably have heard nothing of the
matter.
[9] [This was the appointment of Dr. Hampden to be Regius
Professor of Divinity at Oxford. He was raised to the
See of Hereford in 1848.]
I was surprised to hear Poulett Thomson talk in great indignation of
Lord William Bentinck's address to Glasgow, which he characterised
as very disgraceful, and asserted that such miserable truckling to
the will of his constituents would not avail him anything, but
rather diminish their respect for him--very good sentiments. The
Government are very angry at what took place about the Orange Lodge
resolutions. Mr. Jervis moves an address to the Crown to-night, and
Perceval proposed to Lord John Russell to draw up some resolution
condemning these associations, which he said they would agree to if
not violent and offensive, and that it was very desirable the
sentiments of the House of Commons should be expressed unanimously,
or by a very large majority, because in that case the Orangemen
would see the necessity of yielding obedience to them, and would do
so. Accordingly John Russell sent him the copy of a resolution (on
Saturday) which he proposed to bring forward, but which he said he
had not yet submitted to the Cabinet. This was communicated to Peel
and Stanley as well, and all parties agreed to it; but John Russell
was much surprised and disgusted when this resolution (which was
communicated quite privately to Perceval, and which he told him his
colleagues had not been as yet consulted about) appeared yesterday
morning in the 'Times.'
February 25th, 1836 {p.344}
[Page Head: LORD RUSSELL AND THE ORANGEMEN.]
Lord John Russell immortalised himself on Tuesday night. After a
speech from Hume of three hours, in which he produced a variety of
the most inconceivable letters from Kenyon, Wynford, Londonderry,
and other Orangemen, but made the most miserable hash of his whole
case, and instead of working up his ample materials with dexterity
and effect stupidly blundering and wasting them all--after this
speech John Russell rose, and in a speech far surpassing his usual
form, dignified, temperate, and judicious, moved a resolution of a
moderate and inoffensive character. The speech actually drew tears
from the Orangemen, enthusiastic approbation from Stanley, a
colder approval from Peel, and the universal assent of the House.
It was a night of harmony; the Orangemen behaved very well, and
declared that after this speech they would abandon their
association; they only objected to the Orange Lodges being
mentioned by name, and urged that the resolution should be only
general in expression; and in this Stanley and Peel supported
them; Lord John declined, and properly; the others would have done
better to advise the Orangemen not to cavil at this, but to
swallow the whole pill handsomely, and not mar the effect of their
really meritorious conduct by making any trivial difficulties.
Peel's and Stanley's speeches were characteristic; the latter with
a generous enthusiasm of praise and congratulation to his old
friend, which evinced feeling and was sincere; Peel colder in his
expressions, and showing a great interest in the Orangemen, for
the purpose evidently of conciliating them towards himself, and
even incurring some risk of disturbing the general harmony by his
warmth and sympathy towards them; but I have no doubt that he is
as glad as any man at the dissolution of the confederacy, which
now appears likely really to take place, for though they will
probably not actually dissolve themselves, when the chiefs abandon
the lodges their existence will be but a lingering one, and must
come to an end or cease to be dangerous. In accomplishing this by
moderate and healing counsels, by a conciliatory tone and manner,
Lord John Russell deserves the name of a statesman. His speech is
worth a thousand flowery harangues which have elicited the shouts
of audiences or the admiration of readers, and he has probably
conferred a great and permanent benefit upon the country. I do not
mean that peace will be by these means restored to Ireland, or
rather be bestowed on her, for when was she ever at peace? but
until this object was accomplished, till the way was cleared,
peace was unattainable. O'Connell behaved wisely; he made a short
speech, and fell in cordially with the general feeling of the
House. This has strengthened the Government in reality, as it
ought. So Lord Stanley said, and it is true.