Moore and O'Connell--Defeat of the Opposition--The Carlow
Election--Lord Alvanley's Speech to the Tory Peers--Norton _v._
Lord Melbourne--Catastrophe after Epsom--Mendizabal and Queen
Christina--Lord John Russell's Moderation in the Ecclesiastical
Commission--Theatricals at Bridgewater House--Irish Church--
Ministerial Difficulties--Deplorable State of Spain--What was
thought of Lord Palmerston in 1836--Weakness of Government--
Lord Lyndhurst's Summary of the Session--Balance of Parties--
Lady Augusta Kennedy's Marriage--King's Speech to Princess
Victoria--Revolution of La Granja--Rudeness of the King to
Ministers--Irritation of the King at the Duchess of Kent--Scene
at Windsor on the King's Birthday--Prince Esterhazy's View of
the Affairs of Europe--Emperor Nicholas at Vienna--A Crisis in
Trade--State of the Court at Vienna--Duc de Reichstadt.
March 8th, 1836 {p.346}
It is impossible to conceive anything like the stagnation in the
political world--the Government secure in their seats, the
Opposition aware of the helplessness of their efforts. I met
Moore[1] at dinner a day or two ago, not having seen him for a
long time. He told us some amusing anecdotes of his own reception
in Ireland, which was very enthusiastic, in spite of his having
quarrelled with O'Connell. Of this quarrel he likewise narrated
the beginning and the end. He was indignant at O'Connell's
_manner_ of prosecuting his political objects, and resolved to
put his feelings on record. This he did, and he afterwards wrote
some letters to a mutual friend explanatory of his sentiments and
motives, and these were shown (intentionally) to O'Connell. Moore
declined to retract or qualify, and a rupture consequently took
place. When they met at Brookes' O'Connell averted his face. So
things remained till a short time ago, when the editor of a new
quarterly review, which has been established for Catholic and
Irish objects, wrote to Moore for his support, and O'Connell,
whom he told of it, said, 'Oh, pray let me frank the letter to
Mr. Moore.' This was repeated, and when Moore met O'Connell the
other day at Brookes', he went up to him and put out his hand. He
said O'Connell was mightily moved, but accepted the proffered
reconciliation, and they are again on good terms.
[1] [Thomas Moore, the poet.]
March 10th, 1836 {p.347}
[Page Head: OPPOSITION DEFEATED.]
Majority of 64 for Government on Tuesday night; unexpected by the
public, but not, I take it, by the Whig managers, who make their
people attend. It is an irrecoverable blow to the other side, and
shows that the contest is hopeless there. O'Connell and Stanley
made good speeches. It is remarkable that the Tory numbers are
precisely what they were last year (243). At the levee yesterday
they were all very gay at this victory; and Hobhouse said to me,
'What fools they are; they don't know their own interest; they
are beaten in the House of Commons, their people won't attend,
they won't see that they can't resist these questions and that it
is for their own interest they should be carried; why, when the
appropriation clauses and these Bills are carried there will
remain no difference between Peel and us. As for me, I care not
who is in, or whether I am in or out of office; I care for peace
and quietness, and that the country should go on. The Tories have
rung the changes on this O'Connell cry till they can do no more,
and it has failed them entirely; they have had every chance, and
must now give it up;' and a good deal more he said, till we were
interrupted. I agree about the O'Connell cry; the subject is worn
threadbare, it has been argued and ranted upon _usque ad
nauseam_, and in spite of the mistakes O'Connell has made, the
anti-Popery prejudices which prevail, and the blots upon his
personal character, I doubt if he is as much hated in England as
the Tories would have him. They have overdone their attacks on
him, and as it has unluckily been their sole _cheval de
bataille_, they have ridden it till it has not a leg to stand
upon.
March 12th, 1836 {p.347}
Fell in with Lyndhurst in the street yesterday returning from
Philips', where he had been sitting for his portrait. 'Well,' he
said, in his laughing, off-hand way, 'we are done, entirely
done.' 'What do you mean to do?' 'Oh, we shall pass Peel's Bill,
and they will be very glad of it; it will give the Government all
the power which O'Connell would otherwise obtain, and they don't
want to see his power increase, and will prefer the augmentation
of their own.'
March 13th, 1836 {p.348}
It was only yesterday that I read the report of the Committee and
O'Connell's complete acquittal.[2] It is very singular that he
does not seem to have known his own case, or he might have
rebutted the accusations in the first instance; but it has turned
out lucky for him, as it has afforded him a great triumph and his
adversaries an equally great mortification. It is now time for
the Tories to give up attacking him--that is, making him their
grand political butt. They do not lower him; on the contrary,
they raise his importance everywhere, and make his sway in
Ireland more absolute. They are abominably sulky at this result
of the Committee, which, however, was fairly constituted and
unanimous in its decision. I must say I never expected they would
make out much of a case. Yesterday I dined with Ben Stanley in
Downing Street, and met Lytton Bulwer and Fonblanque, the latter
a very agreeable man.
[2] [The proceedings of the Committee on the Carlow
election are here referred to. A Mr. Raphael had been
returned for Carlow, chiefly by the influence of
O'Connell. He was unseated on petition, and it was
supposed that the evidence taken by the Committee would
incriminate O'Connell, but the reverse was the case.
O'Connell was wholly acquitted of any illegal or
improper practices.]
May 2nd, 1836 {p.348}
[Page Head: LORD ALVANLEY'S PLAN FOR IRELAND.]
Many weeks without a single line. I have been at Newmarket, and
have known nothing of any sort or kind. All seems quieter in the
political world than for a long time past. There was a meeting of
Peers at Apsley House a week or ten days ago, to consider the
course they should adopt about the Corporation Bill. After the
discussion Alvanley rose and asked the Duke if there would be any
more meetings. He said he was not aware that there would be, when
Alvanley said that he was of opinion that the majority of the
House of Lords, while dealing with the Government measures, were
bound to give notice to the country of the measures of relief
that they were themselves prepared to offer to Ireland, that in
his opinion the only real relief that could be given was some
system of poor law, and the payment of the Catholic clergy,
bringing that body under the control of the Government, and
making it penal to draw contributions from their flocks, and that
he trusted their Lordships would be prepared to go so far. He
describes the effect of this suggestion to have been most
ludicrous. The Duke of Newcastle, who sat by him, was ready to
bounce off his chair; all sorts of indistinct noises, hems,
grunts, and coughs of every variety of modulation and expressive
intonation were heard, but no answer and no remark. He told me
that he had intended on Tuesday last to repeat the same thing in
the House of Lords, and asked me to go down and hear him, but
they would not allow him. The Duke said it was out of the
question, and overruled him. I am very sorry he did not, for
these are the true remedies, and I wish to see them put forth,
and a beginning made of bringing such principles into action; but
the Duke is not the man to let others have the credit of such
measures. I expect to see the day when he will bring them forward
himself; it is a pig not yet fit for killing, and he will not let
anybody stick it but himself.
May 11th, 1836 {p.349}
Great talk about the adjournment of Parliament on the 20th, and
about Melbourne's affair with Mrs. Norton, which latter, if it is
not quashed, will be inconvenient. John Bull fancies himself
vastly moral, and the Court is mighty prudish, and between them
our off-hand Premier will find himself in a ticklish position. He
has been served with notices, but people rather doubt the action
coming on. I asked the Duke of Wellington a night or two ago what
he had heard of it, and what he thought would be the result. He
said he had only heard what everybody said, and that nothing would
result. I said, 'Would Melbourne resign?' 'O Lord, no! Resign? Not
a bit of it. I tell you all these things are a nine-days' wonder;
it can't come into court before Parliament is up. People will have
done talking of it before that happens; it will all blow over, and
won't signify a straw.' So spoke his Grace. I doubt not prime
ministers, ex and in, have a fellow-feeling and sympathy for each
other, and like to lay down the principle of such things _not
mattering_. I hope, however, that it _will_ blow over, for it
would really be very inconvenient and very mischievous. The Tories
would fall on the individual from political violence, the Radicals
on his class or order from hatred to the aristocracy. I believe
the adjournment is principally on account of the affairs of
Canada, regarding which the Government is in a difficulty that
appears inextricable. I have heard a great deal on the subject,
enough to show the magnitude of the embarrassment, but not enough
to describe the state of things.
May 25th, 1836 {p.350}
The Epsom races being over, which always absorb every other
interest, I have leisure to turn my mind to other things. This
year there has been a miserable catastrophe. Berkeley Craven
deliberately shot himself after losing more than he could pay. It
is the first instance of a man of rank and station in society
making such an exit. He had originally a large landed estate,
strictly entailed, got into difficulties, was obliged to go
abroad, compromised with his creditors and returned, fell into
fresh difficulties, involved himself inextricably in betting, and
went on with a determination to shoot himself if his speculations
failed, and so he did. He was very popular, had been extremely
handsome in his youth, and was a fellow of infinite pleasantry
and good-humour.
Lord Melbourne's affair after all is likely to come before a
court of law. He is very much annoyed at it, and so are his
relations, but nobody expects him to resign. The Low Tories, the
herd, exult at this misfortune, and find a motive for petty
political gratification in it, but not so the Duke of Wellington
or any of them who are above the miserable feelings of party
spite. I am sorry for it, because it is a bad thing to see men in
high places dragged through the mire.
I have heard a curious fact connected with the dismissal of
Mendizabal from his post of Prime Minister. He made an attempt on
the person of the Queen, which she resented with the greatest
aversion and rage. He afterwards wrote an apology, and then,
aware of the blunder of so committing himself, endeavoured to get
his letter back, which she refused to part with. The consequence
was that she availed herself of the first opportunity to get rid
of him.
June 9th, 1836 {p.351}
Dined at St. James's yesterday with the Jockey Club. The King
made a speech about himself and the Queen and the turf; he told
us 'the Queen was an excellent woman, as we all knew, and that of
all the societies which he had to entertain (which in his
capacity were many and various) we were the most truly British.'
He was very tired, and withdrew early. Wharncliffe said he was
weary and dejected.
June 27th, 1836 {p.351}
[Page Head: RESULT OF LORD MELBOURNE'S TRIAL.]
The town has been full of Melbourne's trial;[3] great exultation
at the result on the part of his political adherents, great
disappointment on that of the mob of Low Tories, and a creditable
satisfaction among the better sort; it was in point of fact a
very triumphant acquittal. The wonder is how with such a case
Norton's family ventured into court, but (although it is stoutly
denied) there can be no doubt that old Wynford was at the bottom
of it all, and persuaded Lord Grantley to urge it on for mere
political purposes. There is pretty conclusive evidence of this.
Fletcher Norton, who was examined on the trial, is staying in
town with a Mr. Lowe, a Nottinghamshire parson, and Denison, who
is Norton's neighbour, called on him the other day; Denison
talked to Lowe, who told him that Fletcher Norton had shown him
the case on which they were going to proceed, and that he had
told him he thought it was a very weak one, to which he had
replied so did he, but he believed they expected it would produce
a very important _political_ effect. The King behaved very
civilly about it, and expressed his satisfaction at the result in
terms sufficiently flattering to Melbourne.
[3] [The trial of the cause Norton _v._ Lord Melbourne,
which ended in a verdict for the defendant.]
To-night is the great night in the House of Lords, when they are
to deal with the Commons' amendments of the Municipal Bill. Lord
Grey is expected to speak, and he told his old colleagues that if
he did he should say what they would not like. The fact is, he is
out of humour. First he doesn't like being laid aside, though he
would not own this even to himself, and as he and Howick disagree
on many points, Howick tells him nothing, and consequently he
knows nothing, and this provokes him; then he is indignant at the
O'Connellism of the Government, and abhors the attacks on _his
order_. Tavistock talked to me a great deal yesterday about Lord
John Russell, who he declares is by no means the Radical he is
accused by his adversaries of being, that he is opposed tooth and
nail to the reform of the House of Lords, much disagreeing with
O'Connell, that he has constantly and firmly refused to comply
with the demands of the Dissenters in the matter of Church rates,
and that in the Ecclesiastical Commission he and the bishops are
on the best terms, and they are abundantly satisfied with him,
that the greatest Reformer there is Lord Harrowby, and John
Russell has had to act as mediator between him and the bishops.
The prelates, it seems, have grasped at patronage with all their
might, and have taken to themselves that which appertained to the
chapters, much to the disgust of the latter; they likewise
endeavoured to get hold of that which belongs to the Chancellor,
and on this occasion John wrote on a slip of paper (which he
threw across the table to the Archbishop of York), 'I don't
object to your robbing one another, but I can't let you rob the
Crown.' The Archbishop wrote back, 'That is just what I expected
from you.' This shows at least the good-humour that prevails
among them.
[Page Head: THEATRICALS AT BRIDGEWATER HOUSE.]
There has been such a stagnation in politics lately that I have
heard nothing, and having been laid up with the gout for a
fortnight, have seen scarcely anybody. The greatest interest I
have had has been in the dramatic representation at Bridgewater
House, to the rehearsals of which I ventured to go. They were
very brilliant and successful. As the space was limited, the
invitations necessarily were so, and everybody was wild to be
there. There were one or two _tracasseries_ growing out of the
thing, agitating for the moment, but very uninteresting in
themselves. The pieces were 'Glenfinlas,' taken from Walter
Scott's ballad, and 'Lalla Rookh,' from Moore's poem; the
principal performers were James Wortley, my brother Henry,
Mitford, Mrs. Bradshaw, Miss Kemble (Mrs. Sartoris); and the
chorus was composed of Mrs. Baring, Mrs. Hartopp, Miss Gent, Miss
Paget, Lady Mary Paget (Lady Sandwich), Lady Wallscourt, Lady
Georgiana Mitford, my sister, Lord Compton, Messrs. Westmacott,
Holford, James Macdonald, Baynton Lushington. Grieve painted
beautiful scenery, and the dresses were magnificent; all the
ladies were covered with diamonds, which the great jewellers lent
to them for the occasion. Mrs. Bradshaw's acting was perfection
itself, and altogether it was singular, striking, and eminently
successful, especially 'Glenfinlas,' which was very ingeniously
managed, and went off to the amazement of those who were
concerned in it, who did not expect such success.
July 1st, 1836 {p.353}
At Stoke for three days; divine weather, profusion of flowers and
shade, and every luxury; nobody there of any consequence. On
Tuesday night at the House of Lords to hear the debate, which was
worth hearing. Lyndhurst spoke very ably, by far the finest style
of speaking, so measured, grave, and earnest, nothing glittering
and gaudy, but a manly and severe style of eloquence. Lord Grey
spoke very becomingly, but was feeble compared with what he used
to be. He endeavoured to effect a compromise, and said nothing
offensive to anybody or any party, spoke strongly in favour of
the Ministerial measure, and I think took the sound view. I have
no doubt the Tory Lords are all in the wrong in taking the course
they do, and their arguments are very frivolous and inefficient.
O'Connell was not in the House during Lyndhurst's philippic, but
came in soon after, and his arrival made a great bustle.
July 9th, 1836 {p.353}
Since Monday (4th) at De Ros's villa. The division on the
appropriation clause and the majority of only twenty-six was
hailed with great triumph by the Tories, and was a grievous
disappointment to the Government. This, with the Warwickshire
election at the same moment, has made them very down in the mouth,
and raised the _Conservative stock_ pretty considerably. There was
very sharp work between Stanley and John Russell, who left off
_noble friending_ and took to _noble lording_ him, to show that
they were quite two. The fact is that they are in a huge
difficulty with this appropriation clause, which served their turn
for a while (when it turned out Peel and cemented their alliance
with the Radicals), and now it hangs like a millstone round their
necks, and is not unlikely to produce the dissolution of the
Government. Strange that this Irish Church in one way or another
is the insuperable obstacle to peace and tranquillity in Ireland,
and to the stability of any Administration here; and yet it is
fought for as if the prosperity or salvation of the State depended
on it--
Tantum _religio_ potuit suadere malorum.
As far as the Whig Ministers are concerned it serves them right,
for it was a wicked and foolish proceeding; their conduct will
tell against them in the country, and when the House of Lords is
accused of stopping legislation, people will not fail to ask,
What else is the House of Commons doing, or rather how much more?
They assert that tithes are the great bane of Ireland, and the
cause of the disorder which prevail, and they propose a Tithe
Bill as the remedy, but they clog it with a condition which they
know, with as much certainty as human knowledge can attain, will
prevent its passing into a law, and in this shape they persist in
producing it. Lord John Russell and his colleagues, it is said,
are pledged not to pass a Tithe Bill without this clause; but
what cares the public for their pledges, and what is their
consistency compared with the great interests at stake, and which
are involved in the settlement of this question?
They acted 'Genfinlas' for the last time on Thursday, with
greater success than ever. The Queen was invited, but did not
come. All London is intent upon morning amusements--morning
parties, which are extended into the night. The Duchess of
Buccleuch gave entertainments on Monday and Wednesday; De Ros on
Friday--dinners, tents, illuminations, and dancing; all very gay
for those who can find amusement in it, which I have ceased to
do.
July 18th, 1836 {p.355}
[Page Head: APPROPRIATION CLAUSE ABANDONED.]
On Thursday night, almost as soon as I got back from Newmarket, I
heard that it was strongly suspected that the Cabinet were in
great embarrassment about the Irish Church question, and of course
the Tories were proportionably elated at the visions of return to
office which are always ready to dance before their eyes. This
report was confirmed to me the next day (Friday) by Lord
Tavistock, who told me what really was the case. The late division
seems to have made a considerable impression, and several of the
supporters of Government have represented that matters cannot
continue in their present state, and that the resistance to
payment of tithe on the one hand and the threats of rebellion on
the other render it of paramount necessity to settle the question,
and that it is better after all to take the Bill without the
appropriation clause than to let it be again lost. This difference
of opinion has of course particularly embarrassed Lord John
Russell, and they do not know what to do. With respect to Lord
John himself the question is, Can he continue in office and let
the Bill pass without the clause? If he cannot, are his colleagues
as completely committed as he is, or may not they elect some other
leader on his migration, and take the Bill in that state? I told
Tavistock that he well knew what my opinions had always been with
respect to the introduction of that clause, which seemed to be
more fully justified by the event; that I did not think any
difference could be made between John and his colleagues, and they
must stand or fall together. With respect to their taking the Bill
without the clause, they, and Lord John in particular, must make
up their minds, if they did so, to have every species of abuse
poured upon them from their Tory enemies and their Radical
friends; but they were in a scrape, and had, in fact, got the
country into a scrape too, and their duty now was to take that
course which on the whole seemed to promise the best results,
whatever it might personally cost them and to whatever reproaches
they might render themselves liable. If they were satisfied that
no other Government would at present be formed, and that the Irish
Church question could be settled in no other way, they ought to
swallow the pill. He said he thought they were not indisposed to
face the obloquy, if it must be so, and that all depended upon the
conduct of the Lords, and upon their affording the Government a
decent pretext for taking the Bill. I asked how. He said that what
he thought of was this--earnestly conjuring me not to commit him
and his friends by saying he had suggested any such thing (which
satisfied me that it was not only his own idea, but that of others
also belonging to the Government)--that last year the Lords had
thrown out the Bill, because the appropriation clause being a
money clause, they could not touch it, but that now this objection
was removed as to form, and they were at liberty to cut it out if
they pleased, and return the Bill without it to the Commons; that
if they would at the same time pass a resolution declaring that if
any surplus was reported such surplus should be at the disposal of
Parliament, without expressing any opinion as to the way in which
Parliament should deal with it, this, he thought, would be
sufficient to enable the Whigs _salvo honore_ to take the Bill;
neither party would be compromised or committed to anything at
variance with the principles they had already professed, and the
alteration in the state of the question produced by the discovery
of that legal process to which the clergy had had recourse would,
together with such a resolution, be a sufficient warrant to them
to pass the Bill. I told him that I would not commit him, and I
would endeavour (if I had an opportunity) to ascertain if there
was any chance of the Lords taking such a course, to which I could
see no objection.
Petworth, July 24th, 1836 {p.356}
[Page Head: THE MINISTRY IN DIFFICULTIES.]
Came here yesterday from Hillingdon, the day before from London.
In the morning (Friday) there was a meeting of the Ministerialists
at the Foreign Office; called by Lord John Russell, to talk to
them about the Church Bill. After the skirmish in the House of
Commons between him and Charles Buller a deputation, headed by
Hume, waited on Melbourne to remonstrate, and they reported that
the interview was on his part very civil and good-natured, but
very unsatisfactory. Lord John Russell therefore called them
together and harangued them. He is said to have spoken very well,
stating that Government could not and would not give way with
respect to this measure, and reminding Hume that in a former
speech he had already assented to the principle of the Bill. The
English Radicals were, however, not to be appeased, spoke
strongly, and declared they would oppose the Bill in every stage.
O'Connell rose, and said that he would support Government, that it
was of vital consequence to Ireland that there should be no
appearance of disunion in the party, and that no idea should
prevail there that there was a chance of its being broken up; and
for this reason Government should have his support.
I met them all coming away, and fastened on Tom Duncombe, who
told me what had passed, and how angry they (the English
Radicals) were. I asked him whether their resentment would induce
them to desert Government on the appropriation clauses and stay
away, because, if so, they must go out; and he said that it would
not push them to that length. It may be presumed that O'Connell's
behaviour at this meeting will have bound the Government still
more not to give way on this clause, and that whatever the Lords
may do, they will fight the battle.
The Lords in the meantime have gone quietly into Committee, and
the second reading passed off with tolerable harmony. Melbourne
made a good speech, and produced a surplus, but which the Duke of
Wellington will take very good care to reduce again to _nil_.
This is very easily done on one side, and the contrary on the
other; redistribution can accomplish either desideratum--surplus
or no surplus. However, the Government seems to be in a pretty
state between their moderate and their violent adherents, and
though they may scramble through this session, and hustle
Parliament to an end, it is difficult to see how they will ever
pass the ordeal of another, for they can neither continue in
their present course nor adopt any other with safety.
I met old Denison (the member for Surrey)--a strong supporter of
the Government and an old Whig--coming from the meeting on Friday,
and suggested to him what a scrape his friends were in. He owned
that it was so, but said that parties were so balanced that Peel
could not go on if he came in. I said Peel could not go on if the
King turned out the Government as he had done before, or if Peel
was instrumental in compelling them to resign; but that if they
resigned of their own accord, and because they were themselves
conscious that they could not go on, I thought Peel would be
supported by a majority even of this House of Commons; for, after
all, the country must have a Government, and if Peel took it
because it was vacant, and nobody else could be found to occupy
it, he could not be refused the trial, which he had in vain asked
for before. He owned this was true, and such an admission from
such a man was a great deal. The King is evidently waiting with
the greatest impatience for the moment when his Ministers must
resign. He complained bitterly of my brother-in-law's[4] going
abroad, and said it was a time when every Conservative ought to be
at his post, which means that every opponent of his Ministers
should strive with ceaseless zeal to drive them to the wall. He is
a true king of the Tories, for his impatience fully equals theirs.
[4] [Lord Francis Egerton.]
August 7th, 1836 {p.358}
[Page Head: DISSENSION BETWEEN LORDS AND COMMONS.]
After the meeting at the Foreign Office there seems to have been
an end of all notion of any compromise, or any giving way on the
part of the Government about the clauses in the Tithe Bill, and
Lord John Russell held very strong language. The debate presented
nothing remarkable. Sheil came over from Ireland on purpose to
speak, not being able to vote, as he had paired. Great exertions
were made on both sides, and the Tories dragged up Sir Watkin
Williams Wynn from Wales, very infirm; and had a blind man in the
House, led about by Ross. The majority of twenty-nine ought to
have been twenty-six, just the same as the last division. Sir
Charles Cockerell (Whig) was shut out, whilst on the other side
Lord Arthur Hill's[5] vote was lost by his mother's death, which
made him a Peer, and the Lennoxes and Poyntz stayed away. The
whole thing went off tamely enough; everybody in Parliament knew
what was to happen, and out of doors people don't care. While the
revenue presents an excess of two millions, and everything
flourishes, political excitement is impossible. The Lords continue
to throw out Bills, and many complaints are made of their evident
determination to reject as many of the Commons' measures as they
can. Some of them have been opposed, particularly the Stafford
Disfranchisement Bill, by the Ministers themselves. The Lords,
however, no doubt evince a very imprudent disposition to exercise
their power of rejection without grave and sufficient cause, and
needlessly to expose themselves to the charge of wanton and
intemperate opposition to the measures of the Commons. It is the
height of folly to make the line between the two Houses as broad
as possible, and to publish to the world on every occasion that
the one House is Whig and the other Tory; not but what (in the
present rage for legislation, and the careless and hurried way in
which measures are bustled through the House of Commons) the
revision and watchful superintendence of the House of Lords are
more than ever necessary.
[5] [Lord Arthur Hill became Baron Sandys on the death of
his mother, the Marchioness of Downshire, who was
Baroness Sandys in her own right.]
There was a report of General Evans' death the other day, which
was believed for some time, and long enough to show that there
would have been a contest for Westminster if it had been true.
The accounts from Spain are deplorable, and it is curious enough
that while Palmerston was proclaiming in the House of Commons his
conviction of the ultimate success of the Christino cause he must
have had letters from Villiers in his pocket telling him that it was
almost hopeless. I saw one from him a few days ago, written in the
greatest despondency. He said that he had been stopped on his road
to St. Ildefonso by intelligence that the Carlists were approaching
the place, and that the Queen had taken flight. He found all the
relays of mules ready for her Majesty, and he returned to Madrid. It
turned out to be a false alarm, and the Queen stayed where she was;
but he said that he could only compare the progress of the Carlists
to water spreading over table-land. It will be a severe blow to
Palmerston if this cause is overthrown, though perhaps no fault of
his policy. Had France acted fairly, the result of the Quadruple
Alliance would have answered the expectation of its authors, but
France, instead of co-operating according to the spirit of that
treaty, has thrown every impediment in its way. It is surprising to
hear how Palmerston is spoken of by those who know him well
officially--the Granvilles, for example. Lady Granville, a woman
expert in judging, thinks his capacity first-rate; that it
approaches to greatness from his enlarged views, disdain of
trivialities, resolution, decision, confidence, and above all his
contempt of clamour and abuse. She told me that Madame de Flahault
had a letter written by Talleyrand soon after his first arrival in
England, in which he talked with great contempt of the Ministers
generally, Lord Grey included, and said there was but one statesman
among them, and that was Palmerston. His ordinary conversation
exhibits no such superiority; but when he takes his pen in his hand
his intellect seems to have full play, and probably when engaged
exclusively in business.
August 13th, 1836 {p.360}
On Monday last I was riding early in the Park and met Lord
Howick. We rode together for some time. He said that 'he supposed
they should be out after this session, and they ought to be out,
as they could carry none of their measures, and the Lords
rejected Bill after Bill sent up from the other House; that since
the Tories chose to go on in this way, they must make the
experiment and carry on the Government if they could, but they
must look for every opposition from his friends and his party. It
was quite impossible things could go on upon their present
footing; the country would not stand it, and the Lords must look
to those changes which their own conduct rendered indispensable.'
I said to Howick that the appropriation clause made the great
difficulty of the Whigs; that I believed they were, on the whole,
a very Conservative Government, but why struggle for this
absurdity, and why not bring forward a measure at once of real
relief and pay the Catholic clergy? He said they could not do it;
their own friends would not support them; that the Tories might
have done it, but that the Whigs could not. 'So,' I replied,
'both parties are in such a position that no Conservative
measures can be carried but by the Whigs, and no Liberal ones but
by the Tories.'
Since this there has been a free conference, and the Lords have
been bowling down Bills like ninepins. This certainly cannot go
on; either the Tories must come into power again, or the Whigs
must do something to control the House of Lords, or the Lords
must lower their tone and adopt more moderate counsels. The
latter would be the best, as it is the least probable, of the
three alternatives.
His Majesty was pleased to be very facetious at the Council the
other day, though not very refined. A new seal for the Cape of
Good Hope was approved, and the impression represented a Caffre,
with some ornaments on his head which resembled _horns_. The King
asked Lord Glenelg what these _horns_ meant, but Glenelg referred
his Majesty to Poulett Thomson, to whom he said, 'Well, Mr.
Thomson, what do you say to this? I know you are a man of
gallantry, but if you choose to be represented with a pair of
horns I am sure I have no objection;' at which sally their
lordships laughed, as in duty bound.
August 21st, 1836 {p.361}
[Page Head: PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.]
Yesterday the King prorogued Parliament with a very moderate,
inoffensive Speech. The Tories had spread a report that the
Ministers wanted to thrust into the Speech some allusions to the
conduct of the House of Lords, but no such thing was ever
contemplated.
The session was wound up by an oration of Lyndhurst's in the House
of Lords, introduced with a considerable note of preparation. It
was announced a day or two before that he was going down to
deliver a vindication of the majority of the Lords and of himself
for their conduct during the session, and the expectation which
was raised was not disappointed. It seems to have been a great
display, and sufficiently well answered by Melbourne. As his
opponents universally admit that Lyndhurst's speech was of
consummate ability, while his friends confess that it was not
discreet and well judged, we may safely conclude that it deserves
both the praise and the blame; and as the Duke of Wellington rose
afterwards and made a speech of remarkable moderation, it would
certainly appear as if he thought it necessary to temper the
violence of Lyndhurst by a more conciliatory tone. When I say _his
friends_ have expressed the opinions above stated, I should say
that I have conversed with only two--Lords Bathurst and Ripon--and
they both expressed themselves to this effect. Lord Holland, who
endeavoured to answer it, said he thought Lyndhurst's one of the
best speeches he had ever heard in Parliament.
If he had confined himself to a temperate and dignified
vindication of the proceedings of the House of Lords (that is, of
his own), and had abstained from any attack on the Government,
and especially from any language reflecting on the Commons,
perhaps it would have been a wise measure, but it cannot be wise
to widen the differences which already exist between the two
Houses, and to render all the animosities of public men more
bitter and irreconcilable than they were before. The Tories are
convinced that they are becoming more and more popular, and that
the country approves of the daring behaviour of the Lords. The
Whigs insist that the apathy of the country (which they mistake
for approbation) is nothing but the imperturbability resulting
from prosperity and full employment, but that if adverse
circumstances arise a storm will burst on the Lords, and they
will see how miserably deceived they are. I think the Lords have
gone too far, and though a vast deal of crude legislation comes
up from the Commons, requiring much supervision, and often great
alteration, they have shown an animus and adopted a practice
quite foreign to the usual habits of the House of Lords, and
which is in itself an important innovation. The truth is, it is
not (as has been represented) a contest between _the two Houses_,
but between the two great _parties_ very nearly balanced, of
which the stronghold of one is in the Lords, and that of the
other in the Commons. It can scarcely cross the minds of either
party, or of any individual of either, that the substantive power
of Government can or ought to be transferred from the House of
Commons to the House of Lords, and Lyndhurst and the Tories would
not venture to make the havoc which they do in the Government
Bills if they were not persuaded that if ever a crisis is
produced by the collision their party will succeed in obtaining
the sanction of the country and an ascendency in the other House.
If they have estimated correctly their own strength and the real
disposition of the country, their Parliamentary tactics have been
skilful, but the game which they play is a very desperate one,
for if it fails the House of Lords can hardly avoid suffering
very materially from the conflict. However, much is to be said on
the subject when considered in all its bearings.
The King at his last levee received Dr. Allen to do homage for
the see of Ely, when he said to him, 'My Lord, I do not mean to
interfere in any way with your vote in Parliament except on one
subject, _the Jews _, and I trust I may depend on your always
voting against them.'
August 30th, 1836 {p.363}
[Page Head: MARRIAGE OF LADY AUGUSTA FITZCLARENCE.]
At Hillingdon from Saturday to Monday. There were great festivities
at Windsor during the Egham race week, when the King's daughter Lady
Augusta was married at the Castle[6]. It was remarked that on the
King's birthday not one of the Ministers was invited to the Castle,
and none except the Household in any way connected with the
Government. At the Queen's birthday a short time before not one
individual of that party was present. Nothing can be more
undisguised than the King's aversion to his Ministers, and he seems
resolved to intimate that his compulsory reception of them shall not
extend to his society, and that though he can't help seeing them at
St. James's, the gates of Windsor are shut against them. All his
habitual guests are of the Tory party, and generally those who have
distinguished themselves by their violence or are noted for their
extreme opinions--Winchilsea and Wharncliffe, for example, of the
former, and the Duke of Dorset of the latter sort. At the dinner on
his birthday the King gave the Princess Victoria's health rather
well. Having given the Princess Augusta's he said, 'And now, having
given the health of the oldest, I will give that of the youngest
member of the Royal Family. I know the interest which the public
feel about her, and although _I have not seen so much of her as I
could have wished_, I take no less interest in her, and the more I
do see of her, both in public and in private, the greater pleasure
it will give me.' The whole thing was so civil and gracious that it
could hardly be taken ill, but the young Princess sat opposite, and
hung her head with not unnatural modesty at being thus talked of in
so large a company.
[6] [Lady Augusta Fitzclarence, fourth daughter of King
William IV. by Mrs. Jordan, married first, on the 5th
of July, 1827 to the Hon. John Kennedy Erskine, and
secondly, on the 26th of August, 1836, to Lord John
Frederick Gordon. She died in 1865.]
While London is entirely deserted, and everything is quiet and
prosperous here, there is a storm raging in Spain which has
already had an effect in France, by producing the dissolution of
Thiers's Ministry,[7] and may very likely end by creating
disturbances in that country and embroiling Europe. The
complication of French politics, the character and designs of the
King, his relations with the great Powers of Europe, and the
personal danger to which he is exposed from the effects of a
demoralised mass of floating hostility and disaffection, rendered
doubly perilous from the mixture of unnatural excitement and
contempt of life which largely enter into it, present a very
curious and very interesting subject of political observation and
speculation for those who have the means of investigating it
closely.
[7] [M. Thiers came into power for the first time as
Minister of Foreign Affairs and head of the Government
on the 22nd of February, 1836. He had boasted that he
should be able to engage the King in a more active
intervention in Spain in favour of the young Queen--'Nous
entrainerons le Roi' was his expression--but in
this he was deceived, and his Administration came to a
speedy termination. Lord Palmerston proposed on the
14th of March that some of the ports on the coast of
Biscay should be occupied by British seamen and
marines, and that Passages, Fontarabia, and the valley
of Bartan should be occupied by the French. This scheme
was strenuously opposed by the King, though M. Thiers
was willing to assent to it. The Revolution of La
Granja in August only increased the repugnance of Louis
Philippe to interfere actively in Spain, and early in
September the Thiers Cabinet was dissolved. Mr.
Villiers's narrative of the revolution of La Granja is
alluded to in the passage next following.]
September 7th, 1836 {p.365}
[Page Head: GEORGE VILLIERS'S DESPATCHES.]
Mrs. Villiers sent me to-day the copies of two despatches of
George Villiers's to Palmerston, containing a narrative of the
events which took place at St. Ildefonso on the 12th, 13th, and
14th of last month; these he sent to her, because he had not time
to write the details all over again. Nothing can be more curious,
nothing more interesting, nothing more admirably described, all
the details given with great simplicity, extreme clearness, and
inimitable liveliness of narration. It reminds one of the scenes
enacted during the French Revolution; but as these despatches
will probably be published, I shall not be at the pains to give
an analysis of them here. It is remarkable how courageously and
prudently the Queen seems to have behaved. What energies a
difficult crisis called forth! How her spirit and self-possession
bore up in the midst of danger and insult, and how she contrived
to preserve her dignity even while compelled to make the most
humiliating concessions! No romance was ever more interesting
than this narrative. George Villiers's correspondence will some
day or other make one of the most valuable and entertaining
publications that ever appeared, though I shall not live to see
it. He writes incomparably well, with a mixture of vivacity and
energy peculiarly his own.
September 21st, 1836 {p.365}
I have recorded nothing about the revolutions at Madrid and
Lisbon, because I know nothing besides what has appeared in all
the newspapers, and it would be very useless to copy facts from
their columns. As to private matters, and the exploits or
interests of individuals, I only note them as the fancy takes me,
and the fancy has not taken me of late. I cannot keep a
_journal_--that is, a day by day memorial--and I have an
invincible repugnance to making my MS. books the receptacles of
scandal, and handing down to posterity (if ever posterity should
have an opportunity of seeing and would take the trouble to read
these pages) the _private_ faults and follies of my friends,
acquaintance, and associates.
To-day we had a Council, the first since Parliament was
prorogued, when his most gracious Majesty behaved most
ungraciously to his confidential servants, whom he certainly does
not delight to honour. The last article on the list was a
petition of Admiral Sartorius praying to be restored to his rank,
and when this was read the King, after repeating the usual form
of words, added, 'And must be granted. As Captain Napier was
restored, so must this gentleman be, for there was this
difference between their cases: Admiral Napier knew he was doing
wrong, which Admiral Sartorius was not aware of.' Lord Minto
said, 'I believe, sir, there was not so much difference between
the two cases as your Majesty imagines, for Admiral Sartorius--'
Then followed something which I could not catch, but the King
did, for he said, with considerable asperity, 'Unless your
Lordship is quite sure of that, I must beg leave to say that I
differ from you and do not believe it to be so, but since you
have expressed your belief that it is so, I desire you will
furnish me with proofs of it immediately. The next time I see you
you will be prepared with the proofs of what you say, for unless
I see them I shall not believe one word of it.' Minto made no
reply to this extraordinary sortie, and the rest looked at each
other in silence.
[Page Head: RUDENESS OF THE KING.]
This, however, was nothing compared with what took place at
Windsor with the Duchess of Kent, of which I heard something a
long time ago (August 30th), but never the particulars till last
night. It is very remarkable that the thing has not been more
talked about. The King invited the Duchess of Kent to go to
Windsor on the 12th of August to celebrate the Queen's birthday
(13th), and to stay there over his own birthday, which was to be
kept (_privately_) on the 21st (the real day, but falling on
Sunday) and _publicly_ the day following. She sent word that she
wanted to keep her own birthday at Claremont on the 15th (or
whatever the day is), took no notice of the Queen's birthday, but
said she would go to Windsor on the 20th. This put the King in a
fury; he made, however, no reply, and on the 20th he was in town
to prorogue Parliament, having desired that they would not wait
dinner for him at Windsor. After the prorogation he went to
Kensington Palace to look about it; when he got there he found
that the Duchess of Kent had appropriated to her own use a suite
of apartments, seventeen in number, for which she had applied last
year, and which he had refused to let her have. This increased his
ill-humour, already excessive. When he arrived at Windsor and went
into the drawing-room (at about ten o'clock at night), where the
whole party was assembled, he went up to the Princess Victoria,
took hold of both her hands, and expressed his pleasure at seeing
her there and his regret at not seeing her oftener. He then turned
to the Duchess and made her a low bow, almost immediately after
which he said that 'a most unwarrantable liberty had been taken
with one of his palaces; that he had just come from Kensington,
where he found apartments had been taken possession of not only
without his consent, but contrary to his commands, and that he
neither understood nor would endure conduct so disrespectful to
him.' This was said loudly, publicly, and in a tone of serious
displeasure. It was, however, only the muttering of the storm
which was to break the next day. Adolphus Fitzclarence went into
his room on Sunday morning, and found him in a state of great
excitement. It was his birthday, and though the celebration was
what was called private, there were a hundred people at dinner,
either belonging to the Court or from the neighbourhood. The
Duchess of Kent sat on one side of the King and one of his sisters
on the other, the Princess Victoria opposite. Adolphus Fitzclarence
sat two or three from the Duchess, and heard every word of what
passed. After dinner, by the Queen's desire, 'His Majesty's
health, and long life to him' was given, and as soon as it was
drunk he made a very long speech, in the course of which he poured
forth the following extraordinary and _foudroyante_ tirade:--'I
trust in God that my life may be spared for nine months longer,
after which period, in the event of my death, no regency would
take place. I should then have the satisfaction of leaving the
royal authority to the personal exercise of that young lady
(pointing to the Princess), the heiress presumptive of the Crown,
and not in the hands of a person now near me, who is surrounded by
evil advisers and who is herself incompetent to act with propriety
in the station in which she would be placed. I have no hesitation
in saying that I have been insulted--grossly and continually
insulted--by that person, but I am determined to endure no longer
a course of behaviour so disrespectful to me. Amongst many other
things I have particularly to complain of the manner in which that
young lady has been kept away from my Court; she has been
repeatedly kept from my drawing-rooms, at which she ought always
to have been present, but I am fully resolved that this shall not
happen again. I would have her know that I am King, and I am
determined to make my authority respected, and for the future I
shall insist and command that the Princess do upon all occasions
appear at my Court, as it is her duty to do.' He terminated his
speech by an allusion to the Princess and her future reign in a
tone of paternal interest and affection, which was excellent in
its way.
[Page Head: THE KING AND THE DUCHESS OF KENT.]
This awful philippic (with a great deal more which I forget) was
uttered with a loud voice and excited manner. The Queen looked in
deep distress, the Princess burst into tears, and the whole
company were aghast. The Duchess of Kent said not a word.
Immediately after they rose and retired, and a terrible scene
ensued; the Duchess announced her immediate departure and ordered
her carriage, but a sort of reconciliation was patched up, and
she was prevailed upon to stay till the next day. The following
morning, when the King saw Adolphus, he asked him what people
said to his speech. He replied that they thought the Duchess of
Kent merited his rebuke, but that it ought not to have been given
there; that he ought to have sent for her into his closet, and
have said all that he felt and thought there, but not at table
before a hundred people. He replied that he did not care where he
said it or before whom, that 'by God he had been insulted by her
in a measure that was past all endurance, and he would not stand
it any longer.'
Nothing can be more unaccountable than the Duchess of Kent's
behaviour to the King, nothing more reprehensible; but his
behaviour to her has always been as injudicious and undignified
as possible, and this last sortie was monstrous. It was his duty
and his right to send for her, and signify to her both his
displeasure at the past and his commands for the future; but such
a gross and public insult offered to her at his own table,
sitting by his side and in the presence of her daughter, admits
of no excuse. It was an unparalleled outrage from a man to a
woman, from a host to his guest, and to the last degree
unbecoming the station they both of them fill. He has never had
the firmness and decision of character a due display of which
would have obviated the necessity of such bickerings, and his
passion leads him to these indecent exhibitions, which have not
the effect of correcting, and cannot fail to have that of
exasperating her, and rendering their mutual relations more
hopelessly disagreeable.
November 7th, 1836 {p.369}
An interval of above six weeks. I went to Newmarket on the 3rd of
October, returned to town for a Council on Wednesday in the first
October week; after the first October meeting I went to
Buckenham, after the second to Euston, and after the third came
to town. At Buckenham I met Adolphus Fitzclarence, who told me
over again the particulars of the scene with the Duchess of Kent,
which did not differ materially from what I have put down. He
added one item, that the day following the Queen was not ready
for dinner, and when dinner was announced and he was waiting he
asked, 'Where's the Queen?' They told him she was waiting for the
Duchess of Kent, when he said, loud enough for everybody to hear,
'That woman is a nuisance.' He was very angry at King Leopold's
coming here, received him very coldly at Windsor, had no
conversation with him on business, and on one occasion exhibited
a rudeness even to brutality. It seems he hates water-drinkers;
God knows why. One day at dinner Leopold called for water, when
the King asked, 'What's that you are drinking, sir?' 'Water,
sir.' 'God damn it!' rejoined the other King; 'why don't you
drink wine? I never allow anybody to drink water at my table.'
Leopold only dined there, and went away in the evening. All this
is very miserable and disgraceful.
Of politics during this period I have heard little or nothing,
except that while the Conservatives are feasting and spouting in
all parts of the country, and rallying their forces, there is a
split among their opponents, an event which was inevitable,
considering the different shades of opinion prevailing amongst
them, though they hope to reconcile all their differences by the
time Parliament meets, which they will probably do, in order to
baffle their common enemy. It is, however, a good thing that
these differences should arise amongst them. I wish I could see a
party formed upon really Conservative principles, determined to
maintain the Constitution and steer clear of Tory nonsense and
bigotry; but this I doubt to be practicable.
November 8th, 1836 {p.370}
[Page Head: PRINCE ESTERHAZY'S CONVERSATION.]
I dined on Sunday with Cunningham, and met Prince Esterhazy, with
whom I had a long conversation. He talked a great deal about the
state of Europe, of the bickerings between Palmerston and Louis
Philippe on the Spanish question, between England and Russia in
the East, and of the position of Austria in the midst of it all;
that he had conversed often and at great length with the Emperor
of Russia at Prague and with Louis Philippe at Paris, both having
talked in the most open manner, and that he was endeavouring (he
thought successfully) to bring Palmerston to an amicable tone and
feeling, and to effect some sort of compromise with respect to the
debated points. Both sovereigns have the same desire to avoid war,
and Louis Philippe told him that his object was 'de rendre la
guerre impossible,' that no Power could be so much interested as
Austria was in restraining the power and ambition of Russia within
reasonable bounds, and that the Emperor had held the most moderate
language, as he believed with sincerity; that our prejudices
against Russia were unreasonably violent, and they arose in some
degree from mortification at our own misconduct in letting
opportunities slip out of our hands, and throwing advantages and
influence into those of Russia, which we were now angry that she
availed herself of; but that if we continued to act frankly and
firmly in conjunction with Austria and France (France and Austria
being perfectly agreed) we should have nothing to fear from
Russia. They (the northern Powers) were content that we should
exercise an especial influence in the Peninsula; they were aware
that these questions were the peculiar concern and interest of
France and England, and they did not want to interfere. But for
the escape of Don Carlos, which altered the aspect of affairs in
Spain, and some trifling points of etiquette which might easily
have been adjusted, the Spanish question would have been settled
among the Powers long ago, and the Queen recognised by them all.
He said that for a long time past the affairs of Europe had been
extensively influenced by personal feelings and individual
interests and passions, greatly so on Palmerston's own part and
very much during the embassy of the Lievens, Madame de Lieven
having been so much influenced by partisanship and by her
fluctuating friendships and connections. The Emperor told
Esterhazy that it was impossible for him to leave Lieven there,
that he was not represented by him as he ought to be, that they in
some respects fell short of, and in others went beyond, the line
which their duty and his interests demanded. He said that the
Emperor Nicholas was a very remarkable man--absolute master, his
own Minister, and under no other influence whatever--that his
perceptions were just and his ideas remarkably clear, although his
views were not very extensive, and the circle within which these
ideas ranged was limited, Nesselrode not having a particle of
influence; his Ministers and Ambassadors were clerks; and while
his ease and affability to foreigners (to him--Esterhazy--in
particular) were excessively striking, he treated his Russians
with a loftiness that could not be conceived, and one and all
trembled in his presence with the crouching humility of slaves.
When he was at Prague he on a sudden set off and travelled with
amazing rapidity to Vienna, without giving any notice to anybody.
His object was to visit the Dowager Empress and the tomb of the
late Emperor. He alighted at Tatischef's (his Ambassador's),
where, as soon as his arrival was known, the Russian ladies who
were at Vienna full-dressed themselves and hurried off to pay
their _devoirs_. They were met in all their diamonds and feathers
on the staircase by Benkendorf, who said, 'Allez-vous en bien
vite; l'Empereur ne veut pas voir une seule de vous,' and they
were obliged to bustle back with as much alacrity as they had
come. Though the best understanding prevailed between the French
and Austrian Governments, and the latter is cordially allied with
Louis Philippe, there is some sourness and disappointment at the
failure of the project of marriage with which the Duke of Orleans
went to Vienna. Esterhazy said that it had failed in great measure
through an imprudent precipitation; that the Duke had given
universal satisfaction, but there were great prejudices to
surmount, and the recollection of Marie Antoinette and Marie
Louise. He thought the advantages of the match were overrated at
Paris, but they were so anxious for it there that the disappointment
was considerable; he said he thought that it might still be
brought about. These are the few fragments I have retained from
the talk we had.
November 13th, 1836 {p.372}
[Page Head: GLOOMY PROSPECTS.]
Nomination of the sheriffs yesterday. Two of the judges--old Park
and Alderson--would not send me their lists, nonsensically
alleging that it was unconstitutional; all the others did.[8] Old
Park is peevish and foolish. The Ministers are come to town,
having enough upon their hands; the war in Spain, and approaching
downfall of the Christino cause, will be a blow which will shake
Palmerston's credit severely, and many think will force him to
retire, which, however, I do not expect. Then the nervousness in
the City about the monetary state, the disappearance of gold, the
cessation of orders from America, and the consequent interruption
to trade, and dismissal of thousands of workmen who have been
thrown out of employment, present the prospect of a disquieting
winter. It is remarkable that all accounts agree in stating that
so great is the improvidence of the artisans and manufacturing
labourers, that none of those who have been in the receipt of the
highest wages have saved anything against the evil days with
which they are menaced. Rice affected to be very cheerful
yesterday, and said it would all come right. A good deal of
alarm, however, prevails in what are called practical quarters.
Then there is a split among the Radicals, some of whom are
dissatisfied that Government will not take up their views, and
others are affronted at the personal neglect or incivility which
they have experienced. As the Ministers disclaim any connection
with the Radicals, while existing upon their support, they think
it necessary in proof of the first to exclude them from any
participation in those social civilities which Ministers usually
dispense to their adherents, and as these patriots are not free
from the same stirrings of pride and vanity which are found in
other men, they are mortified and disgusted, as well as
indignant, at such unworthy usage; they will, however, smooth
their ruffled plumage before Parliament meets, for they must
support the present Government, and Government will perhaps be a
little more cordial, as they can't do without these allies.
[8] [The lists of sheriffs for the ensuing year are
commonly handed in by the judges to the Clerk of the
Council in the Court of Exchequer on the morrow of St.
Martin.]
November 17th, 1836 {p.373}
I have had two other conversations with Esterhazy at different
times. He went to Brighton and saw the King, whom he thought much
_baisse_, but I do not know whether it is a proof of it that he
could not prevail upon his Majesty to enter upon foreign politics
with him. He repeated to me what he had said before of the
necessity of a strict and cordial union between Austria and
England, and the disposition of the former not to contest our
supremacy and influence in the Peninsula, but he harps upon the
_mode_ of doing this, which I don't quite understand. I gathered
from him, and have heard from other quarters, that Metternich's
influence is much diminished, and that the Austrian Cabinet is no
longer ruled by him as heretofore, and that there is not the same
union: but there would appear to be a very complete union in the
Austrian Imperial Family, who cling together from a sense of
their common interest, and in great measure from the respect and
attachment which they all feel for the memory of the late
Emperor. Esterhazy said it was remarkable, considering the
condition of the Imperial House--the Emperor[9] in a state
bordering on idiocy, not likely to live above four or five years
at the outside, and his uncles all men of talent and energy; the
next heir, the brother of the Emperor,[10] is a man of competent
sense, but the late Emperor's brothers he describes to be all
superior men.
[9] [The Emperor Ferdinand, here described, filled the
throne until 1848, when he abdicated in the great
convulsion of that year; he spent the rest of his life
in retirement at Prague, but he survived this
prediction nearly forty years.]
[10] [The Archduke Franz Joseph, father of the present
Emperor. But this Archduke never filled the throne.]
[Page Head: THE DUKE OF REICHSTADT.]
He told me a great deal about the Duke of Reichstadt, who, if he
had lived, would have probably played a great part in the world.
He died of a premature decay, brought on apparently by over-exertion
and over-excitement; his talents were very conspicuous, he was
_petri d'ambition_, worshipped the memory of his father, and for
that reason never liked his mother; his thoughts were incessantly
turned towards France, and when he heard of the days of July he
said, 'Why was I not there to take my chance?' He evinced great
affection and gratitude to his grandfather, who, while he
scrupulously observed all his obligations towards Louis Philippe,
could not help feeling a secret pride in the aspiring genius and
ambition of Napoleon's son. He was well educated, and day and
night pored over the history of his father's glorious career. He
delighted in military exercises, and not only shone at the head of
his regiment, but had already acquired the hereditary art of
ingratiating himself with the soldiers. Esterhazy told me one
anecdote in particular, which shows the absorbing passion of his
soul overpowering the usual propensities of his age. He was to
make his first appearance in public at a ball at Lady Cowley's (to
which he had shown great anxiety to go), and was burning with
impatience to amuse himself with dancing and flirting with the
beauties he had admired in the Prater. He went, but there he met
two French marshals--Marmont and Maison. He had no eyes or ears
but for them; from nine in the evening to five the next morning he
devoted himself to these marshals, and conversed with them without
ceasing. Though he knew well enough all the odium that attached to
Marmont, he said to him that he was too happy to have the
opportunity of making the acquaintance of one who had been among
his father's earliest companions, and who could tell him so many
interesting details of his earlier days. Marmont subsequently
either did give or was to have given him lessons in strategy.