CHAPTER XXX.

The Case of Gorham _v._ the Bishop of Exeter--Death of Lord

Alvanley--The Session opened--State of Parties--Clouds

arise--The Greek Affair--The Ceylon Committee--The Removal of

Lord Roden--The Pacifico Affair--Lord Clarendon arrives--The

Dolly's Brae Debate--The Irish Encumbered Estates Act--The Greek

Affair--Conversation with Sir Robert Peel--The Roden Affair--The

Queen's View of Lord Palmerston's Foreign Policy--Debate on Mr.

Disraeli's Motion--Mr. Gladstone's Equivocal Position--Grillon's

Club--Precarious Position of the Government--The Gorham

Judgement--The African Squadron--Ministerial Troubles--The Greek

Dispute--Lord Campbell Lord Chief Justice--Negotiation between

the Branches of the House of Bourbon--The French Ambassador

recalled from London--Lord Palmerston's Prevarications--The Case

of the French Government--Intention to remove Lord Palmerston

from the Foreign Office--First Speech of Mr. Stanley--Sir James

Graham's Schemes of Reform--Debate in the Lords on the Greek

Dispute--Effects of the Division--Lord Palmerston's great Speech.

[Sidenote: THE GORHAM CASE.]

_London, January 16th, 1850._--Since I first began to keep a journal I

do not believe so long an interval has ever elapsed as between the last

time I wrote anything and now. Without there having been any matter of

great importance, there have been fifty small things I might have

recorded at least as interesting as one half that these books contain;

but I know not why, I have never felt the least inclination, but, on the

contrary, a considerable aversion, to the occupation. I have over and

over again resolved to recommence writing, and as often have failed from

an inexplicable repugnance to execute my purpose. I am at last induced

to take up my pen to put down what has taken place in the case of Gorham

and the Bishop of Exeter, because this is a matter which excites great

interest, which will not speedily be forgotten, and on which it is

desirable there should be some authentic account, especially in respect

to those parts of the proceedings which are not publicly known. The

details of the case itself are to be found in a hundred publications,

and I shall therefore confine myself to what passed behind the curtain.

Jenner[104] having given judgement in the Court of Arches in favour of

the Bishop, Gorham appealed to the Privy Council. We first had to

consider what steps we should take to form a competent Court. It was

immediately settled that the two Archbishops and the Bishop of

London[105] should be invited to attend, and I wrote them letters,

setting forth the clause in the Privy Council Act by which the Queen was

authorised to summon them, telling them they could not vote, but

signifying the desire of the Lord President they would attend to give

their opinions to the Judicial Committee. The two Archbishops wrote

answers that they would come; the Bishop of London sent no answer, and I

found out afterwards that he would have preferred the attendance of the

prelates being dispensed with. We then considered whom we should get to

form the Court, and after a consultation with Lord Lansdowne, it was

settled that the whole of the Judicial Committee should be summoned, but

with an intimation that while it had been considered advisable to send a

summons to every member of the Court on account of the importance of the

question, their attendance was not imperative. It was also deemed very

desirable to have at least one Common Law Judge there. In the Court of

Delegates a Common Law Judge was always indispensable, and Baron Parke

had often pronounced a strong opinion that one ought always to be

present in those Appeals to the Judicial Committee which formerly went

to the Delegates. We had, however, great difficulty in getting one;

neither Wilde nor Pollock would consent to attend, and Parke had made an

engagement to go into the country. At length, finding that unless Parke

agreed to come we should have no Common Law Judge, I wrote him a strong

and pressing letter, urging him to attend; and having got the Lord

President to back me up, he agreed to give up his engagement and assist

at the hearing of the case. The Court was finally composed of Lords

Langdale and Campbell, Baron Parke, Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, Dr.

Lushington, and Mr. Pemberton Leigh. Lord Lansdowne came the first day

and opened the proceedings; made a short speech, stating that Her

Majesty had been advised to summon the prelates in so important a case,

and that he himself did not contemplate attending throughout the

hearing, as he did not consider himself competent to act as a Judge in

that Court, though always ready to render his assistance in arranging

their proceedings, and then having fairly launched them he went away.

The cause was very elaborately and very ably argued by Turner for

Gorham, and Baddeley for the Bishop. The Court was crammed full almost

every day, and the interest very great. It was conducted with great

moderation and decorum on all sides, with one exception. At the end of

his speech Baddeley very injudiciously and very indecently made a

personal attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury. He charged him with

having given a living to a man holding Gorham's opinions, and therefore

being prejudiced in this case. The Prelate, with some emotion, but very

mildly, explained that he had given the living to the clergyman in

question before he had published the book in which these opinions were

said to be enunciated, and that he knew nothing about them. Baddeley

made a sort of apology, and Campbell rebuked him with some severity, but

at the same time acknowledged the ability of his speech, and, with this

exception, its moderation and becoming tone. When the arguments were

over, the Lords remained in discussion for some time. The Prelates all

said they should like to take time to consider their opinions, and then

to give them in writing. It was therefore agreed that they should meet

again on the 15th, when they would read their written opinions to the

Judicial Committee; and it was also settled that Lord Langdale should

draw up the Report. There was not much discussion, but it was evident

from what passed that the judgement would be reversed. Yesterday

afternoon they assembled again. The Archbishop of Canterbury began. His

paper was excellent. He showed that opinions, if not identical with, yet

very like, those of Gorham had been held by a host of great and good

Churchmen, and he was strongly of opinion that the Bishop was not

justified in refusing to induct him. The Archbishop of York followed. He

gave the same opinion, but in a much less able paper. Then came the

Bishop of London. He said he entirely agreed with the two Archbishops,

so far as they had gone; intimated that his first impression had been

the same as theirs, but in looking more closely into Gorham's doctrine

he had arrived at the conclusion that he had gone considerably beyond

what had ever been held by any of the eminent persons whom the

Archbishop had quoted, and that he had distinctly laid down positions

wholly inconsistent with the efficacy of the Baptismal Sacrament, and

that this he could not get over. He therefore gave an opinion, though it

did not seem to be a very decided one, against Gorham. The Lords thanked

the Prelates, and begged for copies of their several papers, and then

they proceeded very briefly to state their own views. Lord Langdale said

a very few words against the judgement of the Court below. Baron Parke

said he had written his opinion, and they begged him to read it. It was

a very good argument, of which, however, he did not read the whole, and

he agreed with Lord Langdale. Campbell neither made a speech nor read a

paper, but took a similar view. Lushington said he had written out his

opinion, but had not brought his paper with him. He made, however, a

short speech, very good indeed, in which he pronounced a strong opinion

against the Bishop, commenting in severe terms upon the nature of the

examination, and setting forth the great danger to the peace of the

Church which would result from a judicial declaration on their part that

Gorham's opinions were clearly proved to be heretical. After him came

Knight Bruce, who read a paper of moderate length, but strongly

condemnatory of Gorham, and for affirming the judgement of the Court

below. Pemberton Leigh was the last. He said he had not been prepared

to express any opinion, having conceived that they were only to meet to

hear those of the Prelates; but he made a very short speech, in which he

gave a very decided opinion for reversing the judgement; and he showed

very clearly that if there were some answers of Gorham's which appeared

to bear out the Bishop of London's view of the matter, there were others

by which they were neutralised, and in which he gave his unqualified

assent and consent to those doctrines of the Church which the Bishops

alleged that he rejected. Some conversation, all very amicable, then

ensued, and the question was settled. Lord Langdale undertook to prepare

the judgement. The Bishop of London said he hoped nothing would be said

in it condemnatory of the Bishop of Exeter's doctrine, at which they all

exclaimed that they would take care nothing of the kind was done; they

would steer as clear as possible of any declaration of opinion as to

doctrine, and found their judgement on this, that it had not been proved

to them that Gorham had put forth any doctrine so clearly and

undoubtedly at variance with the Articles and formularies as to warrant

the Bishop's refusal to induct him. Lushington said he had the greatest

difficulty in making out what Gorham's doctrine really was, and he was

much struck with the fact that in no part of the Bishop's pleadings did

he say explicitly with what he charged him. They then separated, no time

having been fixed for giving judgement. But for Knight Bruce it would be

unanimous; but he will never give way, and this will prevent their

declaring that they are unanimous.

[Footnote 104: [Sir Herbert Jenner, then Dean of the Arches, had given

judgement against Mr. Gorham, who was the promoter of the 'Duplex

Querela' for institution to the living of Brampford Speke, which was the

commencement of these celebrated proceedings.]]

[Footnote 105: [Dr. Sumner was then Archbishop of Canterbury; Dr.

Musgrave, Archbishop of York; Dr. Blomfield, Bishop of London.]]

[Sidenote: OPINIONS ON THE GORHAM CASE.]

[Sidenote: DEATH OF LORD ALVANLEY.]

_January 23rd._--If I had not been too lazy to write about anybody or

anything, I should not have suffered the death of Lord Alvanley to pass

without some notice. The world, however, has no time to think of people

who are out of its sight, and a long illness which had confined him

entirely, and limited his society to a few old friends, caused him to be

forgotten, and his departure out of life to be almost unobserved. There

was a time when it would have been very different, during those many

years when his constant spirits and good humour, together with his

marvellous wit and drollery, made him the delight and ornament of

society. I know no description of him so appropriate as the character of

Biron in 'Love's Labour's Lost':--

...A merrier man,

Within the limit of becoming mirth,

I never spent an hour's talk withal:

His eye begets occasion for his wit,

For every object that the one doth catch

The other turns to a mirth-moving jest,

Which his fair tongue (conceit's expositor)

Delivers in such apt and gracious words,

That aged ears play truant at his tales,

And younger hearings are quite ravished;

So sweet and voluble is his discourse.

He was originally in the army, came early into the world, and at once

plunged into every sort of dissipation and extravagance. He was the most

distinguished of that set of _rouÈs_ and spendthrifts who were at the

height of the fashion for some years--consisting of Brummel, Sir H.

Mildmay, Lord Sidney Osborne, Foley, John Payne, Scrope Davies, and

several others, and when all of them were ruined and dispersed (most of

them never to recover), Alvanley still survived, invulnerable in his

person, from being a Peer, and with the means of existence in

consequence of the provident arrangement of his uncle, who left him a

considerable property in the hand of trustees, and thus preserved from

the grasp of his creditors. He was naturally of a kind and affectionate

disposition, good-natured, obliging, and inclined to be generous; but he

was to the last degree reckless and profligate about money; he cared not

what debts he incurred, and he made nothing of violating every sort of

pecuniary engagement or obligation. He left the friends who assisted him

in the lurch without remorse, and such was the _bonhomie_ of his

character, and the irresistible attraction of his society, that they

invariably forgave him, and after exhausting their indignation in

complaints and reproaches, they became more intimate with him than

before. Many a person has been astonished, after hearing the tale of

Alvanley's abominable dishonesty and deceit, to see the plaintiff and

the culprit the dearest of friends in the world. He was a great example

how true it is that--

L'agrÈment couvre tout, il rend tout lÈgitime;

Aujourd'hui dans le monde il n'y a qu'un seul crime,

C'est l'ennui: pour le fuir tous les moyens sont bons.

When I recollect his constant treacheries, and the never-failing

placability of his dupes, I always think of the story of Manon L'Escaut,

of whom he appears to me to have been a male prototype. It would be very

difficult to convey any idea of the sort of agreeableness which was so

captivating in him. He did not often say very witty things; it was not

uproarious mirth, and jokes exciting fits of laughter like Sydney Smith;

he was unlike any of the great luminaries of his own or of bygone times;

but he was delightful. He was so gay, so natural, so irresistibly

comical, he diffused such cheerfulness around him, he was never

ill-natured; if he quizzed anybody and bantered them, he made them

neither angry nor unhappy; he had an even and constant flow of spirits,

and till his health became impaired you were _sure_ of him in society.

He was vain, but it was a harmless and amusing vanity, which those who

knew him well understood and laughed at. He had rioted in all the

dissipations of play and wine and women, and for many years (a _liaison_

which began when neither were very young, and was the _rÈchauffÈ_ of an

earlier affair, before she was married) he was the notorious and avowed

lover of Lady ----. What Burke says with a sort of mock modesty of

himself, was true of Alvanley--he had 'read the book of life for a long

time, and other books a little!' For the first years of his life he was

too entirely plunged in dissipation and debauchery to repair in any way

the deficiencies of a neglected education; later, he read a good deal in

a desultory way, and acquired a good store of miscellaneous information.

At one period he addicted himself to politics, but he never made any

figure in the House of Lords, having no parliamentary experience, no

oratorical genius, and no foundation of knowledge. But it was during

this period that he signalised his courage in his duel with young

O'Connell. Before that event, for no particular reason but that he was

only known as a voluptuary, no very high idea was entertained of his

personal bravery; but on this occasion it shone forth with great lustre,

for no man ever exhibited more resolution or indifference to danger. For

the last four years of his life he was afflicted with painful diseases,

and his sufferings were incessant and intense. He bore them all with a

fortitude and a cheerfulness which never failed him, and which excited

universal sympathy and admiration.

[Sidenote: OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.]

_February 2nd._--The Session opened on Thursday,[106] and Ministers got

a great victory in the House of Lords the same night, and yesterday

another in the House of Commons so signal and decisive as to leave no

uncertainty in respect to the agricultural questions, or the stability

of the Government. After all the sound and fury which have pervaded the

country, and the formidable attitude they assumed, they entered on the

parliamentary contest in a very feeble and apparently undecided, if not

disunited manner. And nothing could be more shocking than the contrast

between the rage and fury, the denunciations and determinations of the

Protectionists all over the country for months past, and the moderate

language and abstinences from all specific demands on the part of the

leaders in both Houses. Stanley, who has never said or written a

syllable during the recess, and kept aloof from all agitation, made a

very reasonable speech, disclaiming any wish to interrupt the

experiment, which he was sure would fail, and only requiring that if it

did fail, we should retrace our steps. This was very different from

Richmond, who was coarse and violent, and declared he wanted to turn out

the Government, and restore Protection at once. In the other House,

Disraeli was very bad, and there was no possibility of making out what

he meant or was driving at. Cobden was very good, and had much the best

of him. All this disunion and weakness ended in good divisions, an

exposure of the weakness and inefficiency of the Tory party, and

apparently putting the Government at their ease and into smooth water.

[Footnote 106: [Parliament was opened by Commission on January 31. A

Protectionist amendment to the Address was defeated in the House of

Lords by 152 to 103, and in the House of Commons by 311 to 192.]]

But in the midst of all this apparent prosperity many people (of whom I

am one) are far from easy at the state of affairs. The Opposition are

rabid, and bent on annoying and damaging the Government in every way

they can. The Radicals are lying in wait to take advantage of their

resentment and turn it to their own purposes. It is impossible not to

feel that the Free Trade 'experiment,' as it is called, is a fearful and

a doubtful one; and even supposing it to succeed (as I think it will in

the long run), there are so many weak and vulnerable landlords and

tenants, that there will be a great deal of intermediate havoc and

distress; and the farmers have been so terrified and excited by their

leaders and orators, that there is good reason to fear, when they find

Protection cannot be had, that they will become financial reformers,

break through all the old patriarchal ties, and go to any lengths which

they may fancy they can make instrumental to their relief. The

Protectionists have had the folly to poison and pervert their minds, and

to raise a spirit they will find it difficult either to manage or

subdue. In short, the country is in a greater state of fermentation and

uncertainty than I have ever known it, and its conservative qualities,

and faculty of righting itself, and resisting extreme dangers, will be

put to a severe test.

[Sidenote: LORD PALMERSTON AND LORD GREY.]

_February 10th._--The brightness of the Ministerial prospect was very

soon clouded over, and last week their disasters began. There was

first of all the Greek affair, and then the case of the Ceylon

witnesses--matters affecting Lord Palmerston and Lord Grey. The Greek

case will probably be settled, thanks to French mediation, but it was a

bad and discreditable affair, and has done more harm to Palmerston than

any of his greater enormities.[107] The other Ministers are extremely

annoyed at it, and at the sensation it has produced. The disgust felt at

these bullying and paltry operations is great and universal, and it will

of course tend to make us still more odious abroad. As far as Palmerston

himself is concerned, he will as usual escape unscathed, quite ready to

plunge into any fresh scrape to-morrow, uncorrected and unchecked; he

bears a charmed life in politics, he is so popular and so dexterous that

he is never at a loss, nor afraid, nor discomposed. He is supported by

his own party; the Peelites will not attack him for fear of hurting the

Government; and he is the pet of the Radicals, to whom he pays continual

court, giving them sops in the shape of Liberal speeches, Hungarian

sympathies, and claptrap--unmeaning verbiage of different sorts.

[Footnote 107: [In consequence of the _hiatus_ in these Journals from

September to January, no mention has yet been made of the demands on the

Greek Government in favour of Don Pacifico, a Gibraltar Jew, by order of

Lord Palmerston, but they led to very serious consequences. On January

18, 1850, Admiral Parker proclaimed a blockade of the PirÊus, the Greek

Government having refused to acknowledge the British claims. On February

5, France offered her good offices as a mediator; but this, as will be

seen, did not settle the question.]]

Very different is the case of Grey. He is as unpopular as the other is

popular. The House of Commons swarms with his bitter enemies, and he

commands very few friends. Notwithstanding his great and undeniable

abilities, he committed blunders, which proceed from his contempt for

the opinion of others, and the tenacity with which he clings to his own;

and while those who know him are aware that a man more high-minded, more

honourable and conscientious does not exist, he has contrived to make

himself pass for a Minister whose word cannot be relied on. This last

affair of the Ceylon witnesses is indeed well calculated to confirm such

an impression, and to heap additional odium on his head. It is wholly

without excuse, damaging to him, damaging to the Government, and will

animate and embitter the personal hostility with which he is pursued to

a degree that will probably bring him to grief in the course of this

Session, and perhaps the whole Cabinet with him.[108] The Government

was only saved from a defeat on Wednesday morning by the bad tactics of

Disraeli, who moved so strong a resolution that few would support it.

Bright then moved one more moderate, and was only beaten by nine; had

the more moderate one been moved at first, it would have been carried.

These two incidents have been vexatious and injurious, and were not

improved by an angry personal squabble between Horsman on one side and

John Russell and Sir George Grey on the other, in which, however, the

former is undoubtedly in the wrong.

[Footnote 108: [A Select Committee of the House of Commons had been

appointed to enquire into the grievances alleged to exist in Ceylon,

especially with reference to the means taken by the Governor to quell

the recent insurrection in that island, and an understanding had been

arrived at in the preceding Session, that certain witnesses should be

brought over from Ceylon on the reappointment of the Committee. These

witnesses were not forthcoming, and condemnatory motions were made by

Mr. Hume, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Bright, but rejected by the House of

Commons.]]

Lord Stanley has taken up Lord Roden's cause,[109] and is going to

attack the Irish Government, much to my surprise, for he told me himself

at Newmarket that he thought Roden quite wrong, and that Clarendon could

not help dismissing him. But what he may have said or thought all goes

for nothing when he can find an opportunity of making an assault on the

Government, or 'giving them a gallop,' as he told Clanricarde he was

going to do, when he gave notice of his motion.

[Footnote 109: [In October 1849, Lord Clarendon, then Lord Lieutenant of

Ireland, dismissed from the Commission of the Peace Lord Roden and the

other Orange magistrates implicated in the fray which took place at

Dolly's Brae on July 12, 1849. Lord Stanley brought the whole subject

forward in the House of Lords on February 18, and Lord Clarendon

defended his measures in person.]]

[Sidenote: THE PACIFICO CASE.]

_February 14th._--There has been a grand discussion whether Clarendon

should come over to meet Stanley and Roden on Monday next. He was

greatly against coming, and so were several of his friends; but John

Russell, George Grey, and Lord Lansdowne all thought he had better come,

and he acquiesced, though reluctantly, and retaining his opinion that it

was not expedient. Stanley told Granville yesterday that he was not

going to defend Orange processions, and had only taken up the matter for

the purpose of preventing personal matters between Clarendon and Roden

being mixed up with the discussion on the Processions Act, and to have

those personal matters settled beforehand; _au reste_, that he had at

first thought Clarendon had been quite in the right, but since he had

seen all the evidence and read the papers he had changed his opinion,

and thought Roden and the other Peers had been hardly treated. Clarendon

himself wrote me word he was convinced Stanley only brought forward this

matter to satisfy his Irish adherents, who had been urging him to do it.

It is most probable that he finds himself in a scrape with his party,

who must be excessively disappointed and disgusted at his very lukewarm

advocacy of Protection in his speech on the first night of the Session,

and indeed at the way he has kept aloof from all their agitation; and he

finds it necessary to do something to satisfy them in other ways. So he

will take every opportunity he can find of attacking the Government, and

try to excite and assure his party by such field-days as Dolly's Brae,

and by working the Greek question and anything else he can lay his hands

on.

This Greek question is the worst scrape into which Palmerston has ever

got himself and his colleagues. The disgust at it here is universal with

those who think at all about foreign matters; it is past all doubt that

it has produced the strongest feelings of indignation against this

country all over Europe, and the Ministers themselves are conscious what

a disgraceful figure they cut, and are ashamed of it. Labouchere came

into my room yesterday and let loose about it without reserve. He said

it admitted of no excuse, and that John Russell, who alone could have

prevented it, was inexcusable for not having done so; that it ought to

have been brought regularly and formally before the Cabinet, who ought

all to have known precisely what it was Palmerston proposed to do.

Papers indeed were sent round in boxes, and Palmerston defended himself

on this ground, and asked why they did not read them; but (said

Labouchere) how was it possible for men who had large departments with a

vast deal of business of their own, to read all the papers which were

brought round in circulation? They neither did nor could. It was quite

clear from all this that the Greek affair was not a measure well

considered, discussed, and agreed on by the Cabinet, but done in the

true Palmerstonian style, offhand, partly and casually communicated to

his colleagues, but so managed as to be his own act, to which they

indeed became parties, completely implicated, but in which they were not

really consulted, and which passed under their eyes without entering

into their serious thoughts. Now that the whole magnitude of the scrape

is revealed to them they are full of resentment and mortification.

Graham told Arbuthnot the other day that he thought the breaking down of

the Government would be the greatest of evils, and he would do anything

to support them, but that it was impossible for them to go on with two

such men as Grey and Palmerston.

_February 17th._--I breakfasted with Senior yesterday, to meet Macaulay,

Hallam, and Van de Weyer, and I had some talk with the latter about

Greece. Of course, he expressed himself with reserve, but he owned it

was a very bad affair, and could not end either creditably or well. He

said he thought there was a good chance of patching up the quarrel with

Spain, which was in the hands of his King. After the breakfast I went to

Kent House, where I found Clarendon arrived the night before in very

good spirits. He gave me an outline of his case, and told me several

facts, very important and available, and I am sanguine as to his coming

well out of it, if he can manage his materials adroitly. On the other

hand, the Stanleians and Rodentes give out that they have a great case,

the first on constitutional, and the last on personal, grounds; but both

profess an intention to be moderate in their mode of pressing it. Lord

Grey has had a success in the Ceylon Committee in the evidence of

Captain Watson, who proved the proclamation attributed to him to be a

forgery; and he threw so much discredit on Baillie's evidence that

Graham told me he thought it would be fatal to his case.

[Sidenote: THE DOLLY'S BRAE AFFAIR.]

_February 19th._--Stanley brought on the Dolly's Brae affair last night

in a long, clever, and artful speech, delivered in his best style. But

it was the speech of a clever _nisi prius_ advocate, and consisted

principally of an ingenious dissection of Berwick's report and the

evidence, and a bitter attack upon him. The useless and unmeaning

character of this display was very apparent when he announced his

intention of doing nothing, and asking no opinion of the House.

Clarendon rose after him. He made a very good case, his points told

remarkably well, and, on the whole, he acquitted himself successfully,

and to the satisfaction of his friends; but, coming after Stanley's

practised and brilliant declamation, his style appeared tame and feeble.

It was easy to see that he was no debater, and that his parliamentary

inexperience diminished his force and efficacy. For a little while I was

in great alarm for him, and thought he was going to break down; but he

recovered, and got through his speech very well. If he had had more

artistic power, he would have made his excellent materials much more

effective than they were. In such hands as Stanley's they would have

been crushing; they would have been very powerful if Lord Lansdowne had

had them; but as it was, it was well enough. There was no personality

introduced into the debate; the rival speeches were very civil and

complimentary to each other; and Roden, throughout his dull and

inaudible harangue, called Clarendon his noble friend, to which

Clarendon of course responded in his short second speech. Before it

began Stanley and Clarendon rushed to each other across the House, and

shook hands very cordially, like a couple of boxers before setting to.

_February 20th._--Clarendon called on me yesterday, very happy at his

success the night before. There is a pretty general opinion that he made

out a very good case, and that Stanley's was a failure. The latter made

one or two great mistakes, and was detected in one very discreditable

attempt. He quoted from an Act of Parliament, reading an extract from

it, but stopping short at that part of the clause which would have upset

his own argument. By a great piece of good luck, the Chancellor Brady

had anticipated the possibility of this Act being alluded to, and had

sent it over to Clarendon, pointing out this clause, and Clarendon only

received it two hours before the debate came on.

Clarendon told me he expected the Encumbered Estates Act would prove the

regeneration of Ireland, and that this measure was entirely done by

himself. When he was here last year he saw Peel, who said he would give

up his own scheme if Clarendon could accomplish something of this kind.

Clarendon spoke to John Russell about it, who said legal reforms were

impossible; the lawyers never would carry them out. Clarendon replied,

'Only lend me your Solicitor-General, and I will do it all.' Romilly

went over to Dublin, the Chancellor was cajoled, the Irish Attorney-and

Solicitor-General were frightened into acquiescence, and Romilly drew

the Bill with their concurrence, which was passed last Session, and is

now working with extraordinary effect. The Lord-Lieutenancy is to be

abolished on January 1, 1851, and the Bill to be brought in this

Session. Clarendon will then be Secretary of State for Ireland.

We had some talk about our foreign affairs, especially Greece, of which

he had himself only heard a little. I had heard that Palmerston had been

making some fresh proposal to the Cabinet, at which they had kicked, and

I now learned what it was. So little disposed is he, notwithstanding all

the feelings and opinions that have been manifested, to recede, that he

proposed that instructions should be sent to Wyse to insist that the

French Minister at Athens (or agent of the _bons offices_, whoever he

may be) should be obliged to require of the Greek Government an

immediate compliance with the whole of our demands. This the Cabinet

refused to do, but Lord Lansdowne owned to Clarendon that he was by no

means sure that they were apprised of all the instructions that had been

sent, or that this requisition might not have gone out, though the

Cabinet had refused its consent to it. Clarendon told Lord Lansdowne

that he hoped he was not insensible to the state of public opinion on

this matter, and he said he was fully aware of it.

[Sidenote: SIR ROBERT PEEL ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.]

_February 22nd._--On Wednesday, as I was crossing the Park, I fell in

with Sir Robert Peel, and turned back with him to Charles Wood's, where

he was going, after which we went towards his home, and walked up and

down behind Whitehall for half an hour or more, talking of all sorts of

things. He began about the Roden affair, on which he thought there was

no case against Clarendon, but that he might have made more clearly

known to Lord Roden his dislike to the procession, and considering the

friendly terms they had been on, that there was some want of courtesy in

making no communication to him before the notice of dismissal,

particularly after Roden had offered to resign if it would be of any use

to him that he should do so. I explained all these matters to him, and

showed him that Clarendon had said and done all he could, and that no

blame attached to him. He said he had known nothing of the matter but

what Jocelyn had told him.

He then spoke of foreign affairs, and did not spare Palmerston. He

reviewed the general course of our proceedings, and especially the Greek

affair, which he thought very bad; but what was still worse, was our

having sent our fleet into the Dardanelles, having no right to do so,

and then asserting we were driven there by stress of weather, which was

a pretence and a falsehood. This was very disgraceful, and the use to

which our fleet had been put very shameful. That Palmerston had met with

nothing but failures from Lisbon, where he first sent the fleet, and

where his enemy Cabral had been ever since in power down to the present

occasion. Brunnow had spoken to him the other day, and talked very good

sense. He said the Emperor of Russia would not quarrel on this matter,

not having done so on our fleet going to the Dardanelles; he would not

on account of two uninhabited islets, but he would feel it. He alluded

to the Emperor's sarcastic remark on the story of our fleet being

compelled to take shelter in the Dardanelles; that 'he had always

understood our fleets were most ably and powerfully manned, their

tactics very superior, and that Sir William Parker was a very skilful

officer; but that _his_ fleet, though lying in that sea for many

months, had never found itself under any such necessity.' Brunnow said

it was a great pity that somebody could not represent to Palmerston the

impolicy of the course he had been pursuing all over Europe; that it was

evident his real motive and intention in the Greek affair had been to

bring about a revolution there, and that he had expected, when his fleet

appeared, there would be a rising against Otho, who would be expelled;

that when Europe was only just emerging from a state of general

revolution, and order was only lately restored, what folly it was to

provoke a fresh revolution, and to reopen an important question, the

settlement of which might lead to the greatest difficulties! Brunnow

always defends Palmerston, and affects to make light of all the

_accidents_ that arise, but he speaks his real sentiments to Peel and

Aberdeen. Peel said he had seen a letter from an officer in Parker's

fleet, representing that the Admiral was exceedingly disgusted at the

business put into his hands. We occupied so much time in discussing

Ireland and Greece, that there was none to go into other matters, though

I should have liked to hear his opinion of the state and prospects of

the country.

Last night I met Clarendon at dinner at Bath House, when I told him what

had passed between Peel and me. He told me also that Roden had behaved

shabbily to him, when he quoted in the House of Lords the letter he had

written, offering to resign the magistracy, but concealing the latter

part of the same letter in which he said that he hoped he would not

accept it if he thought it would be any triumph to the Catholics, for

they had now got them down, and they should be able to keep them down.

This, Clarendon said, he felt tempted to read himself, as Roden chose to

read the first part, but he abstained.

[Sidenote: PRINCE ALBERT ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.]

He then gave me an account of what had passed between the Queen and

Prince and himself. He dined at the Palace on Tuesday. I told him they

were sure to talk to him on foreign affairs, but he said he should avoid

it. However, he could not avoid it. The moment he came into the

drawing-room after dinner the Queen exploded, and went with the utmost

vehemence and bitterness into the whole of Palmerston's conduct, all the

effects produced all over the world, and all her own feelings and

sentiments about it. He could only listen and profess his own almost

entire ignorance of the details. After she had done Prince Albert began,

but not finding time and opportunity to say all he wished, he asked him

to call on him the next day. He went and had a conversation of two hours

and a half, in the course of which he went into every detail, and poured

forth without stint or reserve all the pent-up indignation, resentment,

and bitterness with which the Queen and himself have been boiling for a

long time past. He commented on Palmerston's policy and conduct much in

the same terms in which the 'Times' does, and as I and others do. But

what he enlarged upon with the strongest feeling was the humiliating

position in which the Queen was placed in the eyes of the whole world.

The remonstrances and complaints, the sentiments and resentments of

other Sovereigns--of the King of Naples, and of the Emperor of Russia,

for instance--directly affected her dignity as the Sovereign and

Representative of this Nation; and the consciousness that these

Sovereigns and all the world knew that she utterly disapproved of all

that was done in her name, but that she was powerless to prevent it, was

inconceivably mortifying and degrading. Prince Albert said he knew well

enough the Constitutional position of the Sovereign of this country, and

that it was the policy and measures which the nation desired and

approved which the Government must carry out; but that the nation

disapproved of Palmerston's proceedings, and so did his own colleagues,

Lord Lansdowne particularly; yet by their weak connivance he was allowed

to set at defiance the Sovereign, the Government, and public opinion,

while the Queen could get neither redress nor support from John Russell,

and was forced to submit to such degradation. He then mentioned various

instances in which the Queen's remonstrances and suggestions had been

disregarded. Minutes submitted to her in one form and changed by

Palmerston into other forms; the refusal of Austria to send any

Ambassador here, because he could not transact business with her

Secretary of State. Clarendon asked him if he had ever endeavoured to

influence Palmerston himself, and remonstrated with him on those matters

which had justly excited the strong feelings of the Queen and himself.

He said that he had done so repeatedly, and for a long time; that he

always found him easy, good-humoured, very pleasant to talk to, but that

it was utterly impossible to turn him from his purposes, or to place the

least reliance on anything he said or engaged to do, and that at length

the conviction which had been forced upon him of the uselessness of

speaking to him had caused him entirely to leave it off, and for above a

year past neither the Queen nor he had ever said one word to him; that

it was in vain they had appealed to John Russell. He supposed it was the

etiquette for Cabinet Ministers never to admit there was anything

censurable in the conduct of each other, for though he was certain many

things were done of which John Russell could not approve, and for which

he was unable to make any defence, he never would admit that what had

been done had been wrong; that the consequence of this had been to

impair considerably the relations of confidence and openness which ought

to exist between the Queen and her Prime Minister, and to place her in

an unsatisfactory position _vis-‡-vis_ of him. After dilating at great

length on this topic, he said something from which Clarendon inferred

that his object was to make _him_ a channel of communication with John

Russell, and thus to make their sentiments known to him more clearly and

unreservedly than they could do themselves, and he means to tell Lord

John all that passed. He said the Prince talked very sensibly and very

calmly, very strong, but without excitement of manner. I shall be

curious to hear what Lord John says to it all; but though it can hardly

fail somewhat to disturb his mind, I don't believe it will make the

least alteration in his conduct, or change an iota of the 'unconquerable

will and study of revenge' of Palmerston, or prevent his doing just what

he pleases in spite of all the world. Peel told me he understood we

were sending to Leghorn to make demands of some sort there, which he

concluded was done to annoy Austria.

[Sidenote: DEBATE ON THE POOR LAWS.]

_February 23rd._--The division in the House of Commons on Thursday night

was hailed with vociferous cheers by the Protectionists, who considered

it a great victory and the harbinger of future success.[110] Everybody

was taken by surprise, for though it was known that the Opposition would

muster strong, nobody imagined there would be so small a majority as

twenty, the Government expected about forty. Graham spoke very well, and

so did Gladstone _in reply to him_, the part the latter took exciting a

considerable sensation. Disraeli was good, both in his opening speech

and reply. Graham told me he was much improved, and his taste and tone

far better than formerly. Peel was long and heavy, talked of himself too

much, and made one of those defences of his former conduct which he

might as well let alone, for they are superfluous with one half of the

House and country, and useless with the other. He had much better, as

Disraeli told him, do like Cosmo de Medici, and leave his character to

posterity; he unwisely enough noticed a very warm and unjust attack

which Henry Bentinck had made upon him at some public meeting. Henry

Bentinck, like a true member of his family and own brother to George,

instead of recanting or apologising, insinuated his disbelief in what

Peel said, and was as offensive as the clamour and displeasure of the

House and his own inarticulateness allowed him to be. In the afternoon

yesterday Graham called on me to speak about the Australian Bill which

was to have come on next Monday, and on which he said Government would

infallibly be beaten, which following up the _quasi_ defeat of Thursday

would be very awkward. I suggested, after talking the matter over, that

he and Peel might give them some help, which he said they would do, but

must know what Government thereupon meant to do. I undertook to find

out, but in the meantime John Russell put off the Bill.

[Footnote 110: [On February 19 Mr. Disraeli moved for a Committee to

revise and amend the Poor Laws for the purpose of affording relief to

the agricultural classes. Mr. Gladstone voted for the motion, though it

became virtually a Protectionist demonstration. The resolution was

defeated by 273 to 253--only 20 majority for Government.]]

_February 28th._--Before Clarendon left town he saw John Russell, and

told him all that had passed between him and the Prince, and that he was

quite certain it had been said to him for the express purpose of its

being repeated to Lord John. He also told him that it was fit he should

understand the strong and unusual feeling that existed on this subject,

assuring him that he had not met with one single individual of any party

or condition who did not regard it with disgust and displeasure. He then

adjured him, whatever else he might do, to cultivate better _personal_

feelings, and more confidential relations with the Queen and Prince, to

be more open with them, and to enter into their feelings, and this Lord

John, who seems to have taken what he said in very good part, promised

he would not fail to do.

[Sidenote: GRILLON'S CLUB.]

Clarendon had also long conversations with Peel and Graham, who were

both very complimentary and satisfactory about his case in the House of

Lords, and Peel talked to him a great deal about affairs, both English

and Irish. He was as confident as ever in the impossibility of the

restoration of Protection, and the disastrous, and in the end abortive,

effects of any attempt to do so by a Stanley and Disraeli Government, if

by any possibility they could force themselves into office. He is

evidently much disgusted with Gladstone and Goulburn, who have given

indubitable signs of forsaking him, and advancing towards the

Protectionists, and Graham said Stanley would now be able to offer the

Queen a list, which would not be an insult. But Gladstone, though he has

twice voted with the Opposition, loudly declares that he has not changed

an iota of his Free Trade opinions, and has no thoughts of joining the

other party, though they think they can have him whenever they may

vouchsafe to take him. There is a considerably prevailing opinion of the

diminished vigour as well as of the diminished influence of Peel. His

speech the other night was laboured and heavy, and not judicious. Then

the House was much struck by the unusual spectacle of Peel and Graham

both rising to speak together, and both persisting to await the

Speaker's call instead of Graham's giving way to Peel, as he would have

done formerly. It was probably the first time Peel ever rose in the

House of Commons to speak, and had to give way to another speaker. The

House called for the one as much as for the other, and Graham made

incomparably the best speech of the two. Ever since their large

minority, the Protectionists have been in a very rampant and excited

state, overflowing with pugnacity and confidence; but they made a great

mistake in opposing very furiously and factiously the Irish Voters Bill,

and the Government think that night was exceedingly serviceable to them,

by rallying back a great many of the Irish Members, who were out of

humour, and disposed to go against them in the matter of protection and

relief.

I was last night elected at Grillon's Club, much to my surprise, for I

did not know I was a candidate.

_March 8th._--I dined on Wednesday at Grillon's, and was received with

vast civility and cordiality. A large party, much larger than

usual--amongst them Harrowby, Granville, Graham, Sir Thomas Fremantle,

Rutherford, Pusey, Sir Thomas Acland, &c. Sat next to Graham, and had

much talk on affairs. I told him that Labouchere had said to me a day or

two before that John Russell was uneasy about the House of Commons, and

expected that he should be beaten on more than one item in the financial

accounts; that people told him he must expect to be beaten; but he

replied that repeated defeats on such details materially impaired his

influence and authority in the House, and made it difficult to carry on

the business. Graham said this was very true, and that he probably would

be beaten. He thought the position of the Government unsatisfactory and

precarious; they had got into some scrapes about both Army and Naval

estimates, unnecessarily and injudiciously. Then there were the

questions of the African squadron and the Greek business behind. Stanley

is very bitter and active, and eager to fight. He thinks Gladstone,

Goulburn, and Aberdeen would all join Stanley in taking office. I asked

him how it was possible. He said the Protectionists would make some

concessions, and for various reasons and on different pretexts they

would be easily satisfied. He congratulated himself on his foresight in

refusing to take office. This Greek question was just one of those cases

in which he must have refused to obey the orders of the Foreign Office,

very different now from Lord Grey's time. Then when he was First Lord of

the Admiralty, he used to be every day at the Foreign Office, and Lord

Grey was paramount, allowing nothing to be done without his full

knowledge and assent, and constantly altering Palmerston's despatches as

a tutor might a boy's exercise. He talked a good deal about the

abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, of which he approves, but

said the arrangement of the details, especially about the Chancellor,

would be very difficult. Arbuthnot told me the other day that the

Protectionists are doing all they can to disgust the Yeomanry with the

service, and to induce them to resign, not without success. This is

their patriotism.

I met Brunnow a few days ago coming from Palmerston, where he had been

(though he did not say so) to present the Emperor's indignant note. He

was laughing as he always does when he speaks of Palmerston; said of

this affair, 'que c'Ètait une bÍtise; qu'il ne pouvait pas faire

comprendre ‡ Palmerston l'humiliation de l'affaire.' So far from

acknowledging this, or evincing the least sign of regret or shame, when

Hume asked him a question in the House the other night, he replied with

the utmost effrontery, and with rather more than his usual insolence and

audacity. As on every occasion, the House laughed and nobody said a

word. All that relates to him, his character, conduct, and career, will

hereafter form one of the most curious passages in history and the most

astounding and unaccountable.

[Sidenote: THE GORHAM JUDGEMENT.]

_March 9th._--Yesterday judgement was given in Gorham's case at the

Council Office. The crowd was enormous, the crush and squeeze awful. I

accommodated my friends with seats in court, and there were Wiseman and

Bunsen sitting cheek by jowl, probably the antipodes of theological

opinions. The Lords met an hour before. They made some alterations in

the judgement, and some judicious omissions. The Bishop of London, after

much vacillation, half assenting and half dissenting, being on and off,

by turns against Gorham and against the Bishop, disagreeing with

everybody and everything, finally sent his determination through

Lushington, and announcing (as was said in the judgement) that he could

not concur. He did not, however, concur in the statement of Gorham's

doctrine as gathered by the Lords, a difference of construction which

shows how impossible it would have been to condemn Gorham on the score

of heterodox, if not heretical, opinions, when a number of very able

men, laymen and clergymen, after careful examination, could not agree

what his opinions really were. Knight Bruce dissented altogether, wrote

to Lord Langdale to that effect, and declined coming. The Archbishop

agreed in both judgement and reasons. There was a preliminary discussion

about costs. Langdale, Campbell, and Lushington were for giving Gorham

costs in the Court below; Pemberton Leigh was against it; and the three

eventually yielded to the one, and it was agreed to say nothing about

costs. Langdale read the judgement well, and the people who heard it (at

least those I talked to) thought it able and judicious; but of course

all the highflyers and Puseyites will be angry and provoked, and talk of

schisms and secessions, which will be, I am firmly convinced, _bruta

fulmina_.

Reeve received yesterday afternoon from Paris the Russian Note--not the

Note itself, but the whole substance of it, textual evidently, and

copied from the note.[111]

[Footnote 111: [This was a Note in which the Russian Government

protested against the abuse of the maritime power of England to coerce

small and unresisting States.]]

_March 19th._--Last Friday Aberdeen and Stanley had determined to bring

on the Greek affair in the House of Lords, and Stanley gave notice to

Lord Lansdowne he would ask for information. Lord Lansdowne, however,

before Stanley rose, got up and begged he would not discuss a question

which was in course of negotiation, and Stanley was obliged to

acquiesce. They were both of them provoked and disappointed, but there

was no help for it. Stanley then contented himself with asking for the

date of the orders to Parker to stop coercive measures, and it turned

out that Palmerston had delayed sending them for a week upon miserable

pretexts. Lord Lansdowne, as usual, attempted some lame excuses, and

there the matter ended.

To-night comes on the question of the African squadron, on which the

Government have acted a very unwise part.[112] They have determined (of

course in obedience to Palmerston's will and pleasure) not only to make

it a Government question, but to stake their existence on it; and they

have been moving heaven and earth to obtain support and avert the defeat

with which they were threatened. Their representations and appeals will

probably succeed, but I have already seen several people who are

excessively disgusted at being compelled to vote against their clear and

strong convictions, and support what they think wrong and foolish in

order to bolster up the Government and carry them through the difficulty

in which they have been involved by their own perverseness and

obstinacy.

[Footnote 112: [The maintenance of a costly squadron on the coast of

Africa for the suppression of the slave trade had become very unpopular,

even with the Liberal Party. Mr. Hutt moved an Address for the purpose

of relieving the country from that obligation, but his resolution was

negatived by 232 to 154.]]

[Sidenote: LORD JOHN THREATENS TO RESIGN.]

_March 20th._--John Russell convoked a meeting in Downing Street

yesterday, and made them a speech which gave equal offence in manner and

in matter. He told them if he was beaten on Hutt's motion he should

resign. Palmerston made another speech, and announced the same

intention. The people came away furious and indignant, and several came

into my room complaining of the hardship of being compelled to vote

against their conscientious opinions on such a question, and on the

unjustifiable conduct of the Government in threatening to resign at it.

It seems to me that John Russell is demented at taking this violent

course in reference to so unpopular a question, and one so entirely

fallen into disrepute. He has given deep offence and prepared great

difficulties for himself hereafter. Baring Wall told me he sent

Labouchere to him the night before to remonstrate, but he made no

impression, and his reply was too ridiculous; that he could not abandon

the course pursued by _Mr. Fox_ and all the great men of the time, who

had striven to put down slavery. He succeeded in cajoling or frightening

people into submission, and after a debate in which few people spoke,

and Palmerston not at all, leaving it all to Lord John, Hutt's motion

was rejected by a majority of seventy. A great many were absent, not

expecting a division, most of whom would have voted with Hutt. I never

saw anything like the surprise of some people and the indignation of

others at the course which John Russell took.

_April 23rd._--More than a month without a single line. The Government

are supposed to have been going on badly, having been left in minorities

on several occasions, but it is of no real consequence. The most serious

affair was the Stamp Bill, but it has been partly compromised and partly

patched up, and Charles Wood does not seem to care.[113] I saw him the

other day, when he said that he thought they should not be placed in any

more difficulties, for some were ashamed and some were sorry for having

deserted the Government already. They have made up their minds not to

stand repetitions of this fast and loose treatment on the part of their

friends and _soi-disant_ supporters. Wood is uneasy about the continued

low price of corn, and owned to me that it has continued much longer and

had fallen lower than he had ever contemplated or at all liked. All the

accounts represent that the farmers are behaving well, paying their

rents, and employing the people; but there is a strong feeling of

dissatisfaction and disaffection amongst them.

[Footnote 113: [Ministers were defeated on April 15 on their Stamp Bill

by a majority of 164 to 135.]]

The Greek affair has dragged on, and wears rather a sinister

appearance. Drouyn de Lhuys[114] fell in with Reeve on Sunday, took him

into his house, and opened to him largely and bitterly on the

subject. Yesterday Reeve dined with him, when he again renewed the

discussion--two remarkable conversations. He complained in strong terms

of Palmerston's conduct, said that France had exerted herself with great

sincerity to arrange the affair, but had been met in no corresponding

spirit here. He intimated that his Government would publish to the whole

world what had taken place, and that the matter was assuming a very

grave character towards both Russia and France. Instructions had,

indeed, gone out to Athens, agreed upon between Palmerston and himself,

but he seemed to regard it as very doubtful whether they would arrive in

time--that is, before Gros had returned home and Parker resumed

hostilities. He repeated what Van de Weyer had said of the 'universal

execration' in which we were held, and that no country could excite such

a feeling with impunity. It is pretty clear that if this matter is not

now settled there will be an explosion on the subject at Paris, and some

very disagreeable passages between us and both France and Russia. My own

conviction has all along been that Palmerston never intended anything

but to hoodwink his colleagues, bamboozle the French, and gain time. By

accepting the French mediation he prevented all discussion in

Parliament; and as he took care to furnish no instructions to Wyse such

as might enable him and Gros to come to terms, the affair could not fail

to drag on, and every day that it did so was fraught with disastrous

consequences to the Greeks. This was what he wanted; not to back out of

it as decently as he could have done, not to defer to the wishes,

opinions, and good offices of France, but by obstinacy and deceit to

gain all his ends--to terrify and bully Greece into complete surrender,

baffle Russia, and make France ridiculous. Drouyn de Lhuys told Reeve

that he and Brunnow were in constant communication and acting in

concert, the latter as usual doing all in his power to pacify the

Emperor at Petersburg, and to get Palmerston to be reasonable here.

[Footnote 114: [M. Drouyn de Lhuys was then French Ambassador in London.

Baron Gros had been sent to Athens to mediate, but had failed. The

irritation of the French Government at the measures taken at Athens

became so great that General Lahitte, then Minister of Foreign Affairs,

recalled M. Drouyn de Lhuys from London shortly afterwards, as will be

seen below.]]

[Sidenote: LORD CHIEF JUSTICE CAMPBELL.]

_April 28th._--Charles Wood has got into a scrape with his Stamps Bill,

not being able to frame his measure so as to work satisfactorily.

Financial blunders are always injurious, and affect the credit and

authority of a Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it does not really

signify, for the Government cannot be shaken. John Russell made a

slashing attack in reply on Disraeli on Friday, well enough done, with

spirit and effect.

On Wednesday, Campbell gave judgement in the Court of Queen's Bench in

the Gorham case, on the rule moved for by Sir Fitzroy Kelly. The rule

was refused unanimously. Campbell's judgement was very good, and much

admired; he is doing exceedingly well in his Court.[115] Martin told me

he never heard anything better than the way in which he disposed of a

variety of cases, motions for rules mostly, which were before him on

Monday last. Baron Parke, too, who did not smile on the appointment,

said he was doing very well. He is not popular, and he is wanting in

taste and refinement, but he is an able lawyer; and already he appears

to great advantage in contrast with the dignified incompetence of

Denman, who was an honourable, high-minded gentleman, but no lawyer, and

one of the feeblest Chief Justices who ever presided over the Court of

Queen's Bench.

[Footnote 115: [Lord Campbell succeeded Lord Denman as Lord Chief

Justice of England on March 5, 1850. This was one of his first important

decisions in the Court over which he continued to rule with consummate

ability and success.]]

We may at last expect the Greek question to be settled, I suppose. The

decision and alacrity of Palmerston last Saturday week form a curious

contrast with his dilatory motions a few weeks ago. Then he could not

manage to frame an instruction and despatch it in less than a week or

more; but when matters were getting serious, and he found that he must

finish the affair, he was quick enough. On Saturday morning he received

the despatches announcing the difficulties at Athens. He sent for Drouyn

de Lhuys, concerted with him what was to be done, wrote his

instructions, laid them before the Cabinet, got all the forms through,

and sent them off the same evening. The plain meaning of all this is

that in the first instance his object was delay, and in the second his

object was expedition.

[Sidenote: POLICY OF THE ORLEANS FAMILY.]

_May 14th._--I have written nothing here for many weeks, but no great

loss, for I have not had much to say, if anything. I am tempted to

resume my pen to record rather a curious event. I have heard this

morning of a mission from Paris to Louis Philippe, and the result of it.

The leaders of the Conservative party there, all except Thiers, have

come to a resolution that the only chance of restoring the Monarchy is

by a reconciliation of the elder and the Orleans branches, by the

recognition of Henri V., and by persuading Louis Philippe and his family

to accept this solution of the dynastic question. They have accordingly

sent over M. Malac to Claremont to communicate their sentiments to the

King. He was authorised to tell him that the Legitimists were willing to

acknowledge his title and his reign, and even the benefits that France

had derived from his government. The King entered into the subject with

great frankness, treating with indifference the offers which were

personal to himself, saying he had no need of any recognition of his

reign, of which history would bear sufficient record. He, however,

acquiesced in the views of the party who sent M. Malac, and declared

himself ready to agree to their terms, but he said that the women of his

family would be the most strenuous opponents of such a compromise. He

assembled a sort of _conseil de famille_, consisting of the Queen and

the Princes (not the Duchess of Orleans), and laid before them the

proposal that had been made to him. The Queen declared against it, the

Princes were all for it, and finally the Queen said she would defer to

the opinion of the King. He then proposed to the Ambassador to go and

talk to the Duchess of Orleans, from whom the greatest obstacles were

to be expected. He declined to speak to her on the subject, but said he

would go and see her, which he did. She received him, talked of all

other subjects, but not a word about the succession. On repeating to His

Majesty what had passed, he said he would send for her and talk to her,

and after having done so, he desired M. Malac to return and she would

enter on the affair. He went to her again and spoke to her with great

frankness, representing that the Orleans party was by far the weakest in

France, and that her religion would always make the people more or less,

and the clergy entirely, hostile to her. She was much startled and

discomposed at hearing language to which she seemed not to have been

accustomed; but though she did not avow it she was not unmoved by his

representations. He described various other meetings and conversations

which had occurred in which the Queen of the Belgians took part

(strongly adverse to the proposal), and finally he departed, without

indeed any formal acceptance of the overtures, but carrying back such

expressions of opinion and disposition on the part of the family as

amounted to a virtual acceptance, and leave no doubt that the bargain

will be concluded. It is not intended to draw up any compact, nor to

take any immediate steps in consequence. They have no intention of

waging war with the Republic, and only contemplate waiting for the

course of events in the hope that the evils of the country will

eventually drive the masses to seek a remedy for them in the restoration

of the Monarchy, and for this contingency to be prepared by merging the

differences of the two branches and uniting the strength of both to

re-establish the principle. It was Reeve who told me all this, having

had it from M. Malac himself. He also brought over a letter from Guizot

to Reeve in which Guizot alluded rather mysteriously to another

combination that was possible, and that would be auxiliary to this

scheme. This is a transaction with the President and Changarnier. Both

of the latter are aware that Louis Napoleon has no chance of

perpetuating his own power either as President or Emperor.[116] He is

overwhelmed with debts which he cannot pay, and the whole of his

private fortune is sunk. In no case, therefore, could he retire to any

other country, and he may naturally be willing to make terms for himself

which, in the event of the Monarchy being restored, would place him in a

position of ease and comfort. Besides his own political nullity, his

family _entourage_ presents an inseparable bar to the revival of the

Empire in his person. He is, indeed, himself by far the best of his

family, being well-meaning and a gentleman; but all the rest are only a

worthless set of _canaille_, altogether destitute of merit, and without

a title to public consideration and respect.

[Footnote 116: [An unlucky prediction! As it seems that this wild scheme

was communicated to me, I must be allowed to add that I never for an

instant entertained or encouraged so preposterous a proposal, having

known Prince Louis Napoleon far too well to suppose that he would

relinquish the prize which was already within his grasp.--H. R.]]

[Sidenote: RECALL OF THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR.]

_May 17th._--This has been a day of agitation. On Wednesday night all

London was excited by the announcement at Devonshire House (where there

was a great rout) that Drouyn de Lhuys had been recalled and was gone to

Paris, and that neither Brunnow nor Cetto had been present at

Palmerston's birthday dinner. Everybody was talking yesterday in the two

Houses of these things and of the cause of them, which of course had to

do with Greece. Questions were put to Lord Lansdowne and to Palmerston,

when both of them said that the French Government had desired the

presence of Drouyn de Lhuys at Paris in order to explain matters, and

they both said what was tantamount to a denial of his having been

recalled. At the very moment that they were making these statements in

Parliament, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs was reading in the

tribune of the National Assembly the formal letter of recall which had

been sent to their Ambassador, which he was instructed to communicate,

and which he read to Palmerston on the preceding day, and he was at the

same time explaining that the Ambassador had been recalled on account of

the manner in which the English Government had behaved to that of

France, which rendered it incompatible with the dignity of the Republic

to leave any longer an Ambassador in London. The report of what had

passed appeared in all the papers this morning, and Brougham again

addressed an interpellation to Lord Lansdowne on the subject, while a

Member did the same to John Russell in the House of Commons, Palmerston

not having chosen to be present. Both made what must be called

shuffling, prevaricating answers, endeavouring by some clumsy and

sophistical pretences to make out that the letter of recall was not a

letter of recall. All this is very pitiable. After a series of blunders

and a long course of impolitic and unjustifiable acts, Palmerston has

contrived to involve us in a _quasi_ quarrel with France, and to break

up in the most wanton manner, and for the most ridiculous object, the

good understanding which existed between the two countries. His

colleagues, as usual, find themselves deeply plunged in the scrape into

which they have permitted him to drag them, and obliged, as a hundred

times heretofore, to make common cause with him, and to swallow all the

dirt which he crams down their throats. While I am writing this they

have brought me the newspaper with the report of what passed in

Parliament, and Lord Lansdowne's and John Russell's replies, and it

really is melancholy to see two such men reduced to such discreditable

shifts, trying to evade giving direct answers to plain questions,

attempting to mislead without doing so, and only exposing themselves. I

see already that the friends and adherents of Government are sadly

perplexed and annoyed. Lord Eddisbury, who sat next Lord Lansdowne in

the House of Lords and prompted him, told Granville 'he thought

Palmerston could not have told his colleagues everything that had

passed.' As to those colleagues, they deserve every mortification that

can befall them, and are entitled to no pity. They have gone on

submitting to all Palmerston's insolence and vagaries with full

knowledge of having been repeatedly deceived by him, and not one of them

has had spirit enough to cast off this disgraceful yoke. Instead of

forcing him to show some regard to truth, he has broken them in to back

his falsehoods, and one of the worst consequences that has been

produced by his unfortunate administration is that the confidence and

implicit reliance which ought to be placed on all that a Minister says

in Parliament, can no longer be felt.

This is the greatest scrape into which Palmerston has ever got, and it

will be curious enough too how he gets out of it. Our Government stands

charged by that of France with breach of faith and violation of compact.

We shall see whether he denies the facts. If he makes one statement, and

Drouyn de Lhuys another, there can be no doubt which will be best

entitled to credit. The latter had no motive to deceive his own

Government, or to do anything but report faithfully what passed between

Palmerston and himself.

[Sidenote: REMONSTRANCE OF RUSSIA.]

_May 19th._--There is the devil to pay about this Greek affair, and at

last there seems a tolerable chance of Palmerston coming to grief:

'_Tant va la cruche ‡ l'eau_,' &c. Yesterday morning the Duke of Bedford

came here and gave me an account of the state of affairs. It seems

Brunnow had written a long letter to John Russell, couched in very

temperate terms, but setting forth all his complaints of Palmerston's

behaviour, and especially of the language of that part of the press

which was avowedly under his control and direction, in reference to

Russia, and he asked Lord John to call upon him, he being confined with

a cold. Lord John sent this letter to Palmerston, accompanied with one

from himself, in which he said that he (Palmerston) well knew how much

he disliked such articles and such use of the press, and a good deal

more indicative of displeasure. Palmerston wrote an answer defending

himself, and the very same evening there appeared in the 'Globe' another

article not less offensive than the preceding ones, greatly to the

indignation of Lord John. He called on Brunnow, who repeated what he had

before said in his letter, and announced that he must go away, for he

would not stay here to be on bad terms with Palmerston, and it was

impossible for him to remain on good terms. Meanwhile, Lord John had

seen Drouyn de Lhuys before his departure, and from him he learnt what

(according to his version) had passed between himself and Palmerston,

that is, about the pledge which Drouyn de Lhuys affirmed Palmerston had

given him that hostilities should not be renewed. The statement of

Drouyn de Lhuys did not correspond with the accounts which Palmerston

had given his colleagues of what had passed, and Lord John at once saw

that there was no avoiding the unpleasant dilemma of the two Governments

being at issue on a matter of fact which involved the good faith of

ours. All this, together with what had already passed, had raised Lord

John's resentment and disgust to a high pitch, and the Duke said that

Lord John had at last resolved not to stand it any longer, although (he

added) he could not feel complete confidence in his firmness and

resolution after all he had seen on various occasions.

Lord John said that the first thing to be done was to settle this matter

as they best might; that they must support Palmerston's assertions, to

which they were bound to give credit; but that when this business was

concluded, in about a month perhaps, he would bring matters to a crisis,

that is, announce to Palmerston that he could not go on in the Foreign

Office. Lord John is at present very angry, and therefore very stout,

but I never can feel sure of him. He is to see the Queen on Tuesday, who

will of course be boiling over with indignation, and if she finds Lord

John at last disposed to take her views of the matter, the affair may

possibly be settled between them.

Meanwhile no words can describe the universal feeling of reprobation,

and almost of shame, with which the replies of Lord Lansdowne and Lord

John were heard on Friday night. The morning arrivals from France had

clearly shown that Lord Lansdowne in one House, and John Russell in the

other, had tried to deceive and mislead by what they had said on

Thursday. On Friday Palmerston did not make his appearance; but the

figures which Lord Lansdowne cut in the Lords and Lord John in the

Commons were most deplorable and humiliating; such shuffling, special

pleading, and paltry evasions were never before heard from public men

of their eminence and character; and of all that has occurred this

discreditable exposure appears to many friends of the Government to be

the most painful part. It appears inconceivable that any men should make

statements the falsehood of which was shown in less than forty-eight

hours; but the explanation is this. In the first place, Palmerston gave

to his colleagues an imperfect and unfaithful account of Drouyn de

Lhuys's communication to him. They were themselves not aware of the

whole truth; but besides this Palmerston gave them to understand that

Drouyn de Lhuys had carried with him such explanations, verbal and

documentary, as would he hoped satisfy his Government, and consequently

that the letter of recall might probably be cancelled, and the affair

arranged. Hoping therefore for this result, they ventured to deny the

recall altogether, but were completely confounded and exposed by the

revelations of Lahitte[117] in the tribune the very same day; and then

they had nothing for it but to try and shuffle out of it in the way they

tried but miserably failed to do. It would have been far better to have

spoken the plain truth, or to have declined to answer till the next day.

[Footnote 117: [General Lahitte was then French Minister for Foreign

Affairs. Sir Thomas Wyse was the British Minister at Athens, who

conducted the negotiations there, and regulated the coercive measures of

Admiral Parker's squadron.]]

[Sidenote: THE GREEK DISPUTE.]

_May 22nd._--I have read the long series of despatches published by the

French Government, and the result in my mind is that they do not make

out a case of breach of faith against our Government, supposing

Palmerston's instructions to Wyse to have been in conformity with what

was agreed upon between the two Governments here. This (the most

essential) part of the case lies in a narrow compass. It was all along

perfectly understood that if Gros threw up his mission, being unable to

induce the Greek Government to consent to equitable terms, our Minister

was at liberty to recommence the coercive measures without any further

reference to his Government; but if the negotiation came to a standstill

in consequence of Gros and Wyse not being able to agree, then the

difference between them was to be referred for the decision of the two

Governments upon it, and in this case the coercive measures were not to

be renewed. The French maintain that the last of these contingencies

occurred, Palmerston contends that it was the first. It is possible that

Wyse may have received instructions conformable with this arrangement,

and that he may have thought that the course which Gros took brought the

case within the former category. This may have been an unsound opinion,

but if such was the case it exonerates the British Government from the

charge of having violated an engagement to that of France. But in order

to make this defence valid, it will be necessary to prove that the

instructions given to Wyse were such as the French had a right to

expect. It does not appear that these instructions were ever imparted to

them. These are minute, however important, points; but emerging from the

confusion and perplexity of dates and circumstantial details, the

question is, what is the general impression as to the whole conduct of

the two Governments, more particularly of our own, throughout the

transaction. I reserve the consideration of this till I have seen

Palmerston's case as set forth in the papers that are to be laid before

Parliament, and in the long and able despatch which he is said to have

written in explanation and defence of his conduct.

_May 25th._--The morning before yesterday the Duke of Bedford came here

again. He had seen Lord John since, and heard what passed with the

Queen. She was full of this affair, and again urged all her objections

to Palmerston. This time she found Lord John better disposed than

heretofore, and he is certainly revolving in his mind how the thing can

be done. He does not by any means contemplate going out himself, or

breaking up the Government. What he looks to is this, that the Queen

should take the initiative, and urge Palmerston's removal from the

Foreign Office. She is quite ready to do this as soon as she is assured

of her wishes being attended to. For various reasons it would not do to

put Clarendon in his place. Clarendon would not like it, and it would

make Palmerston furious; therefore this is out of the question. The

only possible arrangement is that Lord John should himself take the

Foreign Office, provisionally, and he is quite prepared to take it. I

told the Duke I entirely agreed that this was the only feasible

arrangement, and I did not apprehend any danger to Lord John, because he

would do the business in a very different way, and manage to lighten the

burthen both by his mode of transacting it, and by delegating many

details to his Under-Secretary, instead of, like Palmerston, doing

everything himself. There certainly never appeared to be so good a

chance of getting the Foreign Office out of Palmerston's hands as now;

but long experience of his boldness and success, and of the

pusillanimity and weakness of his colleagues, make me feel very doubtful

and uncertain as to the result. If the thing is done, they mean to

propose to him to take another office instead; not to turn him out. I

don't know how they think of managing this, but he is sure to refuse to

give up the Foreign Office and take another instead of it. He would

consider this a degradation, and a sort of pleading guilty to the

charges that are brought against him. If he will lend himself to this

change, so much the better; if he does not go out, the Duke thinks, not

without reason, that it will be almost impossible for Clarendon to come

into office at present, and that he ought not; his opinions on foreign

affairs are so strong, that he could not join the Cabinet while

Palmerston was at the Foreign Office without the certainty of either

very soon quarrelling with him, or of being obliged to make concessions

against his conscience and real opinions, and which would therefore be

discreditable to him.

[Sidenote: PAPERS ON THE GREEK DISPUTE.]

Meanwhile Palmerston has made his explanation in the House of Commons.

There is much difference of opinion as to how it was received, but I

gather that it was a good deal applauded by the Radicals and his own

people; it was clever as he always is, but it was weak. As the case more

develops itself (for now all the Blue Books are out, French and

English), it resolves itself into a very small point: Did Palmerston, or

did he not, send instructions to Wyse in conformity with what was agreed

upon between himself and Drouyn de Lhuys? This is what the French have

a right to ask: if he did, let him show these instructions; if he did

not, he broke faith with the French Government. By Wyse's letter of the

15th, it seems pretty clear he did not send any such instructions. I do

not see how volumes of Blue Books, or all the conferences and debates

imaginable, can put the case in a clearer light, or bring it to a more

direct issue than this.

_June 2nd._--I was never able to plunge into the Blue Book till Epsom

races were over, but I have now done it, and have gone through

both--that and the French Book. The case is quite complete, and it is

not difficult to extract from the mass of details with which the former

is uselessly encumbered a clear view of the case. The result is a

conviction in my mind that the French Government acted with amity and

good faith, and that the conduct of Gros at Athens was irreproachable.

He did his best to bring about an arrangement, and he failed because the

requisitions of the English Minister were such as in honour and

conscience it was impossible for him to support, sanction, or recommend

to the Greek Government. If Stanley works this case well, he will make a

great affair of it, for his materials are ample and excellent.

Palmerston's Blue Book is just like former productions from the Foreign

Office under him, voluminous details of matter quite uninteresting and

beside the question, and the absence of those documents which we most

require to see, and on which the whole case turns, his instructions to

Wyse and Parker--none of which, or scarcely any, are given.

The night before last was remarkable for the maiden speech of young

Stanley[118] in the House of Commons. It was very successful. He spoke

with great fluency, and gave promise of being a debater. I dined with

Sir Robert Peel yesterday, who said he heard him, and he spoke in terms

of great commendation of the speech. It was on the West Indian question,

on which he had just published and circulated a pamphlet, and it was

remarkable and showed a confidence in his own powers that his speech

did not appear to be a repetition of any part of his pamphlet.

[Footnote 118: [The present Earl of Derby, 1885.]]

_June 6th._--On Monday last Graham called on me at the Council Office,

and after talking about the Greek affair and Stanley's motion, he

proceeded to other matters about which he had come expressly to speak to

me as a channel of communication with John Russell. With reference to

the first matter, he said that a negotiation was evidently going on

between Stanley and Aberdeen, and that the latter was to support some of

Stanley's domestic questions, and in return Stanley would fight

vigorously the foreign policy. I did not pay much attention to this, for

Graham is always dreaming of this connexion and its results. He then

went on to say, that if there was (as there very probably would be) an

adverse vote in the House of Lords on Friday, the Government would be

very unwise if they attempted to procure a counter vote in the House of

Commons; and if they tried it, he thought they would fail; but that they

must counteract the effect in another way; and that Lord John had now an

excellent opportunity of acquiring reputation for himself and strength

for his Government, by proposing very important reforms of an

administrative kind, and which he was enabled to do by the abolition of

the Lord-Lieutenancy and the resignation of Lord Cottenham.[119] What he

wants him to do is this--to give up the idea of a fourth Secretary of

State, to take away the criminal business from the Home Secretary and

give it to the new Lord Keeper, or whatever the great legal functionary

to be created may be called. He thinks a fourth Secretary objectionable

on many accounts, and that Government would have great difficulty in

carrying it. He gave many reasons for this opinion which seemed to me

sound enough. Then he proposes that all the Chancellor's ecclesiastical

patronage shall be taken from the Great Seal and made over to the Prime

Minister; the livings to be sold as they become vacant, and the proceeds

handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be applied to

ecclesiastical purposes, which he says would be an immense boon to the

Church, and by these means funds might be raised which are greatly

wanted, but for which it would be impossible to apply to Parliament with

any hope of success. He urged these reforms with great energy, and set

forth all the advantages which might be derived from them, and said Peel

was still more eager, especially about the Church patronage, than he

was.

[Footnote 119: [The resignation of the Great Seal by Lord Chancellor

Cottenham was announced on May 28--the Seal to be put in Commission.]]

[Sidenote: CHANCERY REFORM.]

The same evening I told the Duke of Bedford all that had passed, and he

said he would see Lord John the next morning and speak to him. He did

so, and came to me afterwards on Tuesday morning. He said he had told

Lord John all that Graham had said, that he thought Graham was always

rather too much disposed to be running before what he thought was public

opinion; that with regard to the fourth Secretary he was quite bent upon

it, thought it absolutely necessary (as Clarendon did also), and he was

determined to adhere to it. With respect to the question of the

Chancellor's livings, he agreed with Graham, and he had brought before

the Cabinet a scheme founded on Graham's recommendations, but that it

had been rejected by the Cabinet _unanimously_. They thought it very

objectionable to part with so much patronage. However, though Lord John

could not under these circumstances press the matter at present, he will

not give it up, and still meditates some measure of this character,

though probably one less extensive. Yesterday morning I called on Graham

and told him what had passed, at which he expressed great disappointment

and regret, and after as much talk as we had time for (for I was going

out of town), I left him provoked and disheartened. He said he could

take no interest in a Government which rejected unanimously such a

proposition as this, and which had rejected unanimously the French

invitation to abide by the London Convention.[120] I had told him this

which Beauvale told me, and which, as well as I recollect, I have not

noted down. He said that when the French made this proposal, Palmerston

drew up a paper placing it before the Cabinet with the reasons for

accepting, and those for rejecting it, and desired them to determine,

himself taking no part; and that they had unanimously agreed to refuse,

so that it was their act and not his.

[Footnote 120: [This refers to the arrangements concluded in London

between the Great Powers for the maintenance of the integrity of the

Danish dominions, which were afterwards so shamefully violated and

abandoned.]]

_June 8th._--Graham called on me again yesterday morning. He had had a

long conversation with John Russell in the House of Commons on Wednesday

(sought by John Russell), in which Graham repeated to him at greater

length all he had said to me. The discussion was very frank and

friendly, but Lord John told him he could not give up the fourth

Secretary, and gave his reasons for thinking it necessary, which Graham

said were very weak ones. So they parted, Graham hoping that he would at

all events take time for consideration, but he was much surprised

and annoyed at hearing him give notice he should bring on the

Lord-Lieutenancy Bill to-morrow. He thought this very uncourteous, and

it had thrown him into perplexity as to the course he ought to take. He

had a strong opinion upon it, and he was convinced that if he opposed

it, and stated his reasons to the House of Commons, the clause would be

thrown out; that he neither liked going against his own decided opinion,

nor against the Government, and he did not know what to do. From me he

went to Lyndhurst, and then to Peel, and then came back to me.

Lyndhurst, blind, but full of vigour and spirit, is full of the new

arrangements about the Great Seal. Lord John has consulted him on the

subject, and he is going to call on him. Lyndhurst is against giving up

the ecclesiastical patronage. Peel regrets Lord John's determination,

but Graham said he is so bent on carrying the Government through the

Session, that he will not oppose them on anything. He thinks of nothing

but securing a fair trial for Free Trade, and keeping the Protectionists

out.

[Sidenote: DEBATE ON THE PACIFICO AFFAIR.]

To-day I called on Lord Lyndhurst and found him in great

force--Brougham, Baron Alderson, Stuart (the Protectionist Chancellor),

Brodie, and Hatherton, and Strangford were there. They were all

discussing the legal reforms, and Brougham broke out about Cottenham's

earldom. Cottenham, he said, wrote to him, lamenting that he disapproved

of this honour, which had been conferred on him as a mark of the Queen's

confidence and approbation of his services. Brougham wrote in reply that

he should not talk such 'Morning Post' twaddle, and that he knew very

well the Queen neither knew nor cared about his services, and that he

had got it because he insisted on having it! The new appointments which

are beginning to be known do not please. Jervis to be Chancellor and at

the head of the House of Lords and Judicial Committee seems strange.

[But this arrangement was not carried into effect.]

_June 18th._--The great debate in the House of Lords came off last night

in the midst of immense curiosity and interest.[121] The House was

crowded in every part; I never saw so many Peers present, nor so many

strangers. There were various opinions about the result, but the

Government was the favourite. Bear Ellice offered to lay two to one they

had a majority. Most people thought the same, but everybody was agreed

that go which way it would, the division would be a very close one, and

the majority small. Malmesbury, Stanley's whipper-in, counted on fifteen

on his side. Stanley spoke for two hours and three-quarters. He has made

more brilliant speeches, but it was very good, moderate and prudent in

tone, lucid, lively and sustained. I heard him, and then was so tired of

standing, I was obliged to go away, and did not return. The Government

made but a poor defence. Canning made a capital speech, and placed

himself in a high position. He had taken great pains with it, and it was

very effective, every word told. Granville told me Eddisbury was good

too, and it was the most important speech he ever made. I never was more

amazed than at hearing the division, never having dreamt of such a

majority; _reste ‡ savoir_ what Government (and Palmerston especially)

will do. If he was disposed to take a great line he would go at once to

the Queen and resign, at the same time begging her not to accept the

resignation of his colleagues if they tendered it. This would be

creditable to him, and he owes them all the reparation in his power for

the hot water he has kept them in, and the scrapes he has made for them

for many years. They have over and over again allowed themselves to be

dragged through the mire for him, and since they have refused now and

heretofore to separate themselves from him, the least he can do is to

separate himself from them, and to insist upon being the only sacrifice.

[Footnote 121: [On June 17 Lord Stanley made his motion in the House of

Lords censuring the Government for their coercive measures against the

commerce and people of Greece, in a speech of extraordinary eloquence

and power. The debate lasted all night. As morning dawned the division

resulted in a majority of 37 against Ministers.]]

_June 19th._--There was a Cabinet yesterday, of course for the purpose

of considering what they should do, and the resolution they came to was

_to do nothing_. Labouchere saw Granville before the Cabinet, and told

him that _he_ was all for resigning, but he feared there was a

disposition to stick in amongst his colleagues, and, as he thought,

particularly in Charles Wood; but Delane, who saw Charles Wood after the

Cabinet, was assured by him that he would have preferred to resign, but

that he was overruled by the majority of his colleagues. This is all I

know of the matter, but it by no means surprises me to find that they

have resolved to take no notice of the buffet they got from the Lords,

and go on. I now expect that John Russell will lay aside all thoughts of

getting rid of Palmerston, and the rickety concern will scramble on as

heretofore. Nevertheless it is impossible this event and great majority

should not produce sooner or later very considerable effects. It will

abroad if it does not here. As to Palmerston's being corrected and

reformed, I don't believe a word of it, but the Foreign Office will

inevitably find itself in a situation of great difficulty and

embarrassment, and our relations with the rest of Europe will in all

probability assume a character mischievous, dangerous, and intolerable.

[Sidenote: LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S ANSWER.]

_June 20th._--It seems that the Ministers' minds misgave them, and

yesterday they began to doubt whether they ought not to do _something_.

Roebuck gave notice of a question, and John Russell told him he would

give him an answer this evening. John Abel Smith went and proposed that

they should make a sign of intention to resign, and that a vote of

general confidence should be moved in the House of Commons, on which

they should stay in. Many of the friends of Government (some in office)

are for resignation. It is no doubt embarrassing, but I am against their

resignation. If Palmerston was disposed to take a high and creditable

line, he might extricate them from the difficulty by voluntarily

sacrificing himself. This is what he ought to do, but I don't hear that

he has evinced any disposition of the sort. He did indeed offer to

resign at the Cabinet, but this of course (as he well knew) they could

not listen to.

_June 21st._--John Russell made his statement last night, giving the

reasons why he did not resign, quoting two precedents, one above a

century ago, and one in 1833, for not resigning in consequence of an

adverse vote of the House of Lords. I concur in the constitutional

doctrine he laid down on that score, but the rest of what he said was

very imprudent and ill-judged. He has now committed himself more than

ever to Palmerston, and has thrown down a defiance to all Europe,

announcing that they will make no difference whatever in their

administration of foreign affairs. He alluded to that part of Stanley's

resolution which laid down the right and duty of this country, asserted

that the words of it limited those rights and duties within bounds he

could not admit, and by implication at least asserted propositions

against which foreign nations will infallibly kick. It was very

imprudent to raise incidentally this very difficult and important

question, and he might easily have avoided such dangerous ground. Then

he finished by a very miserable and injudicious claptrap, which will be

as offensive as possible to foreign Powers; in short, he evinced little

judgement and taste. It is clear enough that he is now resolved to

adhere to Palmerston, and that his intention is, if he can get a

majority next Monday, to disregard the House of Lords and their

opinions, and to set all Europe at defiance by giving them notice that

they must have Palmerston to deal with and nobody else. The conclusion

to which he came a few weeks ago is evidently thrown aside. All his

indignation against Palmerston, his determination to endure it no

longer, his bold resolution to take the labour of the Foreign Office on

himself, have all evaporated, and are as a dream, and the fact of a

large majority of the House of Lords having condemned Palmerston's

proceedings, language, and conduct, instead of affording an additional

reason, and confirming him in the course he had thought of pursuing,

seems to have made him angry and obstinate, to have caused a reaction in

his mind, and engendered a determination to cling more closely than ever

to Palmerston, and fight his battle at all risks and at any cost, in

everything and against everybody. The other day there was a general

opinion that if a vote of approbation was moved in the House of Commons

it would not be carried. This was Graham's opinion, and so entirely did

John Russell himself concur in it, that he declared it should not be

attempted, if the vote of the Lords was adverse. All that is suddenly

changed. He now tries this experiment, and all the people I have seen

say Government will carry it. Bernal Osborne told me it was certain, for

the Whigs and the Radicals united could not be beaten, and all the

Radicals but four or five would support the Government. Never was there

such a state of difficulty and confusion in my recollection. It is at

last come to what I long ago predicted, and Palmerston is proving the

ruin of the Government.

[Sidenote: MR. ROEBUCK'S VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.]

_June 24th._--Nothing of course thought of but the division on Roebuck's

motion.[122] The general opinion is that there will be a majority of

about forty, but nobody knows what Peel will say or do, and many votes

are quite uncertain. That there will be some such majority none doubt,

and it is put about by the Government that they will resign if their

majority is less than that in the House of Lords against them, which I

don't believe, and it would be very absurd to make it turn on a mere

question of numbers. Lady Palmerston and her belongings continue to make

an active canvass. On Saturday afternoon the news came of the difference

being settled, by our conceding to the French all they demanded. Nobody

seems to care, or it would be a mortifying and a ridiculous conclusion,

for we have not only agreed to what we at first refused to the French

Government, but we have in fact gone back (with some modifications as to

detail) to Gros's propositions to Wyse, which the latter so obstinately

refused, and on his rejection of which the blockade at Athens

recommenced, and the quarrel with France was based.

[Footnote 122: [Mr. Roebuck moved a resolution applauding the principles

which have hitherto regulated the foreign policy of the Government, to

countervail the recent vote of the Lords. A great and memorable debate

followed, in which Lord Palmerston delivered his ablest speech, and Sir

Robert Peel his last. The debate ended by a Ministerial majority of 46,

so that, for the time, the supporters of Lord Palmerston were completely

victorious; yet in that majority a large number of votes were given by

those who most condemned his high-handed proceedings.]]

_June 25th._--Little progress was made in the debate last night; Graham

made a strong speech. In the morning I rode with Brunnow and had much

talk with him. He spoke out about Palmerston, though with great regret;

said he had done all he could in the way of warning and advice, to

prevent his running this headlong course; but he never could make the

least impression on him. He thinks there will be a calm of a few months'

duration, but that it will be impossible for Palmerston to go on _long_

at the Foreign Office. He complained of the great interests of the world

having been sacrificed to this miserable affair, especially the Denmark

question; that it might have been settled long ago; and if we had

pacified France by accepting the London Convention, the three Powers

would have immediately set to work to bring this knotty point to an end.

He goes to Petersburg in August. The Emperor, he told me, cannot

comprehend our political condition, and is at a loss to know why the

Queen does not dismiss Palmerston; and when he hears of the division in

the House of Lords, he will fancy that the Government will resign in

consequence of it.

_June 29th._--I have been for two days in the country, while the great

debate was going on. Palmerston came out the second night with

prodigious force and success. He delivered an oration four hours and

three-quarters long, which has excited unusual admiration, boundless

enthusiasm amongst his friends, and drawn forth the most flattering

compliments from every quarter. It is impossible to deny its great

ability; parts of it are strikingly eloquent and inimitably adroit. It

was a wonderful effort to speak for nearly five hours without ever

flagging, and his voice nearly as strong at last as at first. The

ability of it is the more remarkable, because on an attentive and calm

perusal of it, the insufficiency of it as an answer and a defence

against the various charges which have been brought against him is

manifest; but it is admirably arranged and got up, entirely free from

the flippancy and impertinence in which he usually indulges, full of

moderation and good taste, and adorned with a profusion of magnificent

and successful clap-traps. The success of the speech has been complete,

and his position is now unassailable. John Russell may save himself the

trouble of considering, when this is all over, how he may effect some

change involving the withdrawal of the Foreign Office from Palmerston's

hands, for they are now all tied and bound to him in respect to the

future as completely as to the present and the past. These discussions

and attacks, which were to have shaken him in his seat, have only made

_him_ more powerful than he was before; but whether they have

strengthened or weakened _the Government_ is another question. It now

remains to be seen what the attitude and animus of Foreign Powers will

be, and what the character of his future proceedings. The debate was on

the whole very able. Cockburn made a slashing speech, which will

probably procure for him the post of Solicitor-General. Graham's and

Gladstone's speeches were the best on the other side. Peel was very

moderate, and refused to go into the details or to attack the Government

on them. The majority of forty-six was rather more than was expected by

either party.