Debates on the Canada Bill--Moderation of the Duke of
Wellington--State of Canada--Lord Durham's Position--Weakness
of the Government--Parallel of Hannibal and the Duke of
Wellington--The Ballot--Lord Brougham on the Ballot--Position
of the Government--Policy of Sir Robert Peel--Death of Mr.
Creevey--Knighthood of General Evans--Lord Brougham's
Conversation--A Skirmish in the House of Commons--Defeat of
Government--Skirmish in the House of Lords--Annoyance of Peel
at these Proceedings--Brougham's Anti-Slavery Speech--
Opposition Tactics--Brougham on the Coolie Trade--Ministerial
Success--Sir Robert Peel's Tactics--Composition of Parties--A
Dinner at Buckingham Palace--Men of Science--The Lord Mayor at
a Council--The Queen at a Levée--The Guiana Apprentices--Small
_v._ Attwood reversed--Character of the Queen--Wilkie's Picture
of the 'First Council'--Small _v._ Attwood--Immediate
Emancipation--Birthday Reflexions--Lord Charles Fitzroy turned
out--Vote on Lord Durham's Expenses--Lord Durham's Irritation--
Wolff the Missionary--Newmarket--The Coronation--Lord
Brougham's Reviews.
London, January 28th, 1838 {p.051}
I came to town on Wednesday night, and have been laid up with the
gout ever since. Found all things prepared for a fight in the
House of Commons on Thursday, upon Peel's two amendments to the
Canada Bill. The Tories had mustered in large force, and the
Irishmen had not arrived, so that there was a very good chance of
the Government being beaten. In this emergency Edward Ellice made
a very convenient and dexterous speech, in which he begged Lord
John Russell, for the sake of unanimity, to give way. Lord John
said he would consult his colleagues and give an answer the next
day. It was clear enough what he would do, and accordingly he
came down the next day, and amidst shouts of triumph, and what
was intended for ridicule from the Tory mob, announced his
intention to accept both amendments. Peel next fell upon the
Instructions to Durham, which he treated very scornfully, and
predicted that they would be compelled to withdraw them. The
Tories were in high dudgeon with the Duke at his speech in the
House of Lords, which they showed in a sort of undergrowl and
with rueful faces, for they stand in awe of the great man, and
don't dare openly to remonstrate with him or blame his actions.
There is no doubt that his speech was essentially serviceable to
the Government, and upset one of the most promising topics of its
opponents. Francis Egerton came up from the Carlton Club to his
own home after it, and said with deep melancholy that 'the Duke
had floored the coach,' and he described the consternation and
mortification which were prevalent throughout that patriotic and
disinterested society. They were in consequence the more anxious
to urge on Peel to make an attack of some sort upon the Ministers
in the House of Commons, and he gratified them by moving these
amendments, and vilipending the Instructions.[1] It may be
questionable whether it was right to attack the Government upon
the details of their measures when no difference exists between
the opposite parties as to the principle; but granting that it
was, he acted with great skill as a party tactician. He was
certainly right upon every point. The Bill will be improved by
his alterations, and it was equally unnecessary and ill-judged to
lay the Instructions on the table of the House. The result has
been a very clamorous triumph on the part of the Tories, and a
somewhat unlucky exposure of themselves by the Government; as one
of their own friends (in office) acknowledged to me to-day, they
have had 'to eat humble pie.'
[1] [Lord John Russell adopted amendments proposed by Sir
R. Peel by striking out of the preamble of the Bill the
words recognising Lord Durham's council of advice and
the clause empowering the Queen to suspend the Act by
Order in Council.]
February 5th, 1838 {p.052}
[Page Head: MODERATION OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.]
Another debate in the House of Lords on Friday, and a good one,
which will probably finish the Canadian discussion. Upon this
occasion Brougham fired off another fierce philippic, and was
bitterly answered by Melbourne, who declared war against him once
for all. Aberdeen made an attack on the Government which he had
intended to make on the first debate; but as the Duke then said
'Shall I speak?' he said, 'Oh yes, do,' expecting the Duke would
make one instead, but was bitterly disappointed when he heard
that moderate speech which gave such offence to his friends and
such comfort to his foes. So on Friday Aberdeen said what he had
intended to say before, and to do him justice, he made some
strong points against the Government, which told well. He accused
them of unnecessary delay in bringing in this Bill last year,
after they had passed their Resolutions, and asserted that they
shuffled it off for fear they should be inconvenienced thereby in
the election contests which were approaching. I incline to
believe this accusation is well founded, and if so, it was very
paltry conduct, and not an inapt illustration of the Duke of
Wellington's famous question during the Reform Bill, 'How is the
King's Government to be carried on?' The King's Government was
not carried on; its interests were neglected or postponed to the
more pressing interest (as they thought, and I believe thought
erroneously) of the party in their election contests. The Duke of
Wellington was expected upon this occasion to make some amends to
his party by explaining away the exculpatory remarks with which
he had before assisted his opponents. But not a bit: he repeated
the same thing, and made a second speech quite as moderate as his
first. The Duke is therefore incorrigible. My mother told him the
other day how angry they were with him for what he had said, and
he only replied, 'Depend upon it, it was true.'
[Page Head: WEAKNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT.]
I saw a letter yesterday with a very bad account of the state of
Canada.[2] It was to Lord Lichfield from his Postmaster there, a
sensible man, and he describes the beaten Canadians as returning
to their homes full of sullen discontent, and says we must by no
means look upon the flame as extinguished; however, for the time
it has been smothered. On the other hand, there are the English
victorious and exasperated, with arms in their hands, and in that
dangerous state of mind which is the result of conscious
superiority, moral and intellectual, military and political, but
of (equally conscious) physical--that is, numerical--inferiority.
It is the very state which makes men insolent and timid,
tyrannical and cruel; it is just what the Irish Orangemen have
been, and it is very desirable that nothing like them should
exist elsewhere. All this proves that Durham will have no easy
task. It is a curious exhibition of the caprice of men's opinions
when we see the general applause with which Durham's appointment
is hailed, and the admiration with which he is all at once
regarded. Nobody denies that he is a man of ability, but he has
not greatly distinguished himself, perhaps from having had no
fair opportunity to do so. He has long been looked upon as a man
of extreme and dangerous opinions by the Conservatives, and he
never could agree with the Whigs when he was their colleague; to
them generally he was an object of personal aversion. Latterly he
has been considered the head of the Radical party, and that
party, who are not rich in Lords, and who are not insensible to
the advantage of rank, gladly hailed him as their chief; but for
the last year or two, under the alterative influence of Russian
Imperial flattery, Durham's sentiments have taken a very
Conservative turn, and, though he and the Radicals have never
quarrelled, they could not possibly consider him to be the same
man he was when they originally ranged themselves under his
banner. In public life the most that can be said for him is, that
he cut a respectable figure. When in office he filled the obscure
post of Privy Seal, and spoke but seldom. He was known, however,
to have had a considerable share in the concoction of the Reform
Bill. The only other public post he has held was that of
Ambassador to Russia, where nobody knows but the Minister who
employed him whether he did well or ill. Now everybody says he is
the finest fellow imaginable, and that he alone can pacify
Canada. Nor do I mean to say he is unequal to the task he has
undertaken, but the opinion of the world seems oddly produced,
and to stand upon no very solid foundation. If he had continued
plain John Lambton I doubt if he ever would have been thought of
for Canada, or that the choice (if he had been sent there) would
have been so approved. Why on earth is it that an Earldom makes
_any_ difference?
[2] [The actual disturbances in Canada, which had broken
out in November of the preceding year, were terminated
in about a month, by the military operations of Sir
John Colborne and Sir Francis Head. The debates which
ensued in England related to the treatment of the
prisoners and the future government of the Canadian
provinces.]
To return to the Canadian discussions. The Ministers have on the
whole come out of them discreditably. Peel has worried and mauled
them sadly, and taken a tone of superiority, and displayed a real
superiority, which is very pernicious to a Government, as it
tends to deprive them of the respect and the confidence of the
country. Brougham's harangues in the House of Lords have not done
them half the mischief that Peel's speeches have done them in the
House of Commons, because Peel has a vast moral weight and
Brougham has none. In the conduct of the business and in their
Parliamentary proceedings they committed errors, especially in
the latter, and Peel availed himself of both with great dexterity
and power. The front Treasury Bench is in a deplorable state.
John Russell is without support; Rice is held cheap and is
ineffective; Palmerston never utters except on his own business;
Thomson and Hobhouse never on any business; and Howick alone
ventures to mix in the fight. The Tories render ample justice to
Lord John under these overwhelming difficulties. Francis Egerton
(one of the keenest of the party) writes to my brother an account
of their recent successes, full of scorn and triumph, and proud
comparisons between the Government and the Opposition, and he
says, 'John Russell is alone--a host in himself I admit; but Rice
and Howick, the only colleagues who did assist him, are gone down
in the Parliamentary estimation a hundred degrees. I certainly
admire the spirit and dexterity of John Russell, and give him
credit for great ability.' There is no doubt that the Tories have
put themselves in a better position for getting office, and the
Whigs in a worse for keeping it, than they were in before,
because impartial men who look at these debates will say that
Peel and his people are the abler practical men, and as time
settles the great questions in dispute, and renders the public
mind more indifferent about those which still remain, there will
be a growing opinion that the direction of affairs ought to be
entrusted to those who display the greatest capacity to conduct
them. The Conservatives besides have the inestimable advantage of
an alliance with the 'Times,' the most vigorous and powerful
agent which the press ever produced. The effect of its articles,
stinging as they are, is irresistible on the public mind, and the
Government have nothing to oppose to such a torrent. It is
impossible however, while admiring the dexterity of Peel in the
elaboration of his offensive measures, to overlook the selfish
and unpatriotic spirit which the great body of the Tories have
manifested throughout the proceedings. If they could have
foregone the bitter pleasure of achieving a party triumph, and
shown themselves ready not only to support the Government in
suppressing the rebellion, but to join with them in rendering the
necessary legislative measures as conducive to the great object
of pacification as they could be made, they would have covered
themselves with honour, and acquired a credit for noble and
public-spirited conduct, which, as it is, the Duke of Wellington
has alone obtained, and which none of them share with him. Nor do
I believe if Peel had exerted his dexterity and astuteness in
another way that he would have failed to acquire the same moral
superiority over the Ministers by pacific and moderate behaviour,
that he has acquired by hostile motions and taunting language.
But his tail was in a state of furious agitation, and so angry
and dejected at the Duke's forbearance, that he felt himself
compelled to give them the gratification of a triumph of some
sort. To the majority of his followers the Canadian insurrection
was a very pleasing occurrence, and they would have been
overjoyed if the troops had been defeated and Montreal captured
by the rebels. This would indeed have been a fine case against
the Government, and have paved the way for the return of the
Tories to office--all that they care about.
February 8th, 1838 {p.057}
I have just conducted to a successful termination a negotiation
(through Allen) between Sir George Murray and Macvey Napier, and
Murray is to write the article on the Duke's Despatches in the
'Edinburgh Review.'[3] I am rather surprised at their persuasion
that Murray will execute the task so well, and I hope it may turn
out so. They have employed the handsomest language in praise of
the Duke and towards Murray. [He did it very ill: his articles
(he wrote two) were very poor performances.]
[3] [Mr. Macvey Napier was at this time editor of the
'Edinburgh Review.']
February 11th, 1838 {p.057}
[Page Head: HANNIBAL AND THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.]
I suppose all great generals have necessarily some qualities in
common; even Vendôme, an indolent and beastly glutton and
voluptuary, was capable of prodigious exertions and of activity
not to be surpassed. There is a great deal in the character of
Hannibal (as drawn by Livy) which would apply to the Duke of
Wellington; only, instead of being stained with the vices which
are ascribed to the Carthaginian general, the Duke is
distinguished for the very opposite virtues.
'Nunquam ingenium idem ad res diversissimas, 1. _parendum_ atque
_imperandum_, habilius fuit, itaque haud facile discerneres,
utrum imperatori, an exercitui, carior esset: 2. Neque Hasdrubal
alium quemquam praeficere malle, ubi quid fortiter ac strenuè
agendum esset, neque milites alio duce plus confidere aut audere.
3. Plurimum audaciae ad pericula capessenda, plurimum consilii
inter ipsa pericula erat: 4. Nullo labore aut corpus fatigari aut
animus vinci poterat: caloris ac frigoris patientia par: cibi
potionisque desiderio naturali, non voluptate, modus finitus:
vigiliarum somnique nec die nec nocte discriminata tempora. Id,
quod gerendis rebus superesset, quieti datum: ea neque molli
strato neque silentio arcessita. 5. Multi saepe militari sagulo
opertum, humi jacentem inter custodias stationesque militum
conspexerunt. 6. Vestitus nihil inter aequales excellens: arma
atque equi conspiciebantur. Equitum peditumque idem longè primus
erat: princeps in proelium ibat: ultimus conserto proelio
excedebat. 7. Has tantas viri virtutes ingentia vitia aequabant;
inhumana crudelitas, perfidia plus quàm Punica, nihil veri, nihil
sancti, nullus Deûm metus, nullum jusjurandum, nulla
religio.'[4]...
[4] [This passage is cited from Livy, lib. xxi. c. iv.]
1. Nothing is more remarkable in the Duke than his habit of
prompt obedience to his superiors and employers, and this shines
forth as much when the triumphant Commander-in-Chief of the
Allied armies at the end of the Spanish war, as in his early
campaign in India. He was always ready to serve when, where, and
how his services were required, and so I believe he is now.
2. In India he was employed by Lord Wellesley and Lord Lake in
all the most important and difficult military enterprises and
civil transactions.
3. Napier says some of Wellington's operations were daring to
extravagance, some cautious to the verge of timidity, all founded
as much upon keen and nice perceptions of the political measures
of his adversaries as upon pure military considerations--and 'he
knew how to obey as well as to command.'
4. He told me himself that he was obliged to do everything in
person. His despatches show that he thought of everything, wrote
of everything, directed everything.
5. During the battles of the Pyrenees he slept wrapped in a
cloak, under a thick bush, and the shot fell so near him that he
was urged to remove to a less exposed place.
6. He was always dressed in his plain blue coat; he rode very
good horses.
7. Here ends the parallel and begins the contrast. No general
ever exhibited to the world a nobler example of mildness and
humanity, of the most perfect and invariable good faith, of
severe truth, of inflexible justice, of scrupulous honesty, of
reverence for religion, and regard to the precepts of morality.
Cruelty is not a modern vice; no general is cruel in these days.
I doubt if there has been any great deed of cruelty committed
since the Thirty Years' War, the sack of Magdeburg, and the
exploits of Tilly and Pappenheim. Turenne ravaged the Palatinate,
but that was Louvois' cruelty, not Turenne's. There were no
military cruelties perpetrated in the revolutionary wars that I
remember.
February 18th, 1838 {p.059}
[Page Head: THE BALLOT.]
On Thursday night came on the Ballot, and its advocates divided,
as they said they should, 200. Lord John Russell, though ill,
came down and spoke against it. Peel made a good speech, and
complimented John on his conduct. All the Cabinet Ministers voted
against it except Poulett Thomson, who stayed away. The result is
the creation of a strong impression that the Ballot will
eventually be carried; Brougham says in five years.[5] There can
be no doubt that if the Government had declared a neutrality,
perhaps if John Russell had not so deeply committed himself
against it, it would have been carried now. Some men in office,
many others closely connected with Ministers, did vote for it; a
great number stayed away, and of those who followed John many did
so very reluctantly, and some certainly will never vote against
it again. Then it is indubitable that the Ballot is getting more
popular in the country, and it is not regarded with much
apprehension by many of those who are altogether opposed to
Radical principles: by such as Fazakerley for instance, a
sensible man and moderate Whig, who did not vote at all on this
occasion.
[5] [It was carried, but in _thirty-four_ years from this
time. It is possible to foresee and predict political
events with considerable certainty, but very difficult
to foretell when they will arrive. The division on this
occasion, on Mr. Grote's motion in favour of the
Ballot, was 305 to 198.]
On Friday night Brougham announced to the Lords that they must
make up their minds to the Ballot after the division of the
preceding night, and yesterday morning, when we were assembled in
my room before going into court (Parke, Erskine, Bosanquet, and
himself) he gave us his speech in high glee. Parke, who is an
alarmist, had just before said that he had never doubted when the
Reform Bill had passed that England would become a republic, and
when Brougham said that he gave the Ballot five years for its
accomplishment, Parke said, 'And in five years from that we shall
have a republic,' on which Brougham gave him a great cuff, and,
with a scornful laugh, said, 'A republic! pooh, nonsense! Well,
but what if there is? _There are judges_ in a republic, and very
well paid too.' 'Well paid!' said the other in the same tone,
'and no.' 'Yes, they are; they have £350 a year. But, never mind,
you shall be taken care of; I will speak to Grote about you.'
This is the way he goes on. He sits every day at the Judicial
Committee, but pays very little attention to the proceedings; he
is incessantly in and out of the room, giving audience to one
odd-looking man or another, and while in court more occupied with
preparing articles for the 'Edinburgh Review' or his
Parliamentary tirades than with the cases he is by way of
hearing. The day after the Lord Advocate's attack upon him in the
matter of the Glasgow cotton-spinners, he received Wakley, and as
he returned (through my room) from the interview, he said, 'Do
you know who that was? It was Wakley. He would have felt your
head if he had stopped, for he is a great phrenologist. He
examined all the heads of the Glasgow men, and he said they had
none of them the organ of destructiveness except one.' 'Oh,' said
I, 'then that man would have committed murder.' 'No,' said he,
'for the organ of benevolence was also strongly developed.' He is
in extraordinary good humour; in a state of furious mental
activity, troubled neither with fear nor shame, and rejoicing in
that freedom from all ties which renders him a sort of political
Ishmael, his hand against everybody, and everybody against him,
and enables him to cut and slash, as his fancy or his passion
move him, at Whig or Tory, in the House of Lords.
[Page Head: LORD JOHN OPPOSES THE BALLOT.]
To return from Brougham to the Ballot. It is not so much the
number of 200 who voted for it that demonstrates the greatness of
its progress as the circumstances which attended the discussion.
There can be no doubt that John Russell's strenuous declaration,
besides annoying the Radicals, greatly embarrassed the Whigs, who
had either wholly or partially committed themselves on the
hustings to its support, and the consequence has been to place
the Government in a false position, for while the opposition to
the Ballot has been called a Government measure (and William
Cowper told me the evening before the division that nobody could
keep his place and vote for Ballot), and many have been induced
to sacrifice their opinions or act against their professions upon
the ground of the necessity of supporting the Government; many
others in office, who were too deeply pledged to, or too much
afraid of their constituents to vote against it, either voted
with Grote, or, what is very nearly the same thing, absented
themselves, and will have done so with impunity, for the
Government cannot turn people out for voting or non-voting on
such a question as this; the proscription would be too numerous
as well as too odious. They are much too weak for any such
stretch of authority and severity; besides, the Cabinet itself is
probably neither unanimous nor decided in its opposition to the
Ballot. John Russell had, however, spoken out with such
determination, that his honour was irretrievably committed
against it, and accordingly the most strenuous efforts were made,
the most urgent entreaties and remonstrances were employed, to
induce people to support him on this occasion, but with a success
not at all commensurate with these exertions. Vivian offered to
resign, but could not be prevailed on not to vote.[6] So
disgusted was John Russell with the result of this division, that
it was with the greatest difficulty he was prevented from
resigning; and yesterday it was reported all over the town that
he had resigned. It is remarkable that in contemplation of his
resignation, Morpeth is the man talked of as his successor as
leader of the House of Commons, a man young enough to be the son
of half the Cabinet Ministers, and not in the Cabinet; but in
such low estimation are all Lord John's colleagues, that not one
of them is deemed capable of taking his place in the event of his
giving it up. However, there is not much use in speculating about
Lord John's successor if he secedes, for the whole concern would
in that case inevitably fall to the ground. Indeed, it is not
likely that it will, under any circumstances, go on much longer.
When once the leader of the House of Commons has become
thoroughly disgusted and dissatisfied with his position, either a
change or a dissolution of the Government may be anticipated, and
in this case any attempt at change can scarcely fail to break up
this rickety firm.
[6] Vivian's Cornish petition was signed by 2,100 or 2,200
freeholders, the same number who had voted for him at
the election, but of these there were 200 who had voted
for Eliot.
[Page Head: POLICY OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.]
The circumstances which enable them to go on at all I take to be
these: the extreme repugnance of the Queen to any change, and the
necessity in which Melbourne finds himself on her account to go
on as long as he possibly can; and on the other hand, the
reluctance of Peel to assault the Government in front. I know no
more of Peel's opinions and designs than what I can gather from
his conduct and what he is likely to entertain under present
circumstances; but it must be his object to delay coming into
office till he can do so as a powerful Minister, and till it is
made manifest to Parliament and the country that he is demanded
by a great public exigency, and is not marching in as the result
of a party triumph. If the resignation of the present Government
should take place under any circumstances which admitted of a
reunion of the Whigs and the Radicals, and of the whole re-united
party being held together in opposition to a Conservative
Government, Peel would be little more secure, and not more able
to act with efficiency and independence than he was in 1835, and
this is what he never will submit to. It is also a great object
to him that the Irish questions should be settled before he comes
into office. Nothing would gladden his heart more than to have
the Government in Ireland established on a footing from the
practice of which he could not deviate, and that once effected up
to a certain point (as far as the Whigs can go) he would be
enabled to go a good deal farther; and as the man who covers in a
building has always more credit and is considered the artificer
more than he who lays the foundations, so Peel would obtain all
the credit of measures which would in fact have been rendered
easy or practicable by the long-continued toils and perseverance
of others. His interest therefore (and consequently I suppose his
design) is to restrain the impatience of his followers; to let
the Government lose ground in public estimation gently and
considerately, not violently and rancorously; to assist in
putting them in a contemptible or inefficient point of view; to
render their places as uneasy as possible; and to give them time
to crumble to pieces, so that his return to power may be more in
appearance the act of the Whig Ministry than any act of his own.
Then he may demand, and would probably obtain, as the condition
of his acceptance of office, the support of a large proportion of
the moderate of the Whig party, and the necessity of conciliating
such men and of acquiring their support could afford him an
excuse for adopting those Liberal maxims which, though far from
palatable to the Conservatives, would be indispensable to the
formation of a strong Government, as without their adoption no
Whig could with honour and consistency support him. I care not
who is Minister, but I want to see a strong Government, one which
may have a power of free action and not be obliged to pick its
steps through doubtful divisions, living from day to day, and
compelled to an incessant calculation as to the probable success
of every measure, whether of principle or detail, on which it
ventures in the House of Commons. Things are not yet ripe for
such a consummation, and before the fresh fusion of parties takes
place which is necessary to bring it about, it must be made
manifest that there is no other alternative, for there is always
a considerable amount of party violence and selfish interest
which reluctantly sacrifice themselves, no matter how desperate
the position they hold or how great the good which may ensue.
Though the adherents of Government put on as bold a front as they
can, there is a very considerable impression that the days of the
Whig Cabinet are numbered; however, I don't think they will go
just yet.
February 20th, 1838 {p.063}
[Page Head: MR. CREEVEY'S PAPERS.]
I made no allusion to the death of Creevey at the time it took
place, about a fortnight ago, having said something about him
elsewhere. Since that period he had got into a more settled way
of life. He was appointed to one of the Ordnance offices by Lord
Grey, and subsequently by Lord Melbourne to the Treasurer ship of
Greenwich Hospital, with a salary of £600 a year and a house. As
he died very suddenly, and none of his connexions were at hand,
Lord Sefton sent to his lodgings and (in conjunction with Vizard,
the solicitor) caused all his papers to be sealed up. It was
found that he had left a woman who had lived with him for four
years as his mistress, his sole executrix and residuary legatee,
and she accordingly became entitled to all his personalty (the
value of which was very small, not more than £300 or £400) and to
all the papers which he left behind him. These last are
exceedingly valuable, for he had kept a copious diary for thirty-
six years, had preserved all his own and Mrs. Creevey's letters,
and copies or originals of a vast miscellaneous correspondence.
The only person who is acquainted with the contents of these
papers is his daughter-in-law, whom he had frequently employed to
copy papers for him, and she knows how much there is of delicate
and interesting matter, the publication of which would be painful
and embarrassing to many people now alive, and make very
inconvenient and premature revelations upon private and
confidential matters.... Then there is Creevey's own
correspondence with various people, especially with Brougham,
which evidently contains things Brougham is anxious to suppress,
for he has taken pains to prevent the papers from falling into
the hands of any person likely to publish them, and has urged
Vizard to get possession of them either by persuasion, or
purchase, or both. In point of fact they are now in Vizard's
hands, and it is intended by him and Brougham, probably with the
concurrence of others, to buy them of Creevey's mistress, though
who is to become the owner of the documents, or what the
stipulated price, and what their contemplated destination, I do
not know. The most extraordinary part of the affair is, that the
woman has behaved with the utmost delicacy and propriety, has
shown no mercenary disposition, but expressed her desire to be
guided by the wishes and opinions of Creevey's friends and
connexions, and to concur in whatever measures may be thought
best by them with reference to the character of Creevey, and the
interests and feelings of those who might be affected by the
contents of the papers. Here is a strange situation in which to
find a rectitude of conduct, a moral sentiment, a grateful and
disinterested liberality which would do honour to the highest
birth, the most careful cultivation, and the strictest principle.
It would be a hundred to one against any individual in the
ordinary rank of society and of average good character acting
with such entire absence of selfishness, and I cannot help being
struck with the contrast between the motives and disposition of
those who want to get hold of these papers, and of this poor
woman who is ready to give them up. They, well knowing that, in
the present thirst for the sort of information Creevey's journals
and correspondence contain, a very large sum might be obtained
for them, are endeavouring to drive the best bargain they can
with her for their own particular ends, while she puts her whole
confidence in them, and only wants to do what they tell her she
ought to do under the circumstances of the case.
General Evans's appointment as K.C.B. has made a great stir at
the United Service Club, and is blamed or ridiculed by everybody.
It is difficult to conceive why the Government gave it him, and
if he had not been a vain coxcomb, he would not have wished for
it; but they say he fancies himself a great general, and that he
has done wonders in Spain.[7]
[7] [Sir De Lacy Evans probably did as much in Spain as it
was possible to do with the troops under his command.
But in justice to him as an officer it should be
remembered that he commanded a division of the British
army in the Crimea, long afterwards, and showed
considerable foresight and ability at the battles of
the Alma and Inkerman.]
We have had Brougham every day at the Council Office, more busy
writing a review of Lady Charlotte Bury's book than with the
matter before the Judicial Committee. He writes this with
inconceivable rapidity, seldom corrects, and never reads over
what he has written, but packs it up and despatches it rough from
his pen to Macvey Napier. He is in exuberant spirits and full of
talk, and certainly marvellously agreeable. His talk (for
conversation is not the word for it) is totally unlike that of
anybody else I ever heard. It comes forth without the slightest
effort, provided he is in spirits and disposed to talk at all. It
is the spontaneous outpouring of one of the most fertile and
restless of minds, easy, familiar, abundant, and discursive. The
qualities and peculiarities of mind which mar his oratorical,
give zest and effect to his conversational, powers; for the
perpetual bubbling up of fresh ideas, by incapacitating him from
condensing his speeches, often makes them tediously digressive
and long; but in society he treads the ground with so elastic a
step, he touches everything so lightly and so adorns all that he
touches, his turns and his breaks are so various, unexpected, and
pungent, that he not only interests and amuses, but always
exhilarates his audience so as to render weariness and satiety
impossible. He is now coquetting a little with the Tories, and
especially professes great deference and profound respect for the
Duke of Wellington; his sole object in politics, for the moment,
is to badger, twit, and torment the Ministry, and in this he
cannot contain himself within the bounds of common civility, as
he exemplified the other night when he talked of 'Lord John this
and Mr. Spring that' (on Thursday night), which, however
contemptuous, was too undignified to be effective. He calls this
'the Thomson Government' from its _least_ considerable member.
February 25th, 1838 {p.066}
[Page Head: O'CONNELL AT THE CROWN AND ANCHOR.]
Lord John Russell made a very paltry exhibition on Friday night,
quite unworthy of the fame he had acquired and of the situation
he holds. When Lord Maidstone threatened to bring before the
House the language which O'Connell had used (about the perjury in
Committees) in a speech at the 'Crown and Anchor,'[8] and gave
notice of a motion for that purpose, John jumped up and said, if
he persevered in this motion he would call the attention of the
House to an imputation against the Catholic members contained in
a charge of the Bishop of Exeter with reference to the oath
required of them by the Relief Bill. Whether this was a sally of
passion I know not, but it was puerile, imprudent, and
undignified. This charge was delivered in 1836, and ought to have
been animadverted upon at the time, if at all. It either is, or
is not, a proper matter to bring before the House, but that
propriety cannot be contingent upon some other proceeding of
another person, quite unconnected with it. It was a poor _tu
quoque_ which has got him into a scrape, and will contribute to
the downhill impulsion of the Government; it is a fresh bit of
discredit thrown upon them. John Russell too has been a personal
antagonist of the Bishop of Exeter, and should have been the last
man to attack him in this irregular way. Out of all this will
spring much violence and personality, and that is what interests
the members of the House of Commons more than any great political
question.
[8] [O'Connell had asserted, at the 'Crown and Anchor'
tavern, that 'foul perjury was committed by the Tory
Election Committees.']
February 27th, 1838 {p.067}
It is difficult to conceive a greater quantity of folly crammed
into a short space of time than has been displayed by all parties
in the last three or four days, and which reached the climax last
night in the House of Commons. It began with O'Connell's speech
at the 'Crown and Anchor,' when he denounced the perjury of the
Tory Election Committees in such terms as he usually employs. To
recommend moderate language to O'Connell would, however, be about
as reasonable as to advise him to drop his brogue; but as he had
ample notice that the matter was coming before the House of
Commons, he might have been persuaded, and there should have been
somewhere sense and prudence enough to persuade him, to soften
his tone, and to make one of those explanations, partly
exculpatory and partly apologetic, which are always accepted as a
sufficient atonement for rash and violent language; instead of
which he brazened it out, and then John Russell came to his
rescue in that foolish and unbecoming notice of his which
compromised his dignity, committed his party,[9] and complicated
all the difficulties in which the House itself was placed. The
fools of his party (and on both sides they predominate in noise
and numbers) vociferously cheered this ill-judged sally, and
lauded it as a fine spirited retort. Not so, however, the more
prudent of his friends, who perceived the dilemma in which he had
placed himself. Nobody in the meantime had any clear notion of
what would be done, what motions would be made or withdrawn, and
how the whole thing was to end. But as the debate promised a
great deal of personality, it was exceedingly attractive, and 517
members[10] went down to the House. Lord Maidstone moved that
O'Connell's speech was a scandalous libel, and Lord Howick moved
the order of the day. O'Connell made a very good speech and then
retired; John Russell spoke on one side, and Peel and Follett on
the other, and on the division the Tories carried the question by
nine: 263 to 254. They were of course in a state of uproarious
triumph; the Government people exceedingly mortified, and the
tail in a frenzy. The scene which ensued appears to have been
something like that which a meeting of Bedlam or Billingsgate
might produce. All was uproar, gesticulation, and confusion. The
Irishmen started up one after another and proclaimed their
participation in O'Connell's sentiments, and claimed to be joined
in his condemnation. They were all the more furious when they
found that the conquerors only meant to have him reprimanded by
the Speaker, and that there was no chance of his or their being
sent to Newgate or the Tower. At last 'le combat finit faute de
combattants,' for John Russell and his colleagues first, and
subsequently Peel and his followers, severally made their exits
something like rival potentates and their trains in a tragedy,
and when the bellowers found nobody left to bellow to, they too
were obliged to move off.
[9] The notice was that _if_ Lord Maidstone persisted in
his motion, he would call the attention of the Crown to
a charge delivered by the Bishop of Exeter (nearly two
years ago), in which he had accused the Catholic
members of perjury and treachery.
[10] Many more, I am told, for 517 voted, and several went
away who would not vote.
[Page Head: LORD LYNDHURST AND LORD MELBOURNE.]
In the House of Lords there had been an early, but very smart
skirmish between Melbourne and Lyndhurst,[11] in which the former
drew a contrast between what would have been the conduct of the
Duke (who was absent) and that of Lyndhurst, and said that the
Duke was a man of honour and a gentleman in a tone which implied
that Lyndhurst was neither. Brougham stepped in and aggravated
matters as much as he could by joining Lyndhurst and taunting
Melbourne; but when Lyndhurst rose again to call Melbourne to
account for his expressions, Brougham held him down with friendly
violence, and (as he asseverates) was entirely the cause of
preventing a fight between them, first by not letting Lyndhurst
proceed to extremities,[12] and next by giving Melbourne time for
reflection. However this may be, when Lyndhurst asked him, 'if he
meant to say he was not a man of honour,' Melbourne made as ample
a retractation of the offensive expressions as Lyndhurst could
desire, and there the matter ended, not certainly much to the
credit or satisfaction of the Ministers in either House. I think,
however, that the Opposition have obtained a very mischievous and
inconvenient triumph, and that they would have done much better
to leave the question alone. O'Connell and John Russell made
better speeches than Peel and Follett, and the latter seemed to
be oppressed by a consciousness of the narrow, vindictive, and
merely party, if not personal grounds on which the question was
raised. They have dragged the House of Commons into a vote,
which, if it acts consistently, it ought to follow up by an
indiscriminate exercise of its authority and resentment upon all
the writers and speakers who have denounced the Committee system,
and they have procured a resolution declaratory of that being
libellous and scandalous which the public universally believes,
and every member of the House well knows to be true.
[11] The discussion arose out of a question Lyndhurst put
about some young children who had been confined in the
penitentiary, in solitary confinement, &c., _without
notice_. Melbourne fired up at this in a very
unnecessary rage, though Lyndhurst was clearly wrong in
not giving notice. Much more was made of this omission
than need have been.
[12] Lyndhurst was going out of the House to write a hostile
note, but Brougham forced him down and said, 'I insist
on my noble friend's sitting down,' but though he
boasts of having been the peacemaker, Lyndhurst told me
he thought, but for Brougham, Melbourne would not have
said what he did.
February 28th, 1838 {p.070}
I met Lyndhurst yesterday, and had a few minutes' conversation
with him. He told me, as I had conjectured, that Peel was
extremely annoyed at all these proceedings. I said, 'Why then,
did not he stop them?' 'Because the great misfortune of our party
is that he won't communicate with anybody.' So that this most
inexpedient discussion was forced on by the precipitation and
indiscretion of two or three men, against the convictions and the
wishes of the wise and the moderate of all parties; and when a
few words of prudence and conciliation might have stopped the
whole proceeding, pride, or obstinacy, or awkwardness prevented
those words being uttered. The only real consequence will be that
public attention will be attracted to the Committee system,
people will think a great deal about what they scarcely regarded
before, and the characters of public men will suffer. If the vote
of the House of Commons means anything, it means that these
Committees are honourably and fairly conducted, and it will be
compelled to follow up this vote by reforming them on the
specific ground of enormous and intolerable abuses, the existence
of which their vote will have denied; and all these results, the
self-stultification of the House, and the damage to the moral
reputation of its members, are brought about in order that the
Tory geese may cackle, and that men like Jemmy Bradshaw and Sir
John Tyrrell may wave their hats and their crutches in
triumph.[13] It is curious enough that the Ministers had no
notion the Tories really meant to press this matter. John Russell
went down (Le Marchant told me so) fully sensible of his own
folly on Friday night, resolved to drop his motion about the
Bishop, and convinced that, as it was the interest, so it would
be the determination, of the leading Tories to quash the
discussion.
[13] Bradshaw stood up on the benches, huzzaing and waving
his hat, and it was said Sir John Tyrrell (if it was
he) did the same, having the gout, with his crutches.
March 1st, 1838 {p.070}
Another night (Tuesday) was wasted in a fresh discussion, brought
on by a motion of Pendarves's to let the matter drop. In the
morning Lord Howick told me that the Ministers did not mean to
say or do anything more, and that their only object now was to
put an end to the business as quickly as possible. But John
Russell, who is as little communicative on one side as Peel is on
the other, had in the meantime, and without consulting anybody,
desired Pendarves to make this useless and abortive motion. This
Le Marchant told me yesterday morning, adding how annoyed they
all were at it. Yesterday the Speaker delivered the reprimand,
and they all admitted that it was extremely well done. O'Connell
made a violent speech in reply, but clever.
March 4th, 1838 {p.071}
[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM COURTS THE TORIES.]
Brougham again in the House of Lords on Friday night. He attacked
Pechell and Codrington for having attacked him[14] because he had
abused the Navy in his Slavery speech, and was very violent,
tedious, and verbose. He informed the House that he had written a
remonstrance to the Speaker for not having called the two sailors
to order, and he treated them with great contumely and abuse in
his speech. Lyndhurst[15] made him very wroth by asking him 'if
he had any right to write to the Speaker,' and Melbourne made a
short, but very good reply, reminding him that, as he had chosen
to publish his speech in the shape of a pamphlet, it was no
breach of privilege to comment on its contents. He made a great
splutter, but got the worst of this bout. In the meantime he
continues to be the great meteor of the day; he has emerged from
his seclusion, and is shining a mighty luminary among the Tory
_ignes minores_. The Conservatives are so charmed with him, that
they court his society with the liveliest demonstrations of
regard, and he meets their advances more than half way. They are
very naturally delighted with his unrivalled agreeableness, and
they are not sorry to pat him on the back as a _flagellifer_ of
the Ministers; but though they talk with expressions of regret of
his having radicalised himself, and he would probably, if he saw
an opening, try to wriggle himself out of Radicalism and into
Toryism, they will take care, in the event of their return to
office, not to let such a firebrand in amongst them. He calls his
last Anti-slavery speech his [Greek: peri stephanou], for he
thinks it his greatest effort, and it was such an oration as no
other man could have delivered. The Bishop of Exeter spoke for
two hours and a half the other night on Catholic oaths, but the
whole bench of Bishops, except Llandaff, stayed away, to mark
their disapprobation of his agitation on the subject.
[14] [In their speeches in the House of Commons.]
[15] [It was not Lord Lyndhurst who asked this question.
Lord Brougham intimated that he had written a private
letter on the matter to the Speaker, which he had a
right to do.]
Nobody knows what the Tories are going to do on Molesworth's
motion on Tuesday;[16] they have kept an ominous silence, and it
is believed that the great body of them are eagerly pressing for
a division against the Government, while the leaders want to
restrain them, and not meddle with the question. Care, however,
has been taken, to abstain from any expression of opinion or
declaration of intention, and they are all ordered to be at their
posts. The Whigs would desire nothing better, end as it might,
than that the Tories should support Molesworth's motion, or move
an amendment upon it, which might bring about the concurrence
with themselves of the mover and the few Liberals (some say
seven, some eleven) who will vote with him.
[16] [Sir William Molesworth moved a vote of censure on Lord
Glenelg, Colonial Secretary of State, on the 6th of
March, but withdrew it after two nights' debate in
favour of an amendment moved by Lord Sandon, condemning
the Canadian policy of the Government. On the division
Ministers had 316, and their opponents 287 votes. The
character and purport of this amendment are explained
below.]
March 6th, 1838 {p.072}
Great interest yesterday to know the result of the meeting at
Peel's, when it was to be settled what course should be taken to-
night. There were meetings at both Peel's and John Russell's. The
decision of the Tories was deferred till Stanley's arrival in
town, who had been detained by illness at Knowsley. In the
morning there was a meeting of the Privy Council about municipal
charters, when John Russell and Poulett Thomson told me they did
not expect the Tories would give them battle; but if there was a
division, they thought Government would carry it by 20, a great
majority in these days.
March 8th, 1838 {p.073}
Sandon moved the amendment on Tuesday night, but so well had the
Tories kept their secret that nobody knew what they were going to
do till he got up in the House. As there were above 200 present
at the meeting, and nearly 300 must have been in the secret,
their discretion was marvellous. I was convinced that no
amendment would be moved, and was completely mistaken. The debate
on Tuesday was moderate; Labouchere spoke well, Stanley middling,
but he was not in force physically. Last night they divided at
half-past two, and there was a majority of 29: all things
considered, a great one, and which sets the Government on its
legs for the present. Fourteen of the Conservatives were absent
from illness or the death of relations, so that the strength of
the party really amounts to 300 if it would all be mustered.
There must always be some casualties, and probably there were
some likewise on the other side.
[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM'S ANTI-SLAVERY SPEECH.]
On Tuesday night Brougham made another great Slavery speech in
the House of Lords, as usual, very long, eloquent, powerful; but
his case overstated, too highly wrought, and too artificial. It
was upon the Order in Council by which coolies were brought into
Antigua from India. He made out a case of real or probable abuse
and injustice, and his complaint was that the Government had not
sufficiently guarded against the contingency by regulations
accompanying the Order. He was followed by several of the Tory
Lords; but the Duke of Wellington refused to support him,
provided Melbourne would agree to adopt certain rules which he
proposed as a security against future abuses, in which case he
said he would move the previous question. Melbourne agreed, and
the Duke moved it. As he and the bulk of his followers joined
with the Government, they had a large majority, but Ellenborough,
Lyndhurst, Wharncliffe, the Bishop of Exeter, and a few more,
voted with Brougham, and the whole party would have been very
glad to do so if the Duke would have let them. Brougham was
exceedingly disconcerted, and threw out all sorts of baits to
catch the Duke's vote and support, but did not succeed, and he
said that the Duke had again stepped in to save the Government.
The 'Times' yesterday morning made a very sulky allusion to what
they consider his ill-timed moderation; but he will not be a
party to anything that has the semblance of faction, and to
worrying and bullying the Government merely to show the power or
to have the pleasure of doing so. In the present instance,
although Melbourne gave way to the Duke (as he could not do
less), it so happens that the Government would have been in a
majority of three or four if the Duke had divided against them,
for the Tories had taken no pains to bring their people down, and
Brougham's great orations are not so attractive to the Lords as
they are popular with the public. He will certainly gain a great
deal of reputation and popularity by his agitation of the Anti-
slavery question, for it is a favourite topic in the country.
Wharncliffe told me he walked away with him from the House after
the debate on Tuesday, and some young men who had been below the
bar saluted him as he went by with 'Bravo, Brougham!'
March 9th, 1838 {p.074}
At the Council yesterday everybody was very merry and grinning
from ear to ear, mightily elated with their victory, or perhaps
rather their escape the night before, and at having got such a
timely reprieve. The division has given them a new lease, but
whether it will prove a long or a short one depends upon a
thousand contingencies. The violent Tories were sulky and
disappointed, though in the course of Wednesday they began to
find out that Government would have a better division than either
party had anticipated. I had been strongly of opinion that Peel
would not fight the battle, and I thought it would be bad policy
in him to do so; but any opinion contrary to his must be
entertained with diffidence, so able as he is, and so versed in
parliamentary and party tactics; and in order to form a correct
judgement of the course which it was expedient for him to adopt,
it was necessary to know both his own views as to office at the
present moment and the disposition of the party he leads.
[Page Head: SIR ROBERT PEEL'S TACTICS.]
I had no communication with any of the Tories before the
division, but yesterday I saw George Dawson, Peel's brother-in-
law, and Francis Egerton. From them I learnt, what I had all
along supposed to be the case, that Peel was driven with extreme
reluctance into fighting this battle; that it was difficult to
take no part in the discussion raised by Molesworth's
inconvenient resolution, and that he was continually urged and
pressed by his followers to attack the Government, they
persisting in the notion that the Ministers might be driven out,
and always complaining that the moderation of the Duke and the
backwardness of Peel alone kept them in their places. The
discontent and clamour were so loud and continued that it became
absolutely necessary for Peel, if he meant to keep the party
together, to gratify their impatience for action, and he
accordingly concocted this amendment in such terms as should make
it impossible for the Radicals to concur in it, it being his
especial care to avoid the semblance of any union, even
momentary, between the Tories and them. Peel certainly never
expected to beat the Government, nor did he wish it. There can be
no doubt that he saw clearly all the results that would follow
his defeat, and thought them on the whole desirable. These
results are, that there is an end for the present of any question
of the stability of the Government. Peel has complied with the
wishes of his party, and has demonstrated to them that they
cannot turn the Government out, which will have the effect of
moderating their impatience and induce them for the future to
acquiesce in his managing matters according to his own
discretion. On the other hand, he has exhibited a force of 317
Conservatives[17] in the House of Commons, not only by far the
most numerous Opposition that ever was arrayed against a
Government, but possessing the peculiar advantage of being united
in principle--a compact, cemented body, all animated with one
spirit, and not a mass composed of different elements and merely
allied and conjoined in hostility to the Government. The relative
strength of the two parties has been manifested by this division,
and the Government have a majority of twenty votes, which, as
their people attend better than the others, may be considered
equal to a working majority of thirty.
[17] [The number of Conservatives who took part in the vote
was 287; but thirty members of the party either paired
or were absent.]
This is sufficient to enable them to go on, but the majority
consists of a combination of heterogeneous materials: of
O'Connell and the Irish members, of Radicals and Whigs of various
shades and degrees of opinions, all with a disposition, greater
or less, but with different (and often opposite and inconsistent)
views and objects, to support the present Government, and
containing in itself all the seeds of dissolution from the
variety and incompatibility of its component elements. But while
this division has given present security to the Government, it
has also made a display of Conservative power which will render
it impossible for the Whigs to conduct the Government on any but
Conservative principles; and while, on the one hand, Peel can say
to the violent Tories that they have seen the impotence of their
efforts, and ought to be convinced that by firmness and
moderation they may do anything, but by violence nothing, on the
other, Melbourne and John Russell may equally admonish the
Radicals of the manifest impossibility of carrying out their
principles in the teeth of such a Conservative party, besides the
resistance that would be offered by all the Conservative leaven
which is largely mixed up in the composition of their own. Thus
there is a reasonable expectation that from the balance of party
power moderate counsels may prevail, and that Conservative
principle may extend and consolidate its influence.
The Queen was very nervous at the possibility there seemed to be
that the Ministers might be beaten, for Lord John Russell had
told her that he could not count upon a majority of more than
fifteen, and she looked yesterday as cheerful as anybody else
around her. With regard to the measure on the part of the Tories
and the case of Canada, they were wholly unjustifiable in moving
such a vote of censure, and there is nothing in the case (however
in its details objections may be urged against Lord Glenelg's
conduct) to demand so strong a proceeding. The best speeches were
Sir George Grey's on one side, and Peel's on the other. The
casualties in the division were, on the whole, unfavourable to
the Tories; fifteen of their people were unavoidably absent, not
above half as many of the Government. They contrived to delay the
report of the Belfast Committee, unseating both the sitting
members, till yesterday morning, by which means the Government
got both their votes in the division; and one of them being
paired off with Lord Ramsay, who was not there, the pair
cancelled by the call of the House, this alone made a difference
of five votes.
March 11th, 1838 {p.077}
[Page Head: A DINNER AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.]
I dined yesterday at the Palace, much to my surprise, for I had
no expectation of an invitation. There was a very numerous
party:--the Hanoverian Minister Baron Münchhausen, Lord and Lady
Grey, the Chancellor, the Roseberys, Ossulston, Mahon, &c. We
assembled in the round room next the gallery, and just before the
dinner was ready the Queen entered with the Duchess of Kent,
preceded by the Chamberlain, and followed by her six ladies. She
shook hands with the women, and made a sweeping bow to the men,
and directly went in to dinner, conducted by Münchhausen, who sat
next to her, and Lord Conyngham on the other side. The dinner was
like any other great dinner. After the eating was over, the
Queen's health was given by Cavendish, who sat at one end of the
table, and everybody got up to drink it: a vile, vulgar custom,
and, however proper it may be to drink her health elsewhere, it
is bad taste to have it given by her own officer at her own
table, which, in fact, is the only private table it is ever drunk
at. However, this has been customary in the two last reigns.
George III. never dined but with his family, never had guests, or
a dinner _party_.
The Queen sat for some time at table, talking away very merrily
to her neighbours, and the men remained about a quarter of an
hour after the ladies. When we went into the drawing-room, and
huddled about the door in the sort of half-shy, half-awkward way
people do, the Queen advanced to meet us, and spoke to everybody
in succession, and if everybody's 'palaver' was as deeply
interesting as mine, it would have been worth while to have had
Gurney to take it down in short-hand. The words of kings and
queens are precious, but it would be hardly fair to record a
Royal after-dinner colloquy.... After a few insignificant
questions and answers,--gracious smile and inclination of head on
part of Queen, profound bow on mine, she turned again to Lord
Grey. Directly after I was (to my satisfaction) deposited at the
whist table to make up the Duchess of Kent's party, and all the
rest of the company were arranged about a large round table (the
Queen on the sofa by it), where they passed about an hour and a
half in what was probably the smallest possible talk, interrupted
and enlivened, however, by some songs which Lord Ossulston sang.
We had plenty of instrumental music during and after dinner. To
form an opinion or the slightest notion of her real character and
capacity from such a formal affair as this, is manifestly
impossible. Nobody expects from her any clever, amusing, or
interesting talk, above all no stranger can expect it. She is
very civil to everybody, and there is more of frankness,
cordiality, and good-humour in her manner than of dignity. She
looks and speaks cheerfully: there was nothing to criticise,
nothing particularly to admire. The whole thing seemed to be
dull, perhaps unavoidably so, but still so dull that it is a
marvel how anybody can like such a life. This was an unusually
large party, and therefore more than usually dull and formal; but
it is much the same sort of thing every day. Melbourne was not
there, which I regretted, as I had some curiosity to see Her
Majesty and her Minister together. I had a few words with Lord
Grey, and soon found that the Government are in no very good
odour with him. He talked disparagingly of them, and said, in
reference to the recent debate, that 'he thought Peel could not
have done otherwise than he did.'
March 17th, 1838 {p.078}
[Page Head: MEN OF SCIENCE.]
Went to the Royal Institution last night in hopes of hearing
Faraday lecture, but the lecture was given by Mr. Pereira upon
crystals, a subject of which he appeared to be master, to judge
by his facility and fluency; but the whole of it was
unintelligible to me. Met Dr. Buckland and talked to him for an
hour, and he introduced me to Mr. Wheatstone, the inventor of the
electric telegraph, of the progress in which he gave us an
account. I wish I had turned my attention to these things and
sought occupation and amusement in them long ago. I am satisfied
that, apart from all considerations of utility, or even of
profit, they afford a very pregnant source of pleasure and
gratification. There is a cheerfulness, an activity, an
appearance of satisfaction in the conversation and demeanour of
scientific men that conveys a lively notion of the _pleasure_
they derive from their pursuits. I feel ashamed to go among such
people when I compare their lives with my own, their knowledge
with my ignorance, their brisk and active intellects with my dull
and sluggish mind, become sluggish and feeble for want of
exercise and use.
March 20th, 1838 {p.079}
Met Croker on Sunday, who came to speak to me about the picture
of the Queen's First Council on her accession which Wilkie is
painting. He is much scandalised because the Lord Mayor is
introduced, which he ought not to be, and Croker apprehends that
future Mayors will found upon the evidence of this picture claims
to be present at the Councils of future sovereigns on similar
occasions. I wrote to Lord Lansdowne about it and told him that
it so happens that I caused the Lord Mayor to be ejected, who was
lingering on in the room after the Proclamation had been
read.[18]
[18] [It is a vulgar error, which it would scarcely be
necessary to notice here except for the purpose of
correcting it, that the Lord Mayor of London has some
of the privileges of a Privy Councillor during his year
of office. The mistake has probably arisen from his
being styled 'Right Honourable,' but so are the Lord
Mayors of Dublin and of York. But he has none of the
rights of a Privy Councillor. He is, however, summoned
to attend the Privy Council at which a new Sovereign is
proclaimed, but having heard the Proclamation he
retires before the business of the Council is
commenced. See _infra_, March 27th.]
It is a very trite observation, that no two people are more
different than the same man at different periods of his life, and
this was illustrated by an anecdote Lord Holland told us of Tom
Grenville last night--Tom Grenville, so mild, so refined, adorned
with such an amiable, venerable, and decorous old age. After Lord
Keppel's acquittal there were riots, and his enthusiastic friends
with a zealous mob attacked the houses of his enemies; among
others they assaulted the Admiralty, the chiefs of which were
obnoxious for their supposed ill-usage of him. The Admiralty was
taken by storm, and Tom Grenville was the second man who entered
at the breach!
March 23rd, 1838 {p.080}
On Wednesday I attended a Levée and Council. The Queen was
magnificently dressed, and looked better than I ever saw her. Her
complexion is clear and has the brightness of youth; the
expression of her eyes is agreeable. Her manner is graceful and
dignified and with perfect self-possession. I remarked how very
civil she was to Brougham, for she spoke to him as much as to
anybody. He was in high good-humour after it.
Yesterday we had a Judicial Committee, with a great judicial
attendance: the Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, Brougham, the Vice-
Chancellor, Lord Abinger, Lord Langdale, and Tom Erskine, with
the Lord President. It was to consider a petition of certain
apprentices in British Guiana, who wanted to stay execution of
the judgement of a Court there. Glenelg had it referred to the
Privy Council Committee in order to shift the responsibility from
himself. He expected that Brougham would get hold of the case and
make a clatter about it; but at the Board Brougham treated it
purely upon legal grounds, and was adverse to the prayer of the
petition.
They had come (i.e., the Chancellor, Lyndhurst, and Brougham)
from the House of Lords, where they had been reversing
Lyndhurst's famous judgement in 'Small _v._ Attwood.' Lyndhurst
was very hoarse, having just made a long speech in support of his
former judgement; but the Chancellor and Devon had spoken
against, and Brougham was prepared to side with them. _Sic
transit gloria!_ It was this judgement which was so lauded and
admired at the time, and upon which, more than upon any other, or
even upon the general tenor of his decisions, Lyndhurst's great
judicial fame was based; and now it turns out that, although it
was admirable in the execution, it was bad in point of law.[19]
[19] [The main question in the celebrated case of Small _v_.
Attwood was whether the sale of certain ironworks in
Staffordshire, by Mr. Attwood, to the British Iron
Company, should be set aside for what, in the Courts of
Equity, is termed fraud. Lord Lyndhurst, as Chief Baron
of the Exchequer, held that an amount of
misrepresentation had been practised by the vendor,
which annulled the sale. The House of Lords was of
opinion that if the purchasers had paid too much for
the property, it was their own fault. This decision
rested, of course, on the special circumstances of the
case. It was argued with great ability by Serjeant
Wilde and Mr. Sugden, who received fees in this case to
an amount previously unknown to the Bar. It is
remarkable that Lord Lyndhurst sat on the appeal from
his own judgement and supported it; the fifth vote,
which decided the case, was that of Lord Devon, who had
never held a judicial office.]
March 25th, 1838 {p.081}
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S ATTACHMENT TO WILLIAM IV.]
Lady Cowper told me yesterday that the Queen said to Lord
Melbourne, 'the first thing which had convinced her he was worthy
of her confidence was his conduct in the disputes at Kensington
last year about her proposed allowance,' in which, though he knew
that the King's life was closing, he had taken his part. She
considered this to be a proof of his honesty and determination to
do what he thought right. Though she took no part, and never
declared herself, it is evident that she, in her heart, sided
with the King on that occasion. It is difficult to attribute to
timidity that command over herself and passive obedience which
she showed in her whole conduct up to the moment when she learnt
that she was Queen; and from that instant, as if inspired with
the genius and the spirit of Sixtus V., she at once asserted her
dignity and her will. She now evinces in all she does an
attachment to the memory of her uncle, and it is not to be
doubted that, in the disputes which took place between him and
her mother, her secret sympathies were with the King; and in that
celebrated scene at Windsor, when the King made so fierce an
attack upon the Duchess's advisers, and expressed his earnest
hope that he might live to see the majority of his niece,
Victoria must have inwardly rejoiced at the expression of
sentiments so accordant with her own. Her attentions and
cordiality to Queen Adelaide, her bounty and civility to the
King's children, and the disgrace of Conroy, amply prove what her
sentiments have all along been.
March 27th, 1838 {p.027}
[Page Head: WILKIE'S PICTURE OF THE FIRST COUNCIL.]
Went yesterday to sit to Wilkie for the picture of the Queen's
First Council. The likenesses are generally pretty good, but it
is a very unfaithful representation of what actually took place.
It was, of course, impossible to preserve all the details without
sacrificing the effect, but the picture has some glaring
improprieties, which diminish its interest, and deprive it of all
value as an historical piece. There were ninety-seven Privy
Councillors present on the occasion, and among them most of the
conspicuous men of the time. He has introduced as many figures as
he well could, but has made a strange selection, admitting very
ordinary men, such as Lord Burghersh and Lord Salisbury, while
Brougham and Stanley do not find places. He told me that great
anxiety prevailed to be put into this picture, and many pressing
applications had been made; and as only vain and silly men would
make them, and importunity generally prevails to a great extent,
it ends in the sacrifice of the picture by substituting these
undistinguished intruders in place of the celebrated persons who
are so much better entitled to be there. Then he has painted the
Lord Mayor of London and the Attorney-General, who, not being
Privy Councillors, could not be present when the Queen was
sitting in Council; but they both entreated to be put in the
picture, and each asserted that he was actually present.
Yesterday I remonstrated with Wilkie, who had no good reason to
give; indeed, none, except that they both _said_ they were
present, and that the Attorney had described to him what passed.
The fact was this: when the Lords assemble they order the Queen
to be proclaimed, and when the Proclamation is read the doors are
thrown open, and everybody is admitted. The Lord Mayor came in
together with several Common Councilmen and a multitude of other
persons. When this is over they are all obliged to retire, and I
called out from the head of the table that 'everybody except
Privy Councillors would have the goodness to retire.' It was
necessary to clear the room before Her Majesty could hold her
Privy Council. The people did retire, slowly and lingeringly, and
some time afterwards, espying the fur and scarlet of the Lord
Mayor, I requested somebody (I forget whom) to tell him he must
retire, and he did leave the room. Shortly after the Queen
entered, and the business of the Council commenced. The
impossibility of getting the summonses to two hundred and twenty
Privy Councillors conveyed in time caused the greatest
irregularity in the arrivals, and the door was continually opened
to admit fresh comers. In such a scene of bustle and confusion,
and in a room so crowded, it is extremely probable that the Lord
Mayor and the Attorney-General smuggled themselves back into the
apartment, and that they were (very improperly) spectators of
what passed; but that forms no reason why they should be
represented in an historical picture as actors in a ceremonial
with which they had, and could have, no concern. Wilkie was very
anxious to have Lord Conyngham in the picture, but both he and
Albert Conyngham decided that it would be improper, because not
only he was not present, but according to etiquette could not be
present, as it was his duty to remain in constant attendance upon
the body of the late King up to the moment of his breaking his
wand over his coffin.
Yesterday Brougham spoke for four hours and a half in the House
of Lords, upon the appeal of 'Small _v_. Attwood,' concurring
with the Chancellor in reversing Lyndhurst's judgement, and
evidently bent upon making a display of judicial eloquence which
should eclipse that of Lyndhurst himself. This judgement has made
a great sensation in the world, especially in the commercial
world. I met the Vice-Chancellor, who had come from the House of
Lords, and who told me of Brougham's speech, and the final
decree; he said he really knew nothing of the case, but from what
he heard he was inclined to believe the reversal was right.
Lyndhurst, however, persists in the correctness of his own
judgement.
March 30th, 1838 {p.083}
Lord Eliot's motion about Spain came to a ridiculous end on
Wednesday. When the debate was resumed at five o'clock very few
people were present; they were chattering and making a noise;
nobody heard the Speaker when he put the question; and so they
divided 72 to 60, the Ministers (or Minister, for none was
present but John Russell) not knowing on which side there would
be a majority. The Tories were very angry, and wanted to renew
the discussion in another form, but after a little wrangle this
project dropped. It was a foolish, useless motion, and deserved
no better end.
On Wednesday afternoon I found Downing Street thronged with rival
deputations of West Indians and Quakers, which had both been with
Melbourne. Out of Brougham's flaming speeches on Anti-slavery a
tempest has arisen, which threatens the West Indians with sudden
and unforeseen ruin in the shape of immediate emancipation.[20]
It is always easy to get up anti-slavery petitions and to excite
a benevolent indignation against slavery in any shape, and
Brougham has laid hold of this easy mode of inflaming the public
mind in his usual daring, unscrupulous, reckless style, pouring
forth a flood of eloquent falsehoods and misrepresentations which
he knows will be much more effective than any plain matter-of-
fact statements that can be urged on the other side. The West
Indians had no notion they were in any danger, and were reposing
under the shade of Government protection and in undoubting
reliance upon the inviolability of the great arrangement, when
they find themselves overtaken all at once with the new question
of immediate emancipation which has sprung up into instantaneous
life and strength. Their terror is accordingly great. They went
to Melbourne, who said he agreed with them, and that the
Government was determined to support them, and so they might tell
their people, but that he could not promise them to make it so
much a Government question as to resign if they were beat upon
it. The leaders of the Opposition equally took their part, but
the question is whether the tails will not beat the heads. I
never remember before to have seen any question on which so much
uncertainty prevailed as to individual votes. More than one half
the members of the House doubted, and probably are at this moment
doubting, how they shall vote. The petitions are innumerable, and
men are disposed to gratify their constituents by voting as they
please on this question, not caring a fig either for the slaves
or the West Indians, and reconciling it to their consciences to
despoil the latter by assuming that they were overpaid with the
twenty millions they got by the Emancipation Act.
[20] [Sir George Strickland moved, on the 30th of March, a
resolution in favour of the termination of negro
apprenticeship as established by the Emancipation Act
of 1834, on the 1st of August of the current year. The
motion was defeated by 269 to 205.]
April 2nd, 1838 {p.085}
[Page Head: BIRTHDAY REFLEXIONS.]
My birthday. Another year has stolen over me, and finds me, I
fear, little better or wiser than at the end of the last. How we
wince at our reflexions and still go on in the same courses! how
we resolve and break our resolutions! It is a common error to
wish we could recall the past and be young again, and swear what
things we would do if another opportunity was offered us. All
vanity, folly, and falsehood. We _should_ do just the same as
before, because we _do_ actually do the same; we linger over and
regret the past instead of setting manfully to work to improve
the future; we waste present time in vague and useless regrets,
and abandon ourselves to inaction in despair instead of gathering
up what yet remains of life, and finding a compensation, however
inadequate, in resolute industry for our losses. I wonder if
anybody has ever done this. Many after damaging their health have
become prudent and careful in restoring their shattered
constitutions; many more have been extravagant and careless, and
ended by being parsimonious and prudent, and so the first have
grown strong and the second rich; but has anybody thoroughly
wasted his time, frittered away his understanding, weakened the
powers of judgement and memory, and let his mind be bare and
empty as the shelves of an unfurnished bookcase, and afterwards
become diligent, thoughtful, reflective, a hater of idleness,
and, what is worse, of indolence, and habitually addicted to
worthy and useful pursuits? I do not think I can call to mind any
instance of such a reformation.
I went to Newmarket on Saturday. Mutable as this climate is, the
greatest variation I ever saw was between Friday and Sunday last.
On Friday S.W. wind, balmy air like June, and the trees beginning
to bud; on Sunday the ground was completely covered with snow,
not a particle of any colour but white to be seen, a bitter N.E.
wind, and so it continued till the sun melted away the thin coat
of snow, which disappeared as suddenly as if it had been swept
away.
The Ministers got a pretty good majority, all things considered,
on Friday. Gladstone made a first-rate speech in defence of the
planters, which places him in the front rank in the House of
Commons, so Fazakerly told me; he converted or determined many
adverse or doubtful votes, as did Sir George Grey the day before.
April 5th, 1838 {p.086}
Lord Charles Fitzroy, Vice-Chamberlain, who had voted against
Government on the Negro question, was turned out for his vote,
not angrily and violently, but it was signified to him that he
must go, and yesterday he came to Buckingham House, where there
was a Council, to resign his key. They could not do otherwise,
for Peel had sent a message to Lord John Russell to know whether
Government did mean in earnest to oppose this motion with all
their force and influence, because, if they did, he would support
them with as many of his friends as he could bring to their aid;
and the reply was that such was their intention. After this they
could not pass over such a vote in one of their own household.
[Page Head: VOTE ON LORD DURHAM'S EXPENSES.]
The night before last Government had the narrowest possible
escape of being beaten upon a motion of Lord Chandos's about Lord
Durham's expenses.[21] They carried it by two, and that only
because Lord Villiers (Durham's first cousin, and whose brother
is one of his aides-de-camp) stayed away, together with Dawson
Damer, from motives of personal friendship; Castlereagh, because
Durham and Londonderry are knit together by the closest of all
ties,--a community of _coal_ interest; and one of the Hopes,
because he is going with his regiment to Canada, and did not
choose to incur the personal animosity of the great man there:
but for these secessions the question would have been carried.
Durham would probably have refused to go, and it is not
impossible the Government might have resigned. Nobody expected
this close division, and the Secretary of the Treasury was
greatly to blame in not securing a larger attendance of the
Government people and guarding against all chances. However, in
these days a miss is as good as a mile, and such a division,
which in former times would have been fatal to a Government, does
not signify a straw, except as an additional exhibition of
weakness and proof of their precarious tenure of office.
Melbourne yesterday looked very grave upon it, and he had an
unusually long audience of the Queen before the Council.
Palmerston treated the matter with great levity. As generally
happens, there is much to blame in the conduct of all parties. In
the first place the Colonial Minister should have made some
arrangement upon his own responsibility, and not have produced
the ridiculous correspondence with Durham, and nobody ever before
heard of a Minister asking a Governor what establishment he
intended to have. Then Durham might as well have laid aside his
ostentation and grandeur, and have shown a determination to apply
himself manfully to the work entrusted to him without any desire
for pomp and expense. He would have gone out more effectively,
have acquired more reputation, and have avoided the odium and the
ridicule which now in no small degree attach to his mission. On
the other hand, the Opposition had no business to take the matter
up in this way. In such a momentous affair it is immaterial
whether there is a secretary more or less, and whether an
establishment, which is only to exist for one year, costs £2,000
or £3,000 more or less, and to declare that the sum actually
spent by Lord Gosford shall be the maximum of Lord Durham's
expenditure, is so manifestly absurd that it proves the pitiful
and spiteful spirit in which the motion was conceived. Suppose
they had succeeded, and that after such a vote Durham (as he well
might) had resigned the appointment. This must have been an
enormous embarrassment to the public service, incurred without
any object of commensurate importance. It is not the least
curious part of this matter that the Government were not at all
sorry that the question of Durham's expenses was mooted in the
House of Commons in order that his extravagance might be checked;
while the Opposition had no expectation, and probably no desire,
to carry a vote upon it against the Ministers.
[21] [Lord Chandos moved, on the 3rd of April, that the
expenditure on Lord Durham's mission should be limited
to £12,000, the sum allowed to Lord Gosford. The
resolution was rejected by 160 to 158 votes.]
April 8th, 1838 {p.088}
It would have been well for Durham if he had started for Canada
the day after he made his speech in the House of Lords, for he
made upon that occasion a very favourable impression, and the
world was disposed to praise the appointment. Since this his
manifestation of a desire for pomp and grandeur and an expensive
display has drawn ridicule and odium upon him. His temper has
been soured by the attacks both in Parliament and in the press;
he has been stung, goaded, and tormented by the diurnal articles
in the 'Times,' and he has now made himself obnoxious to
universal reproach and ridicule by an act which, trifling in
itself, exhibits an _animus_ the very reverse of that which is
required in the pacificator and legislator of Canada. He was
engaged to dine with Bingham Baring on Friday last, but in
consequence of his having voted in the minority the other night,
on Chandos's motion, Durham chose to construe this vote into a
personal offence towards himself, and sent an excuse saying that
'he had no alternative.' He wrote to Lady Harriet Baring a very
civil note, and conveyed his motive by implication, but quite
clearly. The note was, of course, handed about for the amusement
of the company, and the story, subsequently, for that of the
town.
April 12th, 1838 {p.088}
[Page Head: WOLFF THE MISSIONARY.]
Dined with Lord Anglesey yesterday, to meet Wolff, the
missionary. I had figured to myself a tall, gaunt, severe,
uncouth man; but I found a short, plump, cheerful person, with a
considerable resemblance to the Bonaparte family, and with some
to old Denon, with one of the most expressive countenances I ever
saw, and so agreeable as to compensate for very plain features;
eyes that become suddenly illuminated when he is warmed by his
subject, and a voice of peculiar sweetness and power of
intonation. He came prepared to hold forth, with his Bible in his
pocket, and accordingly after dinner we gathered round him in a
circle, and he held forth. It would be no easy matter to describe
a discourse which lasted a couple of hours, or indeed to say very
precisely what it was about. It was a rambling, desultory
reference to his travels and adventures in fluent and sometimes
eloquent language, and not without an occasional dash of humour
and drollery. He illustrated the truth of the Scriptures by
examples drawn from his personal observation and the habits,
expressions, and belief of the present inhabitants of Palestine,
and he spoke with evident sincerity and enthusiasm. He sang two
or three hymns as specimens of the psalmody now in use at
Jerusalem. The great fault of his discourse was its length and
desultory character, leaving no strong and permanent impression
on the mind. He subsequently gave us a second lecture upon the
Millennium, avowing his belief that it is near at hand; he 'hoped
and believed that it would take place in 1847,' and he proceeded
to show that this was to be inferred from the prophecies of
Daniel, and that the numbers in that book, rightly explained,
bore this meaning. He told us that he had learnt fourteen
languages, and had preached in nine.
May 7th, 1838 {p.089}
For three weeks past entirely engrossed by Newmarket, with the
same mixed feelings of disgust at the nature of the occupation,
and satisfaction at the success attending it. I won £2,000 by the
two weeks, and if I meet with no reverse am rapidly acquiring the
means of paying off my debts. Then I propose to live not for
myself alone (as I earnestly hope), but that I may feel the
desire of contributing to the enjoyments of others. I hope as I
become rich (and if I get out of debt I shall be rich) I may not
become grasping and avaricious, and acquire a taste for hoarding
money merely for hoarding's sake. When I see how insensibly, and
under what plausible pretexts, this passion steals upon others, I
tremble lest I should become a victim to it myself.
I know of nothing, in the world of politics. There has been much
foolish chatter about the Coronation, and whether there should be
a banquet or no; the Tories calling out for one because the Whig
Government have settled that there should not be any. The Duke of
Wellington, as usual, sensible, and above such nonsense; says it
will all do very well, and that the Palace of Westminster having
been destroyed by fire, a banquet and procession would not be
feasible, as there exist no apartments in which the arrangements
could be made. He rebuked his Tory Lords the other night when
they made a foolish attack on Melbourne about M'Hale signing
himself John _Tuam_. Every day he appears a greater man.
I have read hardly anything all this time but two reviews in the
'Edinburgh'--Brougham's most remarkable paper upon Lady Charlotte
Bury's book, the composition of which I saw with my own eyes; the
other is Stephen's review of Wilberforce's Life. Nothing can be
more admirable than the characters which Brougham has given of
the celebrated people of that day--George III., George IV.,
Eldon, Perceval, and others; and when I think of the manner in
which they were written, with what inconceivable rapidity, and in
the midst of what occupation--for his attention was perpetually
divided between what he was writing and what the counsel was
saying--it is an astonishing exhibition of facility and
fertility. Stephen's review is as good as possible in a very
different style, and his description of the end of Wilberforce's
life strikes me as singularly eloquent and pathetic.