The Whigs retain the Government--Motives of the Queen--Decision
of Ministers--Lord Brougham's Excitement--Ministerial
Explanations--State of Affairs in Parliament--Lord Brougham's
great Speech on the Crisis--Duke of Wellington's Wisdom and
Moderation--Visit of the Grand Duke Alexander--Macaulay returns
to Parliament--Disappointment of the Radicals--The Radicals
appeased--Visit to Holland House--Anecdotes of George Selwyn--
False Position of the Whigs--Downton Castle--Payne Knight--
Malvern--Troy House--Castles on the Wye--Tintern Abbey--Bath--
Salisbury Cathedral--Death of Lady Flora Hastings--Violent
Speech of the Duke--Conversation with the Duke of Wellington--
Lord Clarendon's _début_ in the House of Lords--Lord Brougham
attacks Lord Normanby--His fantastic Conduct--Pauper School at
Norwood.
May 12th, 1839 {p.207}
The Cabinet met yesterday, and resolved to take the Government
again; they hope to interest the people in the Queen's quarrel,
and having made it up with the Radicals they think they can
stand. It is a high trial to our institutions when the wishes of
a Princess of nineteen can overturn a great Ministerial
combination, and when the most momentous matters of Government
and legislation are influenced by her pleasure about her Ladies
of the Bedchamber. The Whigs resigned because they had no longer
that Parliamentary support for their measures which they deemed
necessary, and they consent to hold the Government without the
removal of any of the difficulties which compelled them to
resign, for the purpose of enabling the Queen to exercise her
pleasure without any control or interference in the choice of the
Ladies of her household. This is making the private gratification
of the Queen paramount to the highest public considerations:
somewhat strange Whig doctrine and practice! With respect to the
question of unfettered choice, a good deal may be said on both
sides; but although it would be wrong and inexpedient for any
Minister to exercise the right, unless in a case of great
necessity, I think every Minister must have the power of advising
the Queen to remove a Lady of her Court, in the same way as he is
admitted to have that of removing a man. Notwithstanding the
transaction of 1812, and Lord Moira's protection of George IV. in
the retention of his household, it is now perfectly established
in practice that the Royal Household is at the discretion of the
Minister, and it must be so because he is responsible for the
appointments; in like manner he is responsible for every
appointment which the Sovereign may make; and should any of the
Ladies conduct herself in such a manner as to lead the public to
expect or require her dismissal, and the Queen were to refuse to
dismiss her, the Minister must be responsible for her remaining
about the Royal person.
The pretension of the Queen was not merely personal, _pro hâc
vice_, and one of arrangement, but it went to the establishment
of a principle unlimited in its application, for she declared
that she had felt bound to make her stand where she did, in order
once for all to resist the encroachments which she anticipated,
and which would lead, she supposed, at last to their insisting on
taking the Baroness Lehzen herself from her. In a constitutional
point of view, the case appears to me to be much stronger than in
that of a Queen Consort, for the Minister has nothing to do with
a Queen Consort; he is not responsible for her appointments, nor
for the conduct of her officers, and she is a _feme sole_
possessed of independent rights which she may exercise according
to her own pleasure, provided only that she does not transgress
the law. It was a great stretch of authority when Lord Grey
insisted on the dismissal of Lord Howe, Queen Adelaide's
Chamberlain; but he did so upon an extraordinary occasion, and
when circumstances rendered it, as he thought, absolutely
necessary that he should make a public demonstration of his
influence in a Court notoriously disaffected to the Reform Bill.
[Page Head: UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURSE OF THE WHIGS.]
The origin of the present mischief may be found in the
objectionable composition of the Royal Household at the
Accession. The Queen knew nobody, and was ready to take any
Ladies that Melbourne recommended to her. He ought to have taken
care that the female part of her household should not have a
political complexion, instead of making it exclusively Whig as,
unfortunately for her, he did; nor is it little matter of wonder
that Melbourne should have consented to support her in such a
case, and that he and his colleagues should have consented to act
the strange, anomalous, unconstitutional part they have done.
While they really believed that she had been ill-used, it was
natural they should be disposed to vindicate and protect her; but
after the reception of Peel's letter they must have doubted
whether there had not been some misapprehension on both sides,
and they ought in prudence, and in justice to her, even against
her own feelings, to have sifted the matter to the bottom, and
have cleared up every existing doubt before they decided on their
course. But to have met as a Cabinet, and to have advised her
what answer to send to the man who still held her commission for
forming a Government, upon points relating to its formation, is
utterly anomalous and unprecedented, and a course as dangerous as
unconstitutional.[1] The danger has been sufficiently exemplified
in the present case; for, having necessarily had no personal
cognisance of the facts, they incurred the risk of giving advice
upon mistaken grounds, as in this instance has been the case.
_She_ might be excused for her ignorance of the exact limits of
constitutional propriety, and for her too precipitate recurrence
to the counsels to which she had been accustomed; but _they_
ought to have explained to her, that until Sir Robert Peel had
formally and finally resigned his commission into her hands, they
could tender no advice, and that her replies to him, and her
resolutions with regard to his proposals, must emanate solely and
spontaneously from herself. As it was, the Queen was in
communication with Sir Robert Peel on one side, and Lord
Melbourne on the other, at the same time; and through them with
both their Cabinets; the unanimous resolutions of the former
being by her conveyed to, and her answer being composed by, the
latter. The Cabinet of Lord Melbourne discussed the proposals of
that of Sir Robert Peel, and they dictated to the Queen the reply
in which she refused to consent to the advice tendered to her by
the man who was _at that moment_ her Minister, and it was this
reply which compelled him to resign the office with which she had
entrusted him.
[1] Melbourne explains away this objection by alleging that
the negotiation with Peel was over at six on Thursday;
that the Queen sent for him to tell him so; that he was
again become her Minister; and that he and his
colleagues properly advised the terms in which she
should convey her final decision. This explanation
seems to have gone down, but I can't imagine how: the
decision to persist in refusing Peel's demands became
_their_ decision, when they advised the letter in which
it was conveyed. I know not why more was not made of
this part of the case.
May 13th, 1839 {p.210}
[Page Head: THE DEBATE ON THIS TRANSACTION.]
Lord Tavistock went on Saturday to Buckingham Palace; found
Melbourne was not there, and followed him to his house, where the
Cabinet was sitting. He wrote him a letter, in which he said that
he had seen the Duke, and that his impression was that there had
been a misunderstanding between Peel and the Queen; and suggested
to Melbourne that he should see the Duke, who was very willing,
if he pleased, to talk the matter over with him. This letter was
taken in to the Cabinet, and they discussed its contents.[2]
Melbourne was not indisposed to see the Duke; but, after a
careful consideration of Peel's letter, they came to the
conclusion that there was no difference between the Queen's
statement to them and Peel's to her, and, therefore, no
misconception to correct. The Chancellor accordingly gave his
opinion, that there was no ground for an interview between
Melbourne and the Duke; so then ended the last hope of a
readjustment.
[2] Lord Grey was at Melbourne's house; Melbourne sent for
him, and consulted him, and he remained in another room
while the Cabinet was in deliberation. Lord Grey took
it up very warmly, and was strongly for supporting the
Queen, saying they could not do otherwise.
The question (they say) was all along one of _principle_, and
never of the _application_ of the principle; but the
extraordinary part of it is that they admit that the principle is
not maintainable, yet declare that they were bound _as
gentlemen_, when the Queen had recourse to them, to support her.
This is strange doctrine in Whig mouths. They have, in my
opinion, abandoned their duty to the country and to the Queen,
and they ought to have been impressed with the paramount
obligation of instructing her in the nature and scope of her
constitutional obligations and duties, and the limits of her
constitutional rights, and to have advised her what she ought to
do, instead of upholding her in doing that which was agreeable to
her taste and inclination.
In the meantime Brougham wrote a violent letter to Lord
Tavistock, imploring him, while it was still time, to arrest the
perilous course on which his friends had entered, and full of
professions of regard for him and his. Tavistock went to him in
the evening, found him in a state of furious excitement, abusing
the Ministry greatly, and many of them by name in the grossest
terms, and pouring forth a torrent of invective against men and
things. After a time he became more cool, and half promised that
he would not speak at all; but when he learnt, what he was not
aware of, that Lord Spencer was come to town and would be in the
House of Lords, he broke out again, and said that if they had
brought him up to support that miserable rotten concern, he must
speak. Lord Spencer was not, however, brought up by them; he knew
nothing of passing events till he read them in the 'Times' on
Saturday, at Barnet, and his reflexion on them was, that if he
should be sent for, he should advise the Queen to send for Peel
again and concede the point. He is now, however, disposed, in
case of need, to defend his friends in the House of Lords; but if
they can secure Brougham's silence as the price of his, the
Ministers will be glad enough to _pair_ them off.
May 19th, 1839 {p.211}
At Mickleham (for Epsom) from Tuesday to Friday, and, of course,
nothing done, written, heard, or thought of, save and except the
Derby. The explanations went off, on the whole, very well,
without acrimony, and as satisfactorily as the case allowed.
Peel's speech was excellent (though Lord Grey did not approve of
it, and regretted not having the power to answer it), and without
any appearance of art or dexterity he contrived to steer through
all the difficult points and to justify himself without saying a
word offensive to the Queen. Lord John Russell was very nervous,
feeble and ineffective. In the other House Melbourne made, as all
allow, a capital speech; Clarendon, a good and fair judge, told
me that he never heard Melbourne speak so well throughout; while
the Duke was painful to hear, exhibiting such undoubted marks of
caducity: it did not, however, read ill. Melbourne made one
admission, for which Lord John Russell was very angry with him,
and that was of the 'erroneous impression' on the Queen's mind,
because his argument was that there was 'no mistake.' Lord Grey
and Lord Spencer would either of them have spoken, but it was
deemed better they should not, or Brougham would have been
unmuzzled, and as it was he adhered to his engagement to Lord
Tavistock and held his peace. He had said, 'If you let off
Althorp or old Grey, I must speak.'
June 1st, 1839 {p.212}
Laid up with the gout and confined to my room for ten days, very
ill and utterly disinclined to write. Nothing new of consequence,
but little things keep oozing out, throwing light on the recent
transaction, and all tending to the same conclusion. In the
meantime Parliament met, but nothing has been done. Lord John
Russell began by deferring the Education question, which he will
be obliged to abandon, for the Church has risen up and put forth
all its strength against it, and having been joined by the
Wesleyans, will, without difficulty, defeat it. The Bishop of
London made a most eloquent philippic against it at Exeter Hall
the other day. Government have brought in another Jamaica Bill,
not very different from Peel's proposed measure, and which they
will probably contrive to pass.
The Radicals have been again bestirring themselves, and trying to
turn the present occasion to account and extract some concessions
from the Government. Warburton has been in communication with
Lord John Russell, and they expect some declarations from him and
Melbourne of their future intentions, and some indications of a
disposition to give way on some of the favourite Radical
measures. Melbourne's intention was to be elicited by certain
questions of which Lord Winchilsea gave notice, and which he
actually put last night, as to the principles on which the
Government was to be conducted. Melbourne replied in a very
guarded and somewhat didactic style, but, so far from evincing
any disposition to make Radical concessions, he intimated with
sufficient clearness that he was resolved to make none whatever,
and that he would not sacrifice his conscientious convictions for
any political or party purpose.
[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM ATTACKS MINISTERS.]
After this, up got Brougham, and that boiling torrent of rage,
disdain, and hatred, which had been dammed up upon a former
occasion when he was so unaccountably muzzled, broke forth with
resistless and overwhelming force. He spoke for three hours, and
delivered such an oration as no other man in existence is capable
of: devilish in spirit and design, but of superhuman eloquence
and masterly in execution. He assailed the Ministers with a storm
of invective and ridicule; and, while he enveloped his periods in
a studied phraseology of pretended loyalty and devotion, he
attacked the Queen herself with unsparing severity. He went at
length and in minute detail into the whole history of the recent
transaction, drew it in its true colours, and exposed its origin,
progress, and motives, and thus he laid bare all the arts and
falsehoods by which attempts had been made to delude and agitate
the country. If it were possible to treat this as a party
question, his speech would be a powerful party auxiliary, most
valuable to the Tories as a vindication of them, for it was the
peculiar merit of this speech that it abounded in truths and in
great constitutional principles of undoubted authority and
unerring application. The Duke of Wellington rose after Brougham:
in a short speech, replete with moderation and dignity, he
abstained from entering upon the past, but fastened upon
Melbourne's declaration, and gave him to understand that as long
as he adhered to such principles as he had then declared he would
be governed by, he might appeal to Parliament confidently for
support.
These three speeches have all in their different ways produced a
great effect: Melbourne's will not satisfy the Radicals, though
they catch (as dying men at straws) at a vague expression about
'progressive reforms,' and try (or pretend) to think that this
promises something, though they know not what. Brougham's speech
was received by the Tory Lords with enthusiastic applause,
vociferous cheering throughout, and two or three rounds at the
conclusion. But the Duke's assurance of support to Melbourne
exasperated his own people to the greatest degree, produced a
sulky article in the 'Times,' and the usual complaints at White's
and the Carlton of the Duke's being in his dotage, and so forth.
Even some of his real admirers thought he 'had overdone it,' and
whilst at Brooks's they did not quite know what to make of it, at
the Carlton they were in the same doubt how to interpret
Melbourne's cautious ambiguities. Both, however, were clear
enough: Melbourne meant to say he would 'go no further,' and the
Duke meant to pat him on the back, and promise him that while he
adhered to that resolution he should have no vexatious opposition
to fear; but his meaning was made still more clear, for he told
my brother this afternoon that 'it was of the greatest importance
to nail Melbourne to his declaration, and that they must do what
they could to help the Queen out of the difficulty in which she
was placed.' He looks to the Crown of England; he wants to uphold
_it_ and not to punish _her_; and he does not care to achieve a
Tory triumph at the expense of the highest Tory principle; he
thinks the Monarchy is in danger, and he sees that the danger may
be more surely averted by still enduring the existence of the
present Government, depriving them of all power to do evil, and
converting them into instruments of good, than by accelerating
their fall under circumstances calculated to engender violent
animosities, irreconcileable enmities, wide separation of
parties, and the adoption of extreme measures and dangerous
principles by many who have no natural bias that way. I entirely
concur with him, and if it were possible to restore matters to
something like the state they were in before the Bedchamber
crisis, nothing would be so desirable; nothing so desirable as
that the Whigs and the Radicals should be furnished with fresh
occasion to fall out, and the dissolution of the Government be
the final consequence of their dissensions. Also it is expedient
that time should be given for the angry waters to become smooth
and calm once more, albeit the smoothness is only on their
surface.
Yesterday the Grand Duke Alexander[3] went away after a stay of
some three weeks, which has been distinguished by a lavish
profusion--perhaps a munificence--perfectly unexampled; he is by
no means remarkable in appearance one way or the other, and does
not appear to have made any great impression except by the
splendour and extent of his presents and benefactions: he has
scattered diamond boxes and rings in all directions, subscribed
largely to all the charities, to the Wellington and Nelson
memorials, and most liberally (and curiously) to the Jockey Club,
to which he has sent a sum of £300, with a promise of its annual
repetition.
[3] [Afterwards the Emperor Alexander II. of Russia. He
ascended the throne in 1855 and perished by
assassination in the streets of St. Petersburgh on the
13th March, 1881.]
[Page Head: MACAULAY ELECTED FOR EDINBURGH.]
Macaulay is gone to Edinburgh to be elected in the room of
Abercromby, so he is again about to descend into the arena of
politics. He made a very eloquent and, to my surprise, a very
Radical speech, declaring himself for Ballot and short
Parliaments. I was the more astonished at this, because I knew he
had held very moderate language, and I remembered his telling me
that he considered the Radical party to be reduced to 'Grote and
his wife,' after which I did not expect to see him declare
himself the advocate of Grote's favourite measure and the darling
object of the Radicals.
June 7th, 1839 {p.215}
Macaulay's was a very able speech and a good apology for the Whig
Government, and as he has always been for Ballot, he is not
inconsistent. On Sir H. Fleetwood's motion the other night (for
giving votes for counties to ten-pound householders), John
Russell spoke out, though in a reforming tone, and threw the
Radicals into a paroxysm of chagrin and disappointment. The
Tories had heard he was going to give way, and Peel, who is
naturally suspicious and distrustful, believed it; but when he
found he would not give way, nor held out any hopes for the
future, Peel nailed him to that point and spoke with great force
and effect. This debate was considered very damaging to Whigs and
Radicals, and likely to lead to a dissolution--first, of
Parliament, and then of Government. But the Radicals are now
adopting a whining, fawning tone, have dropt that of bluster and
menace, and, having before rudely insisted on a mighty slice of
the loaf, are now content to put their tails between their legs
and swallow such crumbs as they can get. Peel has written and
published a very stout letter, in reply to a Shrewsbury
declaration presented to him, in which he defends his recent
conduct, and declares he will never take office on any other
terms.
[Page Head: THE WHIGS SUCCUMB TO THE RADICALS.]
Notwithstanding Lord John Russell's speech on Fleetwood's motion,
and Melbourne's anti-movement declaration in the other House,
they have to their eternal disgrace succumbed to the Radicals,
and been squeezed into making Ballot an open question. For John
Russell I am sorry. I thought he would have been stouter. The
Radicals are full of exultation, and the Government underlings,
who care not on what terms they can retain their places, are very
joyful. I rode with Howick yesterday for a long time and talked
it over with him. He pretended it was no concession after
Vivian's being allowed to vote last year, and he owned that he
considered the question as virtually carried; he is himself
moderate and means still to vote against it, sees all the
danger--not so much from Ballot itself as from its inevitable
train of consequences--and still consents to abandon the contest.
I asked him, if he was not conscious that it was only like buying
off the Picts and Scots, and that fresh demands would speedily
follow with redoubled confidence; and he owned he was. It may
prolong for a brief period the sickly existence of the
Government, and if a dissolution comes speedily, Whigs and
Radicals may act in concert at the elections; but if they attempt
to go on with the present Parliament fresh demands will rapidly
ensue, and then there must be fresh concessions or another
breach. It is a base and disgusting truckling to allies between
whom and themselves there is nothing but mutual hatred and
contempt.
June 14th, 1839 {p.217}
At Holland House from Tuesday till Thursday--not particularly
agreeable. Melbourne came one day, but was not in spirits. Lord
Holland told me some stories of George Selwyn, whom he had known
in his younger days, and many of whose good sayings he remembers.
He describes him as a man of great gravity and deliberation in
speaking, and, after exciting extraordinary mirth by his wit and
drollery, gently smiling and saying, 'I am glad you are pleased.'
The old Lord Foley (father of the last) was much discontented
with his father's will, who, knowing that he was in debt and a
spendthrift, had strictly tied up the property: he tried to set
aside the will by Act of Parliament, and had a Bill brought into
the House of Lords for the purpose. George Selwyn said, 'Our old
friend Foley has worked a miracle, for he has converted the Jews
from the Old to the New Testament.'
June 24th, 1839, Ludlow {p.217}
I left London on Friday last by railroad, went to Wolverhampton
(the vilest-looking town I ever saw), and posted in my carriage
from thence to this place, where I only arrived at a quarter-past
nine. This journey takes (losing no time) about eleven and a half
hours--one hundred and fifty miles--of which thirty-four by road.
The road from Bridgenorth to Ludlow is very striking and commands
exceedingly fine views.
The day before I left town I saw Lord Tavistock, who told me
divers things. I asked him what could induce Lord John to consent
to making Ballot an open question, and he replied, that nothing
else could have prevented the dissolution of the Government, and
that _three_ of the Ministers--he did not say which--threatened
to resign instanter if this concession was not made. Here then,
as I said to him, was another example of the evils of that
catastrophe which broke up the embryo Government of Peel and
brought them back again: unable to go on independently and as
they desire to do, they are obliged to truckle, and are squeezed
into compliances they abhor, and all this degradation they think
themselves bound to submit to because the principle on which
their Government stands, and which predominates over all others,
is that of supporting the Queen. No Tory Government ever ventured
to dissociate its support of the Queen from its measures and
principles as a party, in the way these men do. Macaulay made his
first re-appearance in the Ballot debate in a speech of unequal
merit, but Peel and Graham complimented him on his return amongst
them.
I am greatly delighted with this country, which is of surpassing
beauty, and the old Castle of Ludlow, a noble ruin, and in
'ruinous perfection.' On Saturday I explored the Castle and
walked to Oakley Park, Robert Clive's, who is also the owner of
the Castle, which he bought of the Crown for £1,500. The gardens
at Oakley Park are very pretty and admirably laid out and kept,
and the park is full of fine oaks. Yesterday I walked and rode
over the hills above Ludlow, commanding a panoramic prospect of
the country round, and anything more grand and picturesque I
never beheld. But above all, the hills and woods of Downton
Castle, with the mountains of Radnorshire in the distance,
present a scene of matchless beauty well worth coming from London
to see.
June 26th, 1839, Delbury {p.218}
I rode to Downton Castle on Monday, a gimcrack castle and bad
house, built by Payne Knight, an epicurean philosopher, who after
building the castle went and lived in a lodge or cottage in the
park: there he died, not without suspicion of having put an end
to himself, which would have been fully conformable to his
notions. He was a sensualist in all ways, but a great and self-
educated scholar. His property is now in Chancery, because he
chose to make his own will. The prospect from the windows is
beautiful, and the walk through the wood, overhanging the river
Teme, surpasses anything I have ever seen of the kind. It is as
wild as the walk over the hill at Chatsworth, and much more
beautiful, because the distant prospect resembles the cheerful
hills of Sussex instead of the brown and sombre Derbyshire moors.
The path now creeps along the margin, and now rises above the bed
of a clear and murmuring stream, and immediately opposite is
another hill as lofty and wild, both covered with the finest
trees--oaks, ash, and chestnut--which push out their gnarled
roots in a thousand fantastic shapes, and grow out of vast masses
of rock in the most luxuriant and picturesque manner. Yesterday I
came here, a tolerable place with no pretension, but very well
kept, not without handsome trees, and surrounded by a very pretty
country.
June 28th, 1839, Malvern {p.219}
[Page Head: LUDLOW, MALVERN, ROSS.]
Returned to Ludlow yesterday; came here to-day: the road from
Ledbury to Malvern wonderfully fine, and nothing grander than the
view of Eastnor Castle.
July 3rd, 1839, Troy House {p.219}
[Page Head: GOODRICH CASTLE, TINTERN ABBEY.]
Stayed at Malvern two days, clambering to the top of the hills
which overhang the place (for town it is not), from which the
views are very fine over a rich but generally flat country; the
prospect is grand from its great extent. There is a curious and
interesting church there, formerly of some priory, with a
handsome gateway. I came through Eastnor Park in the way to
Ledbury, exceedingly fine, and the castle something like Belvoir
apparently, but I was not permitted to approach it. Nothing
particular in the road till Ross, a very pretty town, where I
first met the Wye, but, alas, in its muddiest state: this was the
abode of 'The Man of Ross.' Very pretty road from Ross to
Monmouth, through which latter place I walked, and passed by a
very old house, which, as I afterwards heard, is said to have
been the abode of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and they show his study.
Troy, a plain, good-looking house, imperfectly kept up and poorly
furnished, as a house is likely to be whose owners never inhabit
it. It was built by the Duke of Beaufort in 1689, who came to
sulk here on the expulsion of the last of the Stuarts, having a
deeply-rooted sentiment of hereditary loyalty. _Multa fecerunt_
and _multa tulerunt_, certainly, for that unhappy race. Here they
show a chair in which _a plot_ was contrived against Charles I.--
that is, 'in which the president of the conspirators is said to
have sat.' The story was obscure, but I did not think it
advisable to press the narrator for explanations. Likewise a
cradle, which tradition assigns to Henry V. (Harry of Monmouth),
which is evidently old enough and was splendid enough in a rude
style to justify any such tradition; the only unfortunate thing
is, that there is a rival cradle somewhere else with the same
claim. Mr. Wyatt, the Duke's agent, received me with great
civility and hospitality, having been enjoined by the Duke to
make me his guest and himself my _cicerone_. Accordingly we set
forth on Monday morning and went to Usk Castle, a ruin of which
not much is left besides a picturesque round tower; neither the
Castle nor the country is very remarkable, but we brought home a
crimped salmon, for which Usk is famous (and where the crimping
is said to be a secret unattainable even to the vendors of Wye
and Severn salmon), which was, without exception, the most dainty
fish I ever ate. From Usk we returned to Raglan Castle, a most
noble and beautiful ruin; there has often been a notion of
restoring it, and an estimate was made of the probable expense,
which was calculated at £30,000; but the idea and the estimate
are equally preposterous: it would be reconstructing a very
unmanageable house and destroying the finest ruin in England, and
the cost would infallibly be three times £30,000. As there had
been a question of its restoration, I expected to find greater
and more perfect remains, but, though some of the apartments may
be made out, it is a vast wreck. The strange thing is that the
second Marquis of Worcester, when his possessions were restored
to him, and when the damage done to the castle might easily have
been repaired, should not have done it nor any of his immediate
descendants. Great pains are now taken to preserve the beauties
of this majestic fabric and to arrest the further progress of
decay. Yesterday I rode to Goodrich Castle, stopping to see some
remarkable views of the Wye, particularly one called Simmons Yat
or Rock, which is very beautiful (and must be much more so when
the river is clear and transparent); and a curious rock called
the Buck-stone, which was probably a Druidical place of worship,
but of which nothing is positively known, though conjecture is
busy. Goodrich Castle, which was partly battered down by the
Cromwellians like Raglan, is more ancient, and was much stronger
than the latter; but, though not so beautiful and splendid, it is
an equally curious and interesting ruin, with many of its parts
still more perfect than anything at Raglan. I was exceedingly
delighted with Goodrich, and there was a female _custos_, zealous
and intelligent, whose husband, she told us, was continually
occupied in clearing away rubbish and exposing the remains of the
old Castle. We then went to Goodrich Court, a strange kind of
bastard castle built by Blore, and which the possessor, Sir
Samuel Meyrick, has devoted to the exhibition of his collection
of armour. There are only a few acres of ground belonging to him,
on which he has built this house, but it is admirably situated,
overhanging the Wye and facing the Castle, of which it commands a
charming view. After being hurried through the armoury, which was
all we were invited to inspect, we embarked in a boat we had sent
up, and returned to Monmouth down the Wye through some beautiful
scenery, but which it was too cold to enjoy.
July 4th, 1839, Clifton {p.221}
I came here last night, the wind having changed to S.W., and
summer having come with it. I left Troy in the morning and went
to Tintern Abbey: most glorious, which I could not describe if I
would, but which produced on me an impression similar in kind and
equal in amount to that which I felt at the sight of St. Peter's.
No description nor any representation of it can do justice, or
anything like justice, to this majestic and beautiful ruin, such
is its wonderful perfection viewed in every direction, from every
spot, and in the minutest detail. That the remains should be so
extensive and so uninjured is marvellous, for there can be no
doubt that this Abbey might be restored to its former grandeur.
Much has been done by Mr. Wyatt, the Duke's agent, both to
preserve the Abbey and to develope its beauties by cutting away
the trees and ivy, and clearing away the accumulation of earth;
by the latter means several tombs and many detached fragments of
beautiful design and workmanship have been found, and I did my
best to encourage him to pursue his researches.
Casting many lingering looks behind, I left Tintern and went to
Windcliffe, from the summit of which there is a very fine view;
but the Wye, instead of being an embellishment, is an eyesore in
the midst of such scenery: it looks like a long, slimy snake
dragging its foul length through the hills and woods which
environ its muddy stream. We dined in a moss-cottage at the foot
of Windcliffe, and then proceeded to Chepstow, a very curious and
striking ruin, and which I should have seen with much greater
interest and admiration if Tintern had not so occupied my
thoughts and filled my mind that I had not eyes to do justice to
Chepstow. I went all over the ruins, however, and examined them
very accurately; for it is one of the great merits of these
different castles, Raglan, Goodrich, and Chepstow, that they are
wholly dissimilar, and each is therefore a fresh object of
curiosity. I crossed the old passage, as it is called, in a
ferry, and came on to Clifton.
[Page Head: BATH, SALISBURY CATHEDRAL.]
_Bath._--After taking a cursory view of Clifton from the Roman
Camp and part of Bristol, I came to Bath, where I have not been
these thirty years and more. I walked about the town, and was
greatly struck with its handsomeness; thought of all the
vicissitudes of custom and fashion which it has seen and
undergone, and of the various characters, great and small, who
have figured here. Here the great Lord Chatham used to repair
devoured by gout, resentment, and disappointment, and leave the
Government to its fate, while his colleagues waited his pleasure
submissively or caballed against his power, according as
circumstances obliged them to do the first or enabled them to do
the second. Here my uncle, Harry Greville, the handsomest man of
his day, used to dance minuets while all the company got on
chairs and benches to look at him, and a few years since he died
in poverty at the Mauritius, where he had gone to end his days,
after many unfortunate speculations, in an office obtained from
the compassion of Lord Bathurst. _Sic transit gloria mundi_, and
thus its frivolities flourish for their brief hour, and then
decay and are forgotten. An old woman showed me the Pump-room and
the baths, all unchanged except in the habits and characters of
their frequenters; and my mind's eye peopled them with Tabitha
Bramble, Win Jenkins, and Lismahago, and with all the inimitable
family of Anstey's creation, the Ringbones, Cormorants, and
Bumfidgets--Tabby and Roger.[4]
[4] _Humphrey Clinker_ and Anstey's _Bath Guide_.
July 5th, 1839, Salisbury {p.223}
I saw the Abbey Church at Bath this morning, which is handsome
enough, but not very remarkable, unless for the vast crowds of
its tombstones in every part; it has been completely repaired by
the corporation at a great expense. I went to Stonehenge, of
which no description is necessary; thence to Wilton; very fine
place; hurried through the gallery of marbles, but looked longer
at the pictures, which I understand and taste better; saw the
gardens and the stud, and then came here; went directly to the
Cathedral, with which I was exceedingly delighted, having seen
nothing like it for extent, lightness, and elegance. There is one
modern tomb by Chantrey which is very fine, that of Lord
Malmesbury, erected by his sister; but, however skilfully
executed or admirably designed, I do not like such monuments so
well, nor think them so appropriate to our cathedrals, as the
rude effigies of knights and warriors in complete armour, with
their feet on couchant hounds, or those stately though sometimes
gaudy and fantastic monuments, in which, among crowds of
emblematical devices and armorial bearings, the husband and the
wife lie side by side in the richest costume of the day, while
their children are kneeling around them; these, with the
venerable figures of abbots and bishops, however rudely
sculptured, give me greater pleasure to look upon than the
choicest productions of Roubillac, Nollekens, or Chantrey, which,
however fine they may be, seem to have no business there, and to
intrude irreverently among the mighty dead of olden time. This
cathedral is in perfect repair within and without; the colour of
the stone is singularly beautiful, and it is not blocked up with
buildings, Bishop Barrington having caused all that were adjacent
to be removed. The chapter house and cloisters are exceedingly
fine, but the effect is spoilt in the former by great bars of
iron which radiate in all directions from a ring attached to the
supporting pillar, and which have been put there (probably
without any necessity) to relieve it of a portion of the
superincumbent weight. It is remarkable that wherever I have gone
in my travels, I have found the same complaints of the
mischievous propensities of that silly, vulgar, vicious animal,
called the public. Amongst the beauties of nature or of art,
rocks, caves, or mountains, in ruined castles and abbeys, or
ancient but still flourishing cathedrals, the same invariable
love of pilfering and mutilating is to be found: some knock off a
nose or a finger, others deface a frieze or a mullion from sheer
love of havoc, others chip off some unmeaning fragment as a
relique or object of curiosity; but the most general taste seems
to be that of carving names or initials, and some of the ancient
figures are completely tattooed with these barbarous engravings:
this propensity I believe to be peculiar to our nation, and not
to be found in any part of the Continent, where, indeed, it would
probably not be permitted, and where detection and punishment
would speedily overtake the offender. It is quite disgusting to
see the venerable form of a knight templar or a mitred abbot
scarred all over with the base patronymics of Jones and Tomkins,
or with a whole alphabet of their initials.
July 7th, 1839 {p.224}
I came to town yesterday from Basingstoke by railroad; found that
Lady Flora Hastings was dead, and a great majority in the House
of Lords in favour of an Address to the Crown against the
proposed Committee of Council on Education, the Bishop of London
having made an extraordinarily fine speech.
July 14th, 1839 {p.224}
Nothing new; proceedings in Parliament very languid. The Queen
has appointed Lady Sandwich very dexterously, for she gets one of
the favoured Paget race and the wife of a Tory peer, thereby
putting an end to the exclusively Whig composition of the
Household. This is a concession with regard to _the principle_.
July 19th, 1839 {p.225}
[Page Head: DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S ANGRY VEIN.]
There have been angry debates in the Lords about the Birmingham
riots, chiefly remarkable for the excitement, so unlike his usual
manner, exhibited by the Duke of Wellington, who assailed the
Government with a fierceness which betrayed him into much
exaggeration and some injustice. Lord Tavistock, who, although a
partisan, is a fair one, and who has a great esteem and respect
for the Duke, told me that he had seen and heard him with great
pain, and that his whole tone was alarmingly indicative of a
decay of mental power. This is not the first time that such a
suspicion has been excited: George Villiers told me, soon after
he came over, how much struck he had been with the change he
observed in him, and from whatever cause, he is become in
speaking much more indistinct and embarrassed, continually
repeating and not always intelligible, but his speeches, when
reported, present much the same appearance, and the sense and
soundness (when the reporters have lopped off the redundancies
and trimmed them according to their fashion) seem to be
unimpaired. It is, however, a serious and melancholy thing to
contemplate the possibly approaching decay of that great mind,
and I find he always contemplates it himself, his mother's mind
having failed some years before her death. It will be sad if,
after exploits as brilliant as Marlborough's, and a career far
more important, useful, and honourable, he should be destined for
an end like Marlborough's, and it is devoutly to be hoped that
his eyes may be closed in death before 'streams of dotage' shall
begin to flow from them. The Tories, with whom nothing goes down
but violence, were delighted with his angry vein, and see proofs
of vigour in what his opponents consider as evidence of decay;
his bodily health is wonderfully good, which is perhaps rather
alarming than reassuring as to the safety of his mind.
July 22nd, 1839 {p.225}
[Page Head: RADICAL MAGISTRATES.]
I met the Duke yesterday at dinner and had much talk with him. He
is very desponding about the state of the country and the
condition in which the Government have placed it. He complains of
its defenceless situation from their carrying on a war (Canada)
with a peace establishment; consequently that the few troops we
have are harassed to death with duty, and in case of a serious
outbreak that there is no disposable force to quell it; that the
Government are ruled by factions, political and religious. On
Saturday they had been beaten on a question relating to the Poor
Laws[5] of great importance; and he said that they must be
supported in this, and extricated from the difficulty. I was glad
to meet him and see (for it is some time since I have talked to
him) whether there was any perceptible change in his manner or
any symptom indicative of decay. Without there being anything
tangible or very remarkable, I received the impression that there
was not exactly the same vigour of mind which I have been used to
admire in him, and what he said did not appear to me indicative
of the strong sense and acuteness which characterise him. If he
has no attack, I dare say he will be able to continue to act his
part with efficacy for a long time to come. I asked him in what
manner Government would prosecute the inquiry they had promised
into the conduct of the Birmingham magistrates? He said what they
ought to do was to order the Attorney-General to prosecute them
for a corrupt neglect of their duty, a thing they would as soon
put their hands in the fire as do. Such is their position, so
dependent upon bad men, that they are compelled to treat with the
utmost tenderness all the enemies of the Constitution. There can
be no doubt that the appointments to the magistracy have been
fraught with danger, and made on a very monstrous principle. When
Lord John Russell resolved and avowed his resolution to
neutralise the provision of the Act which gave the appointment of
magistrates to the Crown instead of to the Town Council (as they
had proposed) by taking the recommendations of the Council, he
incurred the deepest responsibility that any Minister ever did,
for he took on himself to adopt a course practically inconsistent
with the law, for the express purpose of placing political power
in particular hands, to which the law intended it should not be
confided; and on him, therefore, rested all the responsibility of
such power being wisely and safely exercised by the hands to
which he determined to entrust it; and when he appoints such a
man as Muntz,[6] ex-Chartist and ex-Delegate, what must be the
impression produced on all denominations of men as to his bias,
and of what use is it to make professions, and deliver speeches
condemnatory of the principles and conduct of Chartists and
associators, if his acts and appointments are not in conformity
with those professions? Mr. Muntz, he says, has abandoned
Chartism, and is no longer the man he was: but who knows that?
For one man who knows what Muntz is, a hundred know what he was,
and in the insertion of his name in the list the bulk of the
world will and can only see, if not approbation of, at least
indifference to the doctrines such men have professed, and the
conduct they have exhibited to the world. It is the frightful
anomaly of being a Government divesting itself of all
conservative character, which constitutes the danger of our day.
As the 'Times,' in one of its spirited articles, says, this very
morning, 'that it cares not to see the Monarchy broken in pieces
so that they may hurl its fragments at the heads of their
opponents.'
[5] An instruction to the Committee to introduce a clause
allowing out-door relief in all cases of able-bodied
paupers married previously to the passing of the Act.
[6] [Whatever the antecedents of Mr. Muntz may have been,
he lived to justify Lord John Russell's choice. He was
not only a good magistrate, but member for Birmingham
for many years, and a useful member. He was the first
man who, in our time, wore a long beard in the House.]
July 25th, 1839 {p.227}
Lord Clarendon made his first appearance in the House of Lords
the night before last in reply to Lord Londonderry on Spanish
affairs, with great success and excellent effect, and has
completely landed himself as a Parliamentary speaker, in which,
as he is certain to improve with time and practice, he will
eventually acquire considerable eminence; and nothing can prevent
his arriving at the highest posts. He is already marked out by
the public voice for the Foreign Office, for which he is
peculiarly well fitted, and there is no reason why he should not
look forward to being Prime Minister in some future combination
of parties, a post which he would fill better than any of the
statesmen who now play the principal parts in the political
drama. The Government have at last taken fright, and have
proposed troops and police to afford the country some sort of
security during the recess and the winter. They have sent down
Maule (the Solicitor to the Treasury) to Birmingham to
investigate the evidence adducible against the magistrates, but I
do not much expect that they will proceed to any extremities
against them. It is too probable that 'silebitur toto judicio de
maximis et notissimis injuriis,' for 'non potest in accusando
socios verè defendere is, qui cum reo criminum societate
conjunctus est.'
August 9th, 1839 {p.228}
[Page Head: FREAKS OF LORD BROUGHAM.]
Brougham brought on his motion on Tuesday,[7] in spite of various
attempts to dissuade him; but he could not resist the temptation
of making a speech, which he said he expected would be the best
he had ever delivered. He spoke for three hours in opening, and
an hour and a quarter in reply, and a great performance by all
accounts it was. The Duke of Wellington said it was the finest
speech he had ever heard in Parliament. Normanby was miserably
feeble in reply, and exhibited, by common consent, a sad failure,
both on this occasion and on that of the Canada Bill. He is quite
unequal to the office which has been thrust upon him, and he
cannot speak upon great subjects, having no oratorical art or
power of dealing skilfully and forcibly with a question. It was a
very damaging night to the Government as far as reputation[8] is
concerned, but in no other way, for they are perfectly callous,
and the public entirely apathetic. Melbourne was very smart in
reply to Brougham, but did not attempt to deal with the question.
The case, after all, is not a very strong one, and, though
Normanby was much to blame in releasing prisoners and commuting
sentences in the manner and to the extent he did, the principle
on which he acted was sound, and it has proved beneficial. Had he
known how, and been equal to the task, he might have made a fine
defence by taking a high instead of a deprecatory line, and by a
confident appeal to results; but it required more of an orator
and a statesman than he is to handle his case with sufficient
effect, and to stand up against such a master of his art as
Brougham, backed by a favourable audience. This curious and
versatile creature is in the highest spirits, and finds in the
admiration which his eloquence, and the delight which his
mischievousness excite on the Tory benches and in Tory society, a
compensation for old mortifications and disappointments. After
acting Jupiter one day in the House of Lords, he is ready to act
Scapin anywhere else the next; and the day after this great
display he went to dine at Greenwich with the Duchess of
Cambridge and a great party, where he danced with Lady Jersey,
while Lyndhurst capered also with the Dowager Lady Cowper. After
dinner they drank, among other toasts, Lady Jersey's health, and
when she said she could not return thanks, Brougham undertook to
do it for her, speaking in her person. He said, that 'She was
very sorry to return thanks in such a dress, but unfortunately
she had quarrelled in the morning with her maid, who was a very
cross, crabbed person, and consequently had not been able to put
on the attire she would have wished, and in the difficulty she
had had recourse to her old friend Lord Brougham, who had kindly
lent her his best wig and the coat which he wore upon state
occasions.' After more nonsense of this kind, that 'she was very
sorry she could not say more, but that in the peculiar situation
she then was in, she could not venture to remain any longer on
her legs.'
[7] [Lord Brougham moved on the 6th August five resolutions
censuring the Irish policy of the Government: they were
carried in the House of Lords by 86 votes to 52.]
[8] 'L'une des qualités indispensables d'un Gouvernement
c'est d'avoir cette bonne renommée qui repousse
l'injustice. Quand il l'a perdue et qu'on lui impute
tous les crimes, les torts des autres et ceux même de
la fortune, il n'a plus la faculté de gouverner, et
cette impuissance doit le condamner ... à se retirer.'
(Thiers, t. x. p. 276.) Applicable to our Government
now.
August 10th, 1839 {p.229}
I went to Norwood yesterday to see Dr. Kay's[9] Poor Law School,
supposed to be very well managed, and very successful. As I
looked at the class to whom a lesson was then being read, all the
urchins from eight to eleven or twelve years old, I thought I had
never seen a congregation of more unpromising and ungainly heads,
and accordingly they are the worst and lowest specimens of
humanity; starved, ill-used children of poor and vicious parents,
generally arriving at the school weak and squalid, with a
tendency to every vice, and without having received any moral or
intellectual cultivation whatever; but the system, under able and
zealous teachers, acts with rapid and beneficial effect on these
rude materials, and soon elicits manifestations of intelligence,
and improves and developes the moral faculties. When one sees
what is done by such small means, it is impossible not to reflect
with shame and sorrow upon the little, or rather the nothingness,
that is accomplished when the material is of the best
description, and the means are unlimited,--upon the total absence
of any system throughout places of education, either public or
private, and consequently at the imperfect and defective
education which is given to the highest and richest class of
society, who are brought up thus stupidly at an enormous expense,
acquiring little knowledge, and what they do acquire, so loosely
and incompletely as to be of the smallest possible use. When one
sees what is done here, it makes one think what ought to be done
elsewhere, and then contrast the possible with the actual state
of the case.
[9] [Afterwards Sir James Kay Shuttleworth, Bart. Dr. Kay
was a zealous promoter of national education, and had
recently been appointed to the Education Department of
the Privy Council Office, then in its infancy.]