Review of the Session--Ministerial Changes--Effect of Changes in
the Government--A Greenwich Dinner--Dover Dinner to the Duke of
Wellington--A Toast from Ovid--Decay of Tory Loyalty--
Unpopularity of Government--Brougham's Letter to the Duke of
Bedford--Character of John, Duke of Bedford--Brougham at the
Dover Dinner--Brougham and Macaulay--The Duke's Decline--Duke
of Wellington consulted on Indian and Spanish Affairs--Baron
Brunnow arrives in England--False Reports of Lord Brougham's
Death--Insulting Speeches of the Tories--Holland House--Lord
Brougham and Lord Holland--The Queen's Marriage is announced--
Remarkable Anecdote of the Duke of Wellington--The Mayor of
Newport at Windsor--Ampthill--Lord John Russell's Borough
Magistrates--Lord Clarendon's Advice to his Colleagues--
Prospects of the Government--Opening of the Session--Duel of
Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Horsman--Lord Lyndhurst's View of
Affairs--Prince Albert's Household--The Privilege Question--
Prince Albert's Allowance--Precedence of Prince Albert--Lord
John Russell and Sir Robert Peel--Judgement on the Newport
Prisoners--A Vote of Want of Confidence moved--The Newport
Prisoners--Prince Albert's Precedency--Sir Robert Peel and his
Party--Sir Robert Peel's Speech and Declaration--Precedence
Question--The Queen's Marriage--Illness of the Duke of
Wellington--The Precedence Question settled--The Duke opposed
to Peel on the Privilege Question--Change in the Health of the
Duke--Prince Albert's Name in the Liturgy--Success of Pamphlet
on Precedence--Judicial Committee Bill--Lord Dudley's Letters--
Amendment of Judicial Committee--King's Sons born Privy
Councillors, other Princes sworn--The Duke returns to London--
Lord Melbourne's Opinion on Journals.
August 15th, 1839 {p.231}
[Page Head: A SINKING MINISTRY.]
This eventful Session and season has at length closed, Lyndhurst
having wound up by a _résumé_ of the acts of the Government, in
one of those 'exercitations,' as Melbourne calls them, which are
equally pungent for their severity, and admirable for their
lucidity. Melbourne made a bitter reply, full of personalities,
against Lyndhurst, but offering a meagre defence for himself and
his colleagues. Those who watch the course of events, and who
occasionally peep behind the curtain, have but a sorry spectacle
to contemplate:--a Government miserably weak, dragging on a
sickly existence, now endeavouring to curry a little favour with
one party, now with another; so unused to stand, and so incapable
of standing, on any great principles, that at last they have, or
appear to have, none to stand on. Buffeted by their antagonists,
and often by their supporters in Parliament, despised by the
country at large, clinging to office merely to gratify the Queen,
while they are just sufficiently supported in the House of
Commons to keep their places, and not enough to carry their
measures; for so meagre are their majorities, and so little do
the public care for those majorities, or for the Ministers or
their measures, that the Lords do not scruple to treat the
Ministerial Bills with undisguised contempt. At the beginning of
this Session, the weakness of the Government, and the
impossibility of their going on, were so obvious, that the more
wise and moderate of them began to prepare for their retirement,
and Lord John Russell, by the publication of his Stroud letter,
and the expression of those opinions which I was the means of
conveying to Peel, evinced his determination to make the
dissolution of the Government ancillary to the ascendency of true
Conservative principles. The break-up came sooner than had been
expected, and when Ministers resigned, on the majority of five on
the Jamaica Bill (which they need not have done), they acted
wisely, for they were enabled to retire with dignity, Peel and
the Opposition having been clearly and flagrantly in the wrong
upon this particular measure--so wrong, that it has been, and
still is, matter of astonishment to me why they gave battle upon
it, and I suspect that Peel was by no means elated at his own
success on that occasion. However, out they went upon the Jamaica
question, and though they fancy Peel did not really wish to form
a Government, and that the difficulties he made were only a
pretext for escaping from his position, this is not the case; he
had no misgivings or fears, and was quite ready to undertake the
task. However, _Diis aliter visum_: the Queen kept Lord
Melbourne, and they came back to accumulated difficulties, and
without any augmentation of parliamentary strength or popular
sympathy to sustain them. They made one miserable effort, and
tossed a sop to the Radicals, by making the Ballot an open
question, the grace and utility of which were entirely marred by
Lord Howick's speech, so that they got all the discredit of this
concession without any compensatory advantage. They had begun the
campaign by the abrupt expulsion of Glenelg (nobody has ever made
out exactly why) and by bringing over Normanby in breathless
haste to supersede him, without any reasonable probability of his
giving such an accession of vigour and capacity to the Government
as would justify this operation, and accordingly as more than
ordinary success was requisite for a man promoted under such
circumstances, the deeper were the mortification and
disappointment at his failure. The Irish Committee, which put him
on the defence of his administration there, distracted his
attention and disturbed his mind, and he turned out to be unequal
to his situation. His defence of himself upon Ireland was very
weak, and his whole parliamentary conduct of colonial affairs
lamentably inefficient. Then Mr. Spring Rice kept falling into
continual discredit by his financial incompetence, so that day
after day, from one cause or another, the Ministry sank in
estimation, and got more weak and ridiculous. Of this they were
not at all unconscious, and it was settled that something was to
be done, though the difficulty both as to the manner and the
matter was exceedingly great. Rice himself was eager to escape,
and tried hard to be Speaker; but though the Cabinet had resolved
he should be the Government candidate, it was found that no
adequate support could be depended upon for him, and he was
obliged, and they were obliged, to let Lefevre stand instead; at
which Rice himself was so sulky that he showed his spite by
contriving to arrive too late from Tunbridge for the division.
They scrambled on till the end of the Session, when the changes
which had long been discussed and battled were to take place, and
then, naturally, came into play all the vanity, selfishness, and
rival pretensions, which a sense of common danger could not
silence. In the arrangement of all these things, Melbourne is
said to have severely suffered, so repugnant is it to his nature
and habits to be the arbiter and adjuster of rival claims and
pretensions.
It seems to have been arranged long ago that Normanby and John
Russell should change places, ostensibly that the Colonial
Minister might be in the House of Commons, and really because
Normanby broke down, so that it was necessary to harness Lord
John to the Colonial machine. Then they determined to send
Poulett Thomson to Canada, without any consideration of the
effect such an appointment would produce, either here or there,
and his vacancy opened a fresh embarrassment about the Board of
Trade. Labouchere having quitted the Vice-Presidency, and gone to
the Colonial Office to work for them when they were in
difficulty, was considered to have made a sacrifice, and he
demanded as its reward that he should step into Poulett Thomson's
place, and his seat in the Cabinet. Melbourne wanted to offer the
Board of Trade to Clarendon, and wrote to him to beg he would not
go abroad without seeing him, and intimated that he had something
to propose to him. On the other hand, Howick put in a claim for
Charles Wood, and argued that as he had long taken a labouring
oar in the boat, and in this Session, when they had got into a
scrape about the Navy, Wood had successfully defended the
Government in the House of Commons in a very good speech,--this
eminent service, together with a long career of usefulness, gave
him a superior claim to promotion. The details of the contest
between these various candidates I do not know, but the result
was that Labouchere got the place, Howick and Charles Wood both
resigned, and Clarendon had a conversation with Melbourne, in
which the latter informed him, not without embarrassment, that he
had been in hopes he should have had the Board of Trade to offer
him, but that Labouchere's claim had been deemed not postponable,
and all he had to offer him was the Mint without the Cabinet.
Clarendon refused this with perfect good humour, though certainly
not much flattered at the offer, and he took the opportunity of
putting Melbourne in possession of his thoughts, both as to his
own position and intentions, and the condition and prospects of
the Government, with respect to which he did not mince matters,
or fail to paint them in their true colours. He explained his own
desire to try himself more in debate than he had been yet enabled
to do, to see what he was fit for, and in the meantime owned that
he had no particular desire to associate himself with such a
rickety concern. The conversation was frank and characteristic,
and must have been amusing. Melbourne acknowledged that he was
quite right, and that the position of his Government was such as
Clarendon described it.
[Page Head: POULETT THOMSON SENT TO CANADA.]
Nothing strikes one more forcibly in the contemplation of these
things, than the manner in which the public interests are
complimented away for the sake of individual pretensions, and
even in this there is an apparent caprice which is inexplicable.
Glenelg, an honourable and accomplished man, is thrust out under
very humiliating circumstances. Poulett Thomson, we are told,
'must have been' Chancellor of the Exchequer, if not Governor of
Canada (a post he is by way of taking as a favour to his
colleagues), 'he could not be passed over.' Why he could not, and
in what his right consisted, it is difficult to say, nor why he
is entitled to such amazing deference, while poor Glenelg was so
unceremoniously treated. Poulett Thomson is clever and
industrious, but his elevation, when compared with that of
others, and with his own merit, as well as original means of
raising himself, exhibits a very remarkable phenomenon, and as
Lord Spencer, his early patron, has pretty well withdrawn from
public affairs, it is not very obvious how or why Poulett Thomson
is enabled to render his small pretensions so largely available.
The Duke would not believe they meant to send him to Canada, and
said they had much better leave Colborne there; but this is what
they fancy they can't do, and that they must send out somebody
who is to solve the political problem of settling the future form
of government, and so Poulett goes to finish what Durham began.
September 4th, 1839 {p.235}
The changes in the Government have been received with
considerable indifference, nobody much caring, and the generality
of people finding fault with some or all of them. Normanby told
me yesterday that he was fully sensible of the inconvenience of
such changes, and of the bad effect they are calculated to
produce, but that the appointment of Poulett Thomson was John
Russell's doing, that he had been bent upon it, and had carried
it, and as he (Normanby) could not consent to it, and would not
be immediately responsible for it, nothing was left but to change
offices, and let the appointment of Poulett Thomson to Canada be
Lord John's own doing, who would thus administer the affairs of
the Colony with a Governor of his own choice. He added, that it
had been originally intended (when he left Ireland) that he
should take his present office, but other circumstances had
obliged him at that time to go to the Colonies. While Normanby
quits the Colonies, because Thomson goes to Canada (as he says),
Howick (as _he_ says) resigns, because Normanby goes to the Home
Office. But the world believes that the change of the one takes
place, because Normanby is unequal to the work of the Colonies,
and the resignation of the other, because Howick was not himself
appointed Colonial Secretary. The ostensible ground for the
change is, that the Minister who brings forward the Canada
question in the House of Commons may be well versed in all the
official details, and have immediate personal control over the
local administration; and the excuse for sending out Thomson, and
accepting Colborne's resignation, is the necessity of appointing
a Governor thoroughly acquainted with all that has passed both
abroad and at home, cognisant of the intentions, and possessed of
the confidence of the Cabinet. All this will appear to furnish
inadequate grounds for recalling Colborne, who has acted with
sense and vigour, albeit not pretending to be a statesman or a
legislator. A story is told, which shows the levity of the
Government people, and how they make game of what might be
thought matter of anything but pleasantry to them. At the end of
the season there is always a fish dinner at Greenwich, the
whipper-in (Secretary of Treasury), Ben Stanley, in the chair;
and this is on the plan of the Beefsteak Club, everybody saying
what he pleases, and dealing out gibes and jests upon his friends
and colleagues according to the measure of his humour and
capacity. Normanby, still smarting from the attacks of Brougham,
was made the mark for these jocularities, after his health being
drunk thus: 'Lord Normanby and the liberation of the Prisoners.'
At a subsequent period, Rutherford, the Lord Advocate, attacked
the Attorney-General, and said he had long known his learned
friend as the advocate of liberty, but he had lately seen him in
quite a new capacity, prosecuting in the Tory fashion, and having
people shut up in jail in all parts of the country. Campbell said
it was very true that he had lately had a very unpleasant duty to
perform, and that he had been the unwilling instrument of
incarcerating many of Her Majesty's subjects, but that he had all
along been consoled by the reflexion that there was every
probability of his noble friend Lord Normanby making a progress,
during the recess, and letting them all out again. Normanby,
however, did not like the witticism, and complained afterwards
that the dinner was very dull, and the jokes exceedingly heavy.
[Page Head: A GREENWICH DINNER.]
The Dover dinner to the Duke of Wellington,[1] which took place
the other day, did not present an agreeable spectacle. Brougham,
who had thrust himself in among the party, was pitched upon, as
having the best gift of the gab, to propose the Duke's health,
which he did in a very tawdry speech, stuffed with claptraps and
commonplaces. It was a piece of bad taste to select Brougham (who
had nothing to do with Dover) for the performance of this office,
which would have been more appropriately discharged by the local
authority in the chair, although he might not have been able to
make such a flourish as the practised orator favoured the company
with. The Duke himself hates to be thus bepraised, and it is
painful to see Brougham and him in any way connected, though for
so ephemeral a purpose. The Duke's health might be proposed in
three lines of Ovid, which express the position he fills more,
and probably better, than the most studied oration could do:--
Si titulos, annosque tuos numerare velimus,
Facta premant annos. Pro te, fortissime, vota
Publica suscipimus, Bacchi tibi sumimus haustus.
It turned out a complete _Tory_ celebration. There was an almost
unmixed array of Tory names at the banquet, and one Whig lord
(Poltimore), who happened to be at Dover declined attending.
[1] [A great entertainment was given to the Duke of
Wellington as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports on the
30th August. Lord Brougham attended it, and delivered
an oration of the most hyperbolical panegyric.]
September 5th, 1839 {p.238}
Among other bad signs of these times, one is the decay of
_loyalty_ in the Tory party; the Tory principle is completely
destroyed by party rage. No Opposition was ever more rabid than
this is, no people ever treated or spoke of the Sovereign with
such marked disrespect. They seem not to care one straw for the
Crown, its dignity, or its authority, because the head on which
it is placed does not nod with benignity to them. An example of
this took place the other day, when at a dinner at Shrewsbury the
company refused to drink the health of the new Lord Lieutenant,
the Duke of Sutherland (a man not personally obnoxious), because
the Duchess of Sutherland is at the head of the Queen's female
household. This reproach does not apply to the leaders of the
party, who are too wise and too decorous to hold such language or
to approve of such conduct;[2] but is the _animus_ which
distinguishes the tail and the body, and they take no pains to
conceal it.
[2] This was before the Bradshaw and Roby exhibitions.
September 7th, 1839 {p.238}
The result of the Cambridge and Manchester elections proves (if
any proof was wanting), how utterly the cause of Government is
lost in the country, and fully confirms the report of their
universal unpopularity: Cambridge lost by one hundred, and
Manchester barely won. Poulett Thomson told me just before that
the Liberals had a certain majority (for any candidate) of
several hundreds.
September 14th, 1839 {p.238}
[Page Head: BROUGHAM'S LETTER ON EDUCATION.]
Brougham has sent to the press a letter to the Duke of Bedford on
Education, of which he thus speaks in a letter to Lord
Tavistock:... 'I have sent my letter to the Duke to the press at
Edinburgh. I wrote it in eight and a half hours the day I came
here; but if I am to judge, who should not, it is by far the best
thing I ever did, and the only eloquent. My whole heart was in
it, both from affection to your excellent father, and to the
subject. I hope it will do good, for the time is going away under
me, and I shall be called to my great account before I have done
any good on earth. Therefore I must make a new attempt at having
something to show.' The production will be probably very good in
its way and very eloquent, but the note is characteristic--a
mixture of pride and humility, humbugging and self-deceitful.
What cares he for the Duke of Bedford, whom he scarcely sees from
one end of the year to the other, and why should he care? They
have very little in common--neither the _idem velle_ nor _idem
nolle_; and a more uninteresting, weak-minded, selfish character
does not exist than the Duke of Bedford.[3] He is a good-natured,
plausible man, without enemies, and really (though he does not
think so) without friends; and naturally enough he does not think
so, because there are many who pretend, like Brougham, a strong
affection for him, and some who imagine they feel it. Vast
property, rank, influence, and station always attract a sentiment
which is dignified with the name of friendship, which assumes all
its outward appearance, complies with its conditions, but which
is really hollow and unsubstantial. The Duke of Bedford thinks of
nothing but his own personal enjoyments, and it has long been a
part of his system not to allow himself to be disturbed by the
necessities of others, or be ruffled by the slightest self-
denial. He is affable, bland, and of easy intercourse, making
rather a favourable impression on superficial observers; caring
little, if at all, for the wants or wishes of others, but
grudging nobody anything that does not interfere with his own
pursuits, and seeing with complacency those who surround him lap
up the superfluities which may chance to bubble over from his cup
of pleasure and happiness. It is a farce to talk of friendship
with such a man, on whom, if he were not Duke of Bedford,
Brougham would never waste a thought.
[3] [These remarks relate to John, sixth Duke of Bedford,
born 6th July, 1766, died 29th October, 1839. He was
the father of the Lord Tavistock often mentioned in
these Journals, and of Lord William and Lord John
Russell.]
September 17th, 1839 {p.240}
Finding the Duke of Wellington was in town yesterday, I called on
him. He talked to me a great deal about Brougham and the Dover
dinner, and told me a comical anecdote with reference to his
giving the toast of the Duke's health at the dinner. The
Committee invited him and, as the chairman was a man who could
not speak at all, they, thinking it a catch to get so great an
orator to do the office, proposed to Brougham to give the toast
of the night. He accepted, and then they found that Lord
Guilford, a man of the first rank and consequence in the county,
and therefore entitled to this distinction, was highly affronted
at the preference of Brougham to him. They got embarrassed, and
desired to take the toast from Brougham and give it to Lord
Guilford, and when he got down there this was suggested to him;
but he said 'it could not be, for he had not only written his
speech beforehand, but had already sent it to be published, so
that no alteration was then possible.' The consequence was, Lord
Guilford would not come to the dinner, and he was only pacified
afterwards by the Duke himself, who went to call upon him for the
purpose of soothing down his ruffled plumage; this he succeeded
in doing by telling him this story, and nothing the Duke said
reconciled him so much to what had passed, as the fact of
Brougham's having written his speech beforehand.
He told me what Brougham had said of Macaulay (whom he hates with
much cordiality), when somebody asked if he was to be Secretary
at War. 'No, Melbourne would not consent to it: he would not have
him in the Cabinet, and could not endure to sit with ten parrots,
a chime of bells, and Lady W----.'
The more I see of the Duke, the more am I struck with the
impression that he is declining; that he is not what he was a
year or two ago. He is vigorous and hearty, cheerful, lively; his
memory does not seem to be impaired; he talks with sense and
energy. If anybody asserted that they saw symptoms of mental
decay, it would be easy to deny the fact, and to support the
denial by ready and numerous examples of his force and sagacity
in discussion, or in the transaction of business; but
nevertheless I am persuaded that a change has come over him, that
it is gradually spreading more and sinking deeper, and that we
must begin to make up our minds to the deprivation of his noble
spirit, full of honesty, wisdom, and patriotism as it is.[4]
[4] [The Duke, however, lived and flourished for thirteen
years after this prediction.]
September 21st, 1839 {p.241}
[Page Head: THE AFGHAN EXPEDITION.]
I dined at Holland House last night, where, among others, were
General Alava, and Sir John Hobhouse, the first in high glee at
the termination of the war in Spain, and the last at the success
of the Indian expedition.[5] Hobhouse told me that Auckland had
displayed extraordinary qualities, and was the ablest Governor
India had seen for a great length of time. Alava said that the
last transactions in Spain and the mediation of Lord John Hay had
reflected the highest honour on our Government, and that we had
acted with a discretion, a delicacy, and a disinterestedness
beyond all praise. But both Alava and Hobhouse told me what is
very remarkable as showing the great reliance which even his
political opponents place in the wisdom and patriotism of the
Duke. Hobhouse said that he had had some time ago a very long
conversation with the Duke, in which he had made him acquainted
with all the means employed for the accomplishment of their
Indian objects, and that the Duke, who had previously anticipated
their failure, had, after hearing all these details, expressed
himself perfectly satisfied, and admitted that they had every
assurance of success. He did not go into the policy of the
measure, which it would not have been proper or advisable to do,
but merely treated the question of military resources and their
employment.
[5] [This was the expedition to replace Shah Sooja on the
throne of Afghanistan, which was so auspiciously
commenced and so deplorably terminated. Sir John
Hobhouse was greatly elated at the enterprise and very
confident of the result. He said to me soon afterwards
that we must encounter the policy of Russia, and that
the theatre of the struggle was Central Asia. I replied
that I should have preferred the Baltic.--H.R.]
So, too, Alava, as soon as intelligence reached him and
Palmerston of the overtures of Maroto, asked leave to communicate
it to the Duke, which was immediately conceded. He was therefore
informed of all that was going on, and it met with his fullest
approbation; and yet all this time the great organ of the Tories
is raving against the Government in the most frantic manner, for
having been instrumental to this happy termination of the most
frightful and revolting civil war that ever afflicted any
country.[6]
[6] [The active support given to Espartero by the British
Government under the Quadruple Treaty, and the
operations of Lord John Hay on the northern coast of
Spain, which stopped the supplies of the Carlists,
contributed to bring the contest for the Crown of Spain
to an end, and on the 15th August Don Carlos
surrendered himself to the French Government at
Bayonne.]
September 23rd, 1839 {p.242}
Lady Holland asked me the other night what I thought of their
prospects, and I told her I thought them very bad. She said, 'The
fact is, we have nothing to rely upon but the Queen and Paddy.'
This has since struck me as being an epigrammatic but very
correct description of their position.
Last night there came to Holland House after dinner Brunnow and
Nesselrode's son, the first (not unlike Brougham, and would be
very like if his nose moved about), a very able man, and said to
be 'la pensée intime de l'Empereur,' sent over to see what can be
done about the Eastern Question, which I take to be a very
difficult matter.[7] I had much talk with Dedel (who told me
this) about Palmerston. I said it was well known he was very able
with his pen, but I did not know how he was in Conference. He
replied: 'Palmerston comes to any Conference so fully and
completely master of the subject of it in all the minutest
details, that this capacity is a peculiar talent with him; it is
so great, that he is apt sometimes to lose himself in the
details.'
[7] [Baron Brunnow was sent to England at this time by the
Emperor Nicholas to make the first overtures for the
intervention of the Great Powers in the quarrel between
the Sultan and the Pasha of Egypt. This overture was
rejected by the Cabinet in 1839, but accepted on the
Baron's return to England in the following year, and it
led to the celebrated treaty of the 15th July, 1840,
and the quarrel with France, the true object of
Nicholas having been the severance of the Western
Powers. M. de Brunnow remained in England as Minister
or Ambassador for nearly thirty-five years.]
London, November 8th, 1839 {p.243}
Six weeks nearly of an absolute blank. Left town October 1,
Newmarket, then Cromer for ten days, Newmarket, London,
Riddlesworth, Newmarket again, Euston, and back on Monday last.
Nothing very remarkable has happened in this interval. Lord
Clarendon[8] accepted the Privy Seal, not very willingly, but
feeling that he could not, with decency, refuse it. They consider
his accession to the Government a matter of great importance, and
the Tories own it to be so, such a reputation has he acquired by
the brilliant manner in which he conducted the mission in Spain,
and by his popular and engaging qualities.
[8] [George William Frederic Villiers, fourth Earl of
Clarendon, succeeded his uncle in the title in
December, 1838. He had filled for some years with
distinguished ability the office of British Minister at
Madrid. He now returned to England; married Lady
Katharine Barham, eldest daughter of the Earl of
Verulam and widow of John Forster-Barham, Esq., in June
1839, and entered the Cabinet for the first time as
Lord Privy Seal.]
[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM'S PRETENDED DEATH.]
Nothing has excited so much interest as the hoax of Brougham's
pretended death,[9] which was generally believed for twenty-four
hours, and the report elicited a host of criticisms and
panegyrics on his life and character, for the most part
flattering, except that in the 'Times,' which was very able but
very severe, and not less severe than true. As soon as it was
discovered that he was not dead, the liveliest indignation was
testified at the joke that had been played off, and the utmost
anxiety to discover its origin. General suspicion immediately
fixed itself on Brougham himself, who, finding the bad impression
produced, hastened to remove it by a vehement but indirect denial
of having had any share in, or knowledge of, the hoax. But so
little reliance is placed upon his word, that everybody laughs at
his denials, and hardly anybody has a shadow of a doubt that he
was himself at the bottom of it. He has taken the trouble to
write to all sorts of people, old friends and new, to exonerate
himself from the charge; but never was trouble more thrown away.
D'Orsay says that he carefully compared the (supposed) letter of
Shafto with one of Brougham's to him, and that they were
evidently written by the same hand. The paper, with all its
marks, was the same, together with various other minute
resemblances, leaving no doubt of the fact.
[9] [A letter from Brougham purporting to be from Mr.
Shafto was received by Mr. Alfred Montgomery, which
contained the particulars of Lord Brougham's death by a
carriage accident. Mr. Montgomery brought the letter to
Lady Blessington's at Gore House, where I happened to
be, and I confess we were all taken in by the hoax.
Montgomery went off in a post-chaise to break the news
to Lord Wellesley at Fernhill; and meeting Lord Alfred
Paget in Windsor Park, he sent the news to the Castle.
The trick was kept up for twenty-four hours, but the
next day I received a note from Brougham himself, full
of his usual spirits and vitality.--H.R.]
[Page Head: VIOLENCE OF THE TORIES.]
Next to this episode, Jemmy Bradshaw's speech at Canterbury has
attracted the greatest attention, and he has been for many days
the hero of newspaper discussion. This speech, which was a tissue
of folly and impertinence, but principally remarkable for a
personal attack of the most violent and indecent kind upon the
Queen, was received with shouts of applause at a Conservative
dinner, and reported with many compliments, and some gentle
reprehension by the Tory press. His example has since been
followed in a less offensive style by two others calling
themselves Tories--a Mr. Roby and a Mr. Escott. Of these rabid
and disloyal effusions, the Government papers have not failed to
make the most, by pointing out the disaffected and almost
treasonable character of modern Toryism when embittered by
exclusion from office; and there is no doubt that, contemptible
as the authors are, their senseless and disgusting exhibitions
are calculated to do great mischief; for, if no other evil
ensued, it is one of no small consequence to sour the mind of the
Queen still more against the whole Tory party, and fasten upon
her an impression which it will be difficult to efface, that she
is odious and her authority contemptible in their eyes, so long
as she is unfavourable to them, and commits herself to other
hands than theirs. Peel is to be pitied for having to lead such
an unruly and unprincipled faction. Everything seems disjointed,
all is confusion; moderate men, desirous of good government,
stability, security, and safe amendment of political evils or
errors, can find no resting-place. The Tories, the professors and
protectors of Conservative principles, the abhorrers of changes,
who would not have so much as a finger laid upon the integrity of
the Constitution, are ready to roll the Crown in the dirt, and
trample it under their feet; and the Government, to whom the
maintenance of the Constitution is entrusted, whose especial duty
it is to uphold the authority of the laws, are openly allied
with, and continually truckling to, those factions, or sections
of factions, which make no secret of their desire and
determination to effect changes which nobody denies to be
equivalent to revolution; and then we have the weight of the
Crown thrown into the scale of this unholy alliance, from the
mere influence of personal predilections and antipathies. To such
a degree is principle dormant, or so entirely is it thrust into
the background by passion, prejudice, or the interest of the
passing hour.
November 13th, 1839 {p.245}
At Holland House for three days last week. Lord Holland told many
stories of Lord Chatham, some of which I had heard before, and
some not. His stories are always excellent, and excellently told,
and those who have heard them before can very well bear to hear
them again. I think I have somewhere inserted the 'Sugar' story,
which Lord Harrowby told me many years ago, but without the
vivacity and good acting of Lord Holland. Another of his sayings
was in the House of Lords, when, on I forget what question, he
was unsupported: 'My Lords, I stand like our First Parents--
alone, naked, but not ashamed.' This was fine. Lord Holland said
there was nothing like real oratory in Parliament before the
American war.
He had received several letters from Brougham in a most strange,
incoherent style, avowedly for the purpose of thanking Lady
Holland for the interest he heard she had shown about him when
his death was reported, and at the same time to explain that he
had no hand in the report, which he did with the utmost solemnity
of asseveration;[10] but he took this opportunity to descant on
the conduct of the party towards him, of the press, of the
people, and of the leading Whigs, talked of the flags of truce he
had held out, and how they had been fired on, and that he must
again arm himself for another fight. All this in a curious,
disjointed style. As these letters were considered flags of
truce, Lady Holland fired upon them an invitation to dinner, but
he would not come. I met him on Sunday, and asked him why he did
not come, but he would not give any answer whatever. On that
occasion he talked for two hours without stopping, abusing one
person after another, particularly Fonblanque, and then telling
the whole history of the Reform Bill and of the famous
dissolution, and of all his own exploits on that occasion. It was
amusing enough, but he talks too much, and his talk has the grand
fault of not impressing his hearers with an idea of its truth; it
is lively, energetic, vivacious, abundant, but it is artificial
and unsatisfactory, because liable to suspicion and doubt.
[10] It was well known, eventually, that the hoax was
entirely his own, and the letter dictated by himself.
Windsor Castle, November 15th, 1839 {p.246}
Here for a Council. I sat next to Baroness Lehzen at dinner--a
clever, agreeable woman. She complained of Peel's having said in
the House of Commons that he did not mean to turn her out, and
says he ought to have said he could not, and that he had nothing
to do with her, as she is not in the public service. I defended
Peel. In the evening, Lord Melbourne told me to search the
Council books and see what was the form of declaration of the
Sovereign's marriage, so that matter is pretty clearly settled.
November 23rd, 1839 {p.246}
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S BETROTHAL.]
At Wolbeding for three days. Then news came of the Duke's
illness, which, though it turned out to be exaggerated, will, I
fear, prove to have given him a shake. The Council being summoned
to declare the Queen's marriage to-day, I have come up to town
for it, and am just returned from the declaration, which took
place in the lower apartments of the palace. About eighty Privy
Councillors present, all who were within call having attended.
Peel, Lyndhurst, and the Duke. The Duke arrived last night for
the purpose; he looked very old, very feeble, and decrepit. I
thought a great change was observable in him, but he was cheerful
as usual, and evidently tried to make the best of it. The Queen
had sent in the morning to enquire after him, and the answer was,
'He had had a restless night.' All the Privy Councillors seated
themselves, when the folding-doors were thrown open, and the
Queen came in, attired in a plain morning-gown, but wearing a
bracelet containing Prince Albert's picture. She read the
declaration in a clear, sonorous, sweet-toned voice, but her
hands trembled so excessively that I wonder she was able to read
the paper which she held. Lord Lansdowne made a little speech,
asking her permission to have the declaration made public. She
bowed assent, placed the paper in his hands, and then retired.
November 26th, 1839 {p.247}
The Queen wrote to all her family and announced her marriage to
them. When she saw the Duchess of Gloucester in town, and told
her she was to make her declaration the next day, the Duchess
asked her if it was not a nervous thing to do. She said, 'Yes;
but I did a much more nervous thing a little while ago.' 'What
was that?' 'I proposed to Prince Albert.'
The Duke of Cambridge hunted Brougham round the room, saying,
'Oh, by God, you wrote the letter; by God, you did it
yourself.'[11] Brougham is in a state of prodigious excitement.
He has had a reconciliation with Normanby, and another with
Durham--the first at Lady Clanricarde's, the other at Lady
Tankerville's, where they casually met. He was overflowing with
sentiment and eagerness to be friends with both.
[11] [Meaning the letter to Alfred Montgomery which
announced Lord Brougham's death.]
November 27th, 1839 {p.247}
The Queen settled everything about her marriage herself, and
without consulting Melbourne at all on the subject, not even
communicating to him her intentions. The reports were already
rife, while he was in ignorance; and at last he spoke to her,
told her that he could not be ignorant of the reports, nor could
she; that he did not presume to enquire what her intentions were,
but that it was his duty to tell her, that if she had any, it was
necessary that her Ministers should be apprised of them. She said
she had nothing to tell him, and about a fortnight afterwards she
informed him that the whole thing was settled. A curious
exhibition of her independence, and explains the apprehensions
which Lady Cowper has recently expressed to me of the serious
consequences which her determined character is likely to produce.
If she has already shaken off her dependence on Melbourne, and
begins to fly with her own wings, what will she not do when she
is older, and has to deal with Ministers whom she does not care
for, or whom she dislikes?
December 14th, 1839 {p.248}
I was at Oatlands a fortnight ago, where I met Croker--not
overbearing, and rather agreeable, though without having said
much that was peculiarly interesting. Two things struck me. He
said he dined and passed the evening _tête-à-tête_ with the Duke
of Wellington (then Sir Arthur Wellesley) before his departure
for Portugal to take the command of the army. He was then Irish
Secretary, and had committed to Croker's management the bills he
had to carry through Parliament. After dinner he was very
thoughtful, and did not speak. Croker said, 'Sir Arthur, you
don't talk; what is it you are thinking about?' He said, 'Of the
French. I have never seen them; they have beaten all Europe. I
think I shall beat them, but I can't help thinking about them.'
Another _tête-à-tête_ he had with the Duke was at the time of the
Reform Bill, when he went down with him for a week to
Strathfieldsaye, during which time he was more low-spirited and
silent than Croker said he ever saw him before or since. He
reproached himself for what he had done, particularly about
Catholic Emancipation, the repeal of the Test Act, and his
resignation in '30. Very curious this, not alluding among the
topics of self-reproach to his persevering and mischievous
opposition to the Emancipation, which he at length conceded in a
manner so fraught with future evil, however inevitable; nor to
his famous Anti-reform declaration, which, though containing
little if anything that was untrue, was so imprudent that its
effects were enormous and irretrievable. Such is the blindness,
the obstinate reluctance to the admission of error, which besets
even the wisest and the best men; for if the Duke of Wellington
could have divested his mind of prejudice, and reflected calmly
on the past, or looked over the political map of bygone events
with the practical sagacity he usually displayed, he never could
have failed to perceive the true causes of them. People often
take to themselves unmerited blame, to screen themselves from
that which they are conscious they deserve.
[Page Head: THE MAYOR OF NEWPORT AT COURT.]
On Monday last I went to Windsor for a Council. There we had Sir
Thomas Phillips, the Mayor of Newport, who came to be knighted.
They were going to knight him, and then dismiss him, but I
persuaded Normanby that it would be a wise and popular thing to
keep him there and load him with civilities--do good to the
Queen, encourage others to do their duty--and send him back
rejoicing to his province, to spread far and wide the fame of his
gracious reception. He said, that etiquette would not permit one
of his rank in life to be invited to the Royal table. I said,
that this was all nonsense: if he was good enough to come and be
knighted, he was good enough to dine there, and that it was a
little outlay for a large return. He was convinced; spoke to
Melbourne, who settled it, and Phillips stayed. Nothing could
answer better, everybody approved of it, and the man behaved as
if his whole life had been spent in Courts, perfectly at his ease
without rudeness or forwardness, quiet, unobtrusive, but with
complete self-possession, and a _nil admirari_ manner which had
something distinguished in it. The Queen was very civil to him,
and he was delighted. The next morning he went to Normanby, and
expressed his apprehension that he might not have conducted
himself as he ought, together with his grateful sense of his
reception; but the apology was quite needless.[12]
[12] [On the 4th November a Chartist riot occurred at
Newport in Monmouthshire. The leaders were John Frost
and Zephaniah Williams. The Mayor, Mr. T. Phillips,
behaved with great gallantry, and ordered the troops to
load. The mob, said to be 20,000 strong, first fired on
the troops, who then returned the fire with effect and
dispersed the assemblage. John Frost, the leader of
this disturbance, had unluckily been made a magistrate
by Lord John Russell some time before. His trial is
subsequently adverted to.]
December 25th, 1839 {p.250}
At Ampthill (Baron Parke's) last Friday. Took down with me David
Dundas, a Whig lawyer, and a very agreeable accomplished man,
plenty of pleasant talk. Went over to Wrest, Lord de Grey's new
house--built, decorated, and furnished by himself--and very
perfect in all ways. Heard on Sunday a Mr. Howorth preach--an
admirable preacher, who ought to be promoted in the Church, just
as Dundas ought in the State.[13]
[13] [Sir David Dundas afterwards became Solicitor-General
and declined a judgeship.]
December 31st, 1839 {p.250}
We are arrived at the end of the year, and the next will begin
with the Chartist trials. Parliament is about to meet. Parties
are violent, Government weak, everybody wondering what will
happen, nobody seeing their way clearly before them. The general
opinion is, that the Opposition mean to take the Government if
they can by storm, and will assault every weak point. The
weakest, to my mind, is John Russell's appointment of Frost to
the magistracy, which, if skilfully handled, may be brought
against him with great effect. Frost was appointed in pursuance
of a system Lord John chose to establish, for the purpose of
defeating the intentions of Parliament; and he did it upon his
own responsibility in spite of warnings against it, and now we
see some of the fruits of this policy. I told Normanby this, and
he owned the truth of it, and moreover he told me that the system
he found established by Lord John had proved very embarrassing to
him, as it was very difficult for him to throw it over, and
unless he did so he should be compelled to make, or sanction,
objectionable appointments. Such have been the consequences of
Lord John's unstatesmanlike and perhaps unconstitutional conduct,
adopted under the influence of resentment.
[Page Head: LORD CLARENDON TAKES OFFICE.]
Lord Clarendon, who has just joined the Government with a lively
sense of the tottering character of the concern he has entered,
is resolved, as far as his influence may avail, to urge them to
cast aside all attempts to catch votes, and cajole supporters, by
partial concessions and half-and-half measures, to look the
condition of affairs steadily in the face, and act in all things
according to the best of their minds and consciences, as if they
were as strong a Government as Pitt's, and without any regard to
consequences, so that they may either live usefully or die
honourably. This is the true course, and that which I have urged
him to enforce with all his credit. We had some talk about
foreign affairs. He thinks there is danger of Palmerston's
getting too closely connected with Russia, while keeping France
in check upon the complicated Eastern Question. He also spoke of
a curious pamphlet, just published by Marliani, a Spaniard, who
went in 1838 with Zea Bermudez on a mission to Berlin and Vienna,
stating that a proposal had been made to Austria for a marriage
between the young Queen of Spain and a son of the Archduke
Charles, by which the Austrian alliance and influence would again
be substituted for the French, and the object of the Family
Compact defeated; and that Metternich would have listened eagerly
to this if he had dared, and was only prevented and induced to
entreat the Spaniards to go away by his overwhelming dread of
Russian indignation.
January 14th, 1840 {p.251}
At Wrest for the last week. It is a new house built by Lord de
Grey, without architects or any professional aid, and a great
work for an amateur to have accomplished. Returned yesterday, and
found London beginning to fill for Parliament. Everybody asks his
neighbour, will the Government be able to go on--a question which
nobody pretends to answer on any good grounds of probability.
Electioneering casualties during the recess have brought the two
parties (supposing all the Whig alliance to cohere) nearer to an
equality than they were before, and they are so bitter against
each other, that the Tories will certainly drive the Ministry out
if they can, and take the chance of being themselves able to
govern. But with reference to the state of public affairs and the
composition of the Government, the Ministry presents a much more
respectable appearance than it has heretofore done; the Cabinet
contains men of character, of experience, and of great
acquirements, and Clarendon, who has just taken his seat among
them and has added to it a good diplomatic reputation, tells me
that they are not only very united, agreed in general principles,
and only differing to an extent that any thirteen men must
occasionally differ on particular points; but that they are as
Conservative a Cabinet as possible. And so, no doubt, they are in
their hearts and wishes, and so they would be, if the
Conservatives would allow them to keep their places, and give
them strength enough to maintain Conservative interests. It is
impossible to doubt that the best thing that could happen in the
present situation of the country would be the continuance in
office of the present Government, with the consent and
acquiescence of the Tories, so long as they administered the
government on just, moderate, and constitutional principles, and
with a full understanding that any departure therefrom would be
followed by their unrelenting hostility. But this would require a
large amount of patriotism and self-denial from a great party,
who, besides a consciousness of strength, have their minds full
of bitter animosity, and an impatience for party victory, and the
acquisition of official power; and in their eager desire for
revenge and triumph, they overlook all considerations, and are
ready to incur any risk and take all consequences.
As far as the state of public affairs is concerned, Ministers
have not at all a bad case to bring before the country. The great
interests, on which the eyes of the world have been fixed, are
prosperous and ably administered. Ebrington in Ireland, Auckland
in India, and now Poulett Thomson in Canada, have contributed in
their different ways to the favourable _exposé_ of the
Government, nor is there any point on which they are particularly
vulnerable, or any grave reproach to which they have rendered
themselves obnoxious. But all this will not avail to make them
strong, or render their tenure of office secure and permanent.
They are not popular, all parties distrust them, none believe
that they have any fixed principles from which no considerations
would induce them to swerve, and the unfortunate circumstances
under which they so improperly took office again in March last,
and their apparent wavering between antagonist principles, and
readiness to yield to pressure when they could not escape it,
have given a worse opinion of their character than they really
deserve.
January 17th, 1840 {p.253}
[Page Head: OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.]
Parliament met yesterday. The Queen was well enough received--
much better than usual--as she went to the House. The Speech was
harmless. Some had wished to have something about the Corn Laws
in it, but this was overruled by the majority. They said nothing
about Prince Albert's Protestantism, and very properly, for
though they might as well have done so in the Speech to the Privy
Council (merely not to give a handle to their opponents for
cavilling and clamouring), it would have been an acknowledgement
of error, and a knocking under to clamour, to do so now. The
Duke, however, moved an amendment, and foisted in the word
Protestant,--a sop to the silly. I was grieved to see him descend
to such miserable humbug, and was in hopes he was superior to it,
and would have rather put down the nonsense than have lent his
sanction to it. He is said to be very well, strong in body and
clear in mind, but I fully expect that he will give, in the
course of this Session, evident proofs of the falling-off of his
mind.
In the House of Commons they are bent upon mischief, and speedy
mischief; for Sir J. Yarde Buller gave notice directly of a
motion of want of confidence, so that the strength of the two
parties will be tested forthwith. This was a regular concerted
party move, and took their opponents completely by surprise. It
proceeds from the boiling impatience of the party, indoors and
out. The Tory masses complain that nothing is done; and so, to
gratify them, an immediate assault is resolved upon. Lord
Wharncliffe said to me yesterday morning that the real obstacle
to the Tories coming into office was the Queen. This was the only
difficulty; but her antipathy to Peel rendered him exceedingly
reluctant to take office, and there were many among the party who
felt scruples in forcing an obnoxious Ministry upon her. This is,
in fact, the real Tory principle, but I doubt many of the Tories
being influenced by it.
Bradshaw[14] and Horsman went out yesterday morning. The former
called out the latter on account of a speech at Cockermouth, in
which, in allusion to the famous Canterbury _Victorippick_, he
had said that Bradshaw had the tongue of a traitor and the heart
of a coward. Though six weeks had elapsed between the speech and
the challenge, Horsman did go out, and they exchanged shots;
after which Bradshaw made a sort of stingy apology for his
insults to the Queen, and the other an apology for his offensive
expressions. Gurwood went out with Bradshaw, which he had better
not have done.[15] He said, 'he had never read Bradshaw's speech,
and was ignorant what he had said.' As Gurwood is a man of honour
and veracity, this must be true; but it is passing strange that
he alone should not have read what everybody else has been
talking about for the last two months, and that he should go out
with a man as his second on account of words spoken, and not
enquire what they were.
[14] [Mr. Bradshaw had used very unbecoming and disloyal
language in speaking of the Queen at a public dinner or
meeting at Canterbury some weeks before. Mr. Horsman, a
strong Whig, and Member for Cockermouth, had censured
Bradshaw for his disloyalty--hence this strange duel.]
[15] [Colonel Gurwood, the Duke of Wellington's confidential
friend, and editor of his Despatches, had just been
appointed to the Governorship of the Tower.]
January 18th, 1840 {p.254}
[Page Head: HORSMAN AND BRADSHAW DUEL.]
Everybody talks of this duel, and the Whigs abuse Gurwood, and
accuse him of ingratitude, for having acted for Bradshaw in such
a quarrel, when he has just been loaded with favours--a pension
and a place; for, though the latter was given by the Duke of
Wellington, it was with the concurrence of Government, who might
either have reduced his salary or taken away his pension, and did
neither. Gurwood has acquired a title to public gratitude by
being instrumental to the publication of the Wellington
Despatches; but he is a silly fellow; his conduct in this duel
shows it. He certainly ought to have declined to meddle; but he
told George Anson (who was Horsman's second) he never did decline
when asked; and he not only said he had never read Bradshaw's
speech, but when George Anson offered to show it to him he
refused to read it. I should have declined discussing the matter
with him unless he did read it. Bradshaw behaved very well. After
the shots, Gurwood asked if Horsman would retract. Anson said,
'No, not till Bradshaw did, or apologised.' Gurwood then said to
Anson, 'Will you propose to him to do so? I cannot.' So he did.
Bradshaw was deeply affected; owned he had been miserable ever
since; said he could not live without honour, but would say
anything that Anson and Gurwood (and he felt his honour as safe
with the former as the latter) would agree that he could and
ought to say; and George Anson drew up his apology, and did not
make it stronger, because he would not press him hard. The fact
is, he is much indebted to Horsman for getting him out, in some
measure, of a very bad scrape.
The Queen has been attacked for going down in person to
Parliament, just after the news arriving of the Landgravine's
death; but she consulted her relations, the Princess Augusta
particularly, who advised her to go, said it was a public duty,
and that they had all been brought up in the doctrine that the
discharge of the duties of their station was to supersede
everything. So she went.
I met Burge[16] this morning, who is very much disgusted at no
mention being made of Jamaica in the Speech, and at the speech of
John Russell; who, in alluding to the omission, spoke very
disparagingly of the Assembly, or at least, what will there
appear so. But he admits, nevertheless, that Lord John Russell is
by far the best Secretary of State he ever had to deal with, and
that in his general conduct towards the island they have ample
cause for satisfaction.
[16] [William Burge, Esq., Q.C., for many years agent for
the island of Jamaica, and author of a valuable work
entitled 'Commentaries on Colonial Law.']
January 22nd, 1840 {p.255}
Dined at Lady Blessington's the day before yesterday: a queer
_omnium gatherum_ party--Prince Louis Napoleon, General
Montholon, Lord Lyndhurst, Brougham, Sir Robert Wilson, Leader,
and Roebuck. Droll to see Lyndhurst, the most execrated of the
Tories, hand-and-glove, and cracking his jokes, with the two
Radicals. After dinner I had a talk with him. He said the Duke
had been all against the motion on the 28th, but that unless they
had agreed to it, the party would have been broken up; said he
did not care about coming in. If they did, a dissolution would
give them a majority of sixty, but that this would not enable
them to stand against the Queen's hostility and determination to
trip up their heels whenever she could;[17] that the Opposition
would become more Radical, the Queen herself Radical; they should
be driven out, and the country ruined. He thought the Duke strong
in body and clear in mind, but more excitable. I said I thought
that to those who knew him a change was perceptible; that it was
impossible to cite any particular thing in proof of it; but that
conversation with him left such an impression. Lyndhurst replied
that this was exactly his own opinion, but that the Duke's
authority with the party was undiminished, and indispensably
necessary to keep them together. The Tories are very angry with
Peel for taking such a strong part as he has done on the
Privilege question, which nothing but his influence prevents
their turning into a regular party debate. The House has gone
floundering on upon it, wasting a great deal of time and
ingenious speaking, and having got into a difficulty from which
there is no convenient extrication.
[17] [A very erroneous prediction. They did come in in the
following year, and the Queen gave her entire
confidence and support to Sir Robert Peel's
Government.]
The Judges are much censured for their behaviour at Newport:[18]
first, for not themselves deciding the point that was raised;
next, for not asking the jury for the reasons of their
recommending the criminals to mercy; and the Chief Justice's
charge to the jury was thought a very weak and poor performance.
[18] [This relates to the trial of Frost and others by a
Special Commission at Newport for the riots of the
preceding year.]
Yesterday morning[19] the Duke of Bedford came to me, to beg I
would suggest some Lord for the situation of Chief of Prince
Albert's establishment, for they can get none who is eligible.
They want a Peer, a Whig, and a man of good sense, character and
education, something rather better than common, and such an one
willing to put on Court trappings they find not easily to be had.
We made out a list, to be shown to Melbourne, who had consulted
the Duke of Bedford, and asked him for a man. We talked over the
bitter hostility between the Queen and the Tories, and he said,
that Melbourne did everything he could to mitigate her feelings,
and to make her understand that she must not involve the whole
party in the reproach which justly attaches to a few foolish or
mischievous zealots, so much so that lately when the Queen was
inveighing against the Tories to somebody (he would not say to
whom), and complaining of their behaviour to her, she added, 'It
is very odd, but I cannot get Lord Melbourne to see it in that
light.'
[19] John, sixth Duke of Bedford, had died on the 20th
October, 1839, and my friend Tavistock had become Duke
of Bedford.
January 24th, 1840
[Page Head: THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.]
The Privilege question[20] occupies everybody's thoughts, and
there is much interest and curiosity to see the sequel of it. The
state of the House of Commons upon it is curious: all the Whigs
for Privilege, and the chiefs of the Tories with them; with some
of the lawyers (except Sugden) the same way; but Follett, who at
first was heartily with Peel, has latterly taken no part, though
he has voted with the majority. On the other side are the great
bulk of the Tories and all the second-rate lawyers--the only
eminent ones that way being Sugden, Pemberton, and Kelly. The
debates have elicited some admirable speeches on both sides, of
which Peel's three nights ago, when he explained the law better
than the lawyers could, has been the most remarkable. The Tories
are very angry with him for taking it up so warmly, and they will
not be the more pleased at the complimentary speech of John
Russell, in which he told him that nothing but his taking the
course he had done had enabled the House to assert its privilege
at all, as it could not have been made a mere party question. The
Government are getting into better spirits about their prospects,
and so many of the Tories acknowledge that there would be danger
and difficulty in changes just now, that there will probably be
none. Mr. Walter was beaten hollow in Southwark in spite of an
Anti-Poor Law cry, by the help of which his friends were very
sanguine about his success.
[20] [The Privilege question arose out of a prosecution of
Messrs. Hansard by one Stockdale, for the publication
of a libel on himself in the Parliamentary Debates.
Hansard pleaded the authority of Parliament, but the
Court of Queen's Bench rejected the plea and gave
judgement against Hansard. The House of Commons, on the
motion of Lord John Russell, who was supported by Sir
R. Peel, defended their printers, and committed the
Sheriffs of London for levying damages on Hansard. Peel
afterwards acknowledged that he had been misled by the
advice of Sir F. Pollock and had gone too far; in fact,
it appears from the text that the weight of legal
authority was against him. The dispute was settled at
last by legislation. See _infra_, February 21st, 1840.]
January 26th, 1840 {p.258}
The Government are triumphant at all their elections, and raised
to the skies by their success, which they construe into an
indication of reaction in their favour. It is certainly a great
thing for them, for it produces a good moral effect, besides the
influence it will have on the division next week, and it tends to
show that if a dissolution were to take place, the Conservatives
would not be in so much better, nor the Whigs in so much worse a
position, as the former have been for some time boasting of, and
the latter apprehending. Everybody (except those who have an
interest in defending it) thinks the allowance proposed for
Prince Albert very exorbitant: £50,000 a year given for pocket
money is quite monstrous, and it would have been prudent to
propose a more moderate grant for the sake of his popularity.
Prince George of Denmark had £50,000 a year (as it is said), but
the Queen gave it him, and he had a household four times more
numerous than is intended for Prince Albert.
January 29th, 1840 {p.258}
On Monday night Government were beaten by 104 on the question of
reducing the Prince's allowance from £50,000 to £30,000 a year.
They knew they should be beaten, but nevertheless John Russell
would go doggedly on and encounter this mortifying defeat,
instead of giving way with the best grace he could. He lost his
temper, and flung dirt at Peel, like a sulky boy flinging rotten
eggs; in short, exposed himself sadly. His friends were much
annoyed that he did not give way, as soon as he found that there
was no chance of carrying it, and that many Government supporters
would vote against it; besides the mortification to the Prince,
there was something mean and sordid in squabbling for all the
money they could get, and the sum given him is _satis superque_
for all his wants.
[Page Head: NATURALISATION OF PRINCE ALBERT.]
In the Lords, they introduced the Naturalisation Bill in such a
slovenly and objectionable form, that the Duke desired it might
be put off, which (although he pledged and committed himself in
no manner) they immediately construed into a resolution to oppose
the Precedence part of it. The Queen is bent upon giving him
precedence of the whole Royal Family. The Dukes of Sussex and
Cambridge, who each want some additions to their incomes, have
signified their consent; the King of Hanover (whom it does not
immediately concern) has refused his. On this they brought in
their Bill. Her Majesty was, however, more provoked at what
passed in the House of Lords, than at the defeat in the Commons.
I asked Charles Gore why John Russell did not avail himself of
the momentary connexion he had with Peel on the Privilege
question, to ask him what his views were about the allowance, and
tell him that it was so desirable to avoid any division on such a
question that he wished to propose nothing that was likely to be
objected to. Gore said that upon a former occasion, when Lord
John had spoken in such a spirit to Peel, he had been met by him
in such an ungracious manner that it was impossible for him ever
to do so again. This was about the Speakership, when he wrote a
private note to Peel, beginning 'My dear Sir,' and asking him to
tell him what the intentions of his party were about opposing the
Government Speaker, because he was anxious if possible not to
bring people up to town without necessity; to which he replied in
the coldest and driest terms, 'Sir Robert Peel presents his
compliments to Lord John Russell,' expressing his surprise at his
letter, saying he had no right to call upon him for any
explanation of his intentions, and refusing to give any
information whatever. I do not think John Russell had any right
to make such a communication to him, and it was, I fancy, very
unusual, but Peel might as well have answered it good-humouredly.
The judges have given their decision upon the two points raised
for the Newport prisoners,[21] and their fate now rests with the
Government. They decided, by a majority of nine to six, that the
objection was valid, and by nine to six that it was not taken in
time. Upon such accidents do the lives of men depend. It is well
known that the law can have no certainty, because so much must
always be left to the discretion of those who administer it; but
such striking illustrations of its uncertainty, and of the extent
to which the chapter of accidents is concerned in it, seldom
occur, and make one shudder when they do.[22] No doubt, however,
is cast over the guilt of the men, and the Government may very
properly leave them to their fate, if they are not afraid of
shocking public opinion by doing so. The world at large does not
distinguish accurately or reason justly, swallows facts in gross,
and jumps to conclusions. Many will say it is hard to put men to
death when the judges are nearly equally divided on their case,
the majority admitting that the law would save them if it had
been urged soon enough in their favour. It rather seems to turn
the tables on the prosecution; and whereas the prisoners are
availing themselves of a mere quibble, of a technical objection,
strained to its extremest point, the effect may be that of
exhibiting the Government as availing itself of the technicality
in point of time to overthrow the more important legal objection.
The case appears to have been very ably argued, especially by
Kelly.
[21] [The ringleaders in the Newport riots were convicted
and might have been hanged; but two technical
objections to the sentence having been taken, though
not allowed by the judges, the Government remitted the
capital sentence. They had a narrow escape.]
[22] Parke said, that if the objection had been decided on
the spot they would have escaped, as he and Williams
were for it, while the Chief Justice was against it.
January 30th, 1840 {p.260}
The great debate in the House of Commons has now lasted two
nights,[23] without being very interesting. Sir George Grey made
a brisk, dashing speech quite at the beginning, which was very
effective, but when read, disappoints, as there does not seem a
great deal in it. Last night Macaulay failed. He delivered an
essay, not without merit, but inapplicable, and not the sort of
thing that is wanted in such a debate. He had said he should not
be of use to them, and he appears to have judged correctly. The
Tories affected to treat his speech with contempt, and to talk
and laugh, which was a rudeness worthy of the noisy and ignorant
knot that constitutes the tail of that party. Howick attacked
everybody all round, and explained his own motive for leaving
office, not alluding to the Secretary of State's office; and
Graham made one of his usual speeches.
[23] [Sir John Yarde Buller moved a resolution that 'Her
Majesty's Government, as at present constituted, does
not possess the confidence of this House,' which was
defeated after a long debate by 308 votes to 287.]
January 31st, 1840 {p.261}
Macaulay's speech, which was said to be a failure, reads better
than Sir George Grey's, which met with the greatest success--the
one fell flat upon the audience, while the other was singularly
effective. So great is the difference between good manner and
bad, and between the effect produced by a dashing, vivacious,
light, and active style, and a ponderous didactic eloquence, full
of matter, but not suited in arrangement or delivery, and in all
its accessory parts, to the taste of the House.
[Page Head: THE MONMOUTH CONVICTS.]
The question of sparing the lives of the Monmouth prisoners or
not is everywhere discussed, with an almost general opinion that,
under all the circumstances, the Government cannot let the law
take its course. It is impossible for any reasoning to be more
fallacious, because, if pushed to its just conclusion, it must
result that they ought to escape altogether, which nobody expects
or desires. The case has been very curious from the beginning;
and end how it may, no criminals ever had so many chances
afforded them of escape; never were there nicer points for the
decision of different people or different stages of the business,
or more blunders committed by almost all concerned. In the first
place, Maule, the Crown solicitor, failed to comply with the
letter of the Act, and did not furnish the prisoners with lists
of the jury and the witnesses _at the same time_ ten days before
the trial. He gave them one list ten days before, and the other
fifteen days before. The Attorney-General was aware of the fact,
and aware that a question would arise upon it; the judges
appointed to the special Commission were apprised of it by their
Associates, and they communicated with each other upon it. They
considered whether they should convey the expression of their
doubts upon this point to the Government, so that the difficulty
might be rectified; but they agreed that their duty was to try
the cause, and not to interfere in any way whatever, and they
accordingly held their peace. It was in the power of the
Attorney-General to postpone the trial for ten days, which would
have removed every difficulty and objection, but he was so
certain that the objection could not be maintained, that he would
not do so, and chose to run the risk, unwisely, as it has turned
out. The trial came on, and the counsel for the prisoners,
instead of urging the objection _in limine_, suffered them to
plead; whereas, if they had refused to plead, they would have
escaped altogether.[24] The trial proceeded; they were found
guilty, and recommended to mercy, but the Chief Justice never
asked the jury upon what grounds, leaving it doubtful whether the
jury thought that there were any extenuating circumstances, or
whether they were actuated by terror, or mere repugnance to the
infliction of capital punishment. It was probably the great
importance of the case, and the fact of the Chief of the
Commission being against the objection, which induced the other
two who were in its favour to agree to refer it to the other
judges; for if it had been settled on the spot the trials would
have ended at once. Moreover it was believed that the judges
thought very lightly of the objection, and Brougham told me they
were _unanimous_, so ill-informed was he of their real opinions.
[24] This is not so. If they had raised the objection before
the prisoners pleaded, the Attorney-General could have
put the trial off, and of course if the judges thought
the objection valid, he would have done so.
[Page Head: THE PRECEDENCE OF PRINCE ALBERT.]
Yesterday morning I met Lord FitzGerald, when we walked together,
and I begged him to find some expedient for settling _à
l'amiable_ the question of Precedence, so as to pacify the Queen
if possible, who was much excited about it. He spoke very
despondingly of the general state of affairs, but said that he
was as anxious as anybody to avoid unpleasant discussions upon
it, and to satisfy her if possible, but that the House of Lords
were running breast high upon it. I begged him to see the Duke of
Wellington, to tell him what her feeling was, and entreat him to
take measures to settle it quietly. He said he would see him, and
that he was convinced if the Duke had his own way, he would be
disposed to do this; but that if it was left to Lyndhurst and
Ellenborough, it was impossible to answer for what they might do.
His own impression was, that they might and ought to give him
precedence for her life over the rest of the Royal Family (though
it was very awkward with regard to the King of Hanover, when he
refused his consent), but not over a Prince of Wales, to which,
he thought, they never would consent. We talked the matter over
in all its bearings, and the result was, that he undertook to go
to the Duke and tell him what I had said. I had (not an hour ago)
a confirmation of what he said as to Ellenborough, for I met him
at his own door (next mine), when I said to him, 'What are you
going to do about the precedence?' To which he said, 'Oh, give
him the same which Prince George of Denmark had: place him next
before the Archbishop of Canterbury.' I said, 'That will by no
means satisfy the Queen;' at which he tossed up his head, and
said, 'What does that signify?'
FitzGerald afterwards talked to me of Peel and his party, of
their violent language on account of his conduct in the Privilege
question, and of his annoyance at their separation from him--not
the lawyers, or those really competent to form an opinion, but
the great mass destitute of the knowledge or understanding
necessary to form an opinion--and only opposing him because he
supported John Russell. Amongst other things, when we were
talking of the event of May last, and of the Queen's antipathy to
Peel, he said that it was altogether unaccountable, for even from
his last interview he had come away not dissatisfied with her
manner, and he owned that he had no doubt Melbourne did his best
honestly to drive out of her mind the prejudices which have so
great an influence upon her; and at that very crisis, he told me
as a proof of it, that at the ball at Court, Melbourne went up to
Peel and whispered to him with the greatest earnestness, 'For
God's sake, go and speak to the Queen.' Peel did not go, but the
entreaty and the refusal were both characteristic. FitzGerald
said, that nothing would induce Peel to continue (after this
fight) a worrying war with the Government; and added, what is
very true, that though a weak Opposition was a very bad thing,
there was no small danger and difficulty in leading a strong one.
February 4th, 1840 {p.264}
After four nights' debate and division, at five in the morning,
Government got a majority of twenty-one, just what was (at last)
expected. Peel spoke for three hours, and so elaborately as to
fatigue the House, so that his speech probably seems much better
to the reader than to the hearer of it. The Opposition all along
abstained from attacking the Government upon their measures, and
Peel directed his artillery against their compromise of principle
in making Ballot an open question, and the general laxity of
their political morality. But the most important part of his
speech was his declaration of the principles by which he meant to
be governed in office or out; and his manly and distinct
announcement to his followers, that they must support him on his
own terms, and that if they did not like them, he was sorry for
it, and they might look elsewhere for a leader if they chose it.
There can be no doubt that it was wise and bold thus to cast
himself on public opinion, and to put forth a manifesto, which
leaves no doubt of his future conduct, and from which there is no
retreat for him, and by which all his adherents must be equally
bound. On the other hand, Lord John, considering he rose at three
in the morning, when he and the House must have been pretty well
exhausted, made a very good and honourable speech, and ended with
a declaration quite as Conservative as Peel's was on the other
hand Liberal, so much so that it is really difficult to say what
difference there now is between them, nor does there appear any
reason why (circumstances permitting) they should not act
together to-morrow. As far as the two _parties_ are concerned,
taking debate and division, perhaps no great advantage has been
gained by either, but I think the discussion has been beneficial
by eliciting the above declaration from the respective leaders.
[Page Head: ROYAL PRECEDENCE REFUSED.]
The Precedence Question has fallen to the ground, and is left
unsettled, in a manner much to be regretted. After my interview
with FitzGerald, I went to Clarendon and told him what had
passed. He went to the Cabinet, and prevailed on Duncannon to
speak to Melbourne and get him to communicate with the Duke, for
the purpose of settling the question if possible amicably.
Melbourne said he would, but did not. On Friday the Cabinet
agreed to give up the precedence over the Prince of Wales; but to
a question of Brougham's the Chancellor said, he had no other
concession to offer. It was then agreed that the discussion
should be taken on Monday. On Saturday Clarendon spoke to
Melbourne himself, and urged him to consider seriously the
inconvenience of a battle on this point, and prevailed upon him
to go to the Duke of Wellington and talk it over with him. He
wrote to the Duke, who immediately agreed to receive him; when he
went to Apsley House, and they had an hour's conversation.
Melbourne found him with one of his very stiffest crotchets in
his head, determined only to give the Prince precedence after the
Royal Family; and all he could get from him was, that it would be
_unjust_ to do more. All argument was unavailing, and he left him
on Saturday evening without having been able to make any
impression on him, or to move him by a representation of the
Queen's feelings to make concessions to meet those the Government
were prepared to make; for the Queen would have been content to
accept precedence for her life, and saving the rights of the
Prince of Wales. This, however, they would not consent to; and so
determined were they to carry their point, that they made a grand
whip up, and brought Lord Clare all the way from Grimsthorpe, to
vote upon it. Under these circumstances the Government resolved
to withdraw the clause, and they did so, thus leaving the Prince
without any specific place assigned by Parliament, and it remains
with the Queen to do what she can for him, or for courtesy, tacit
consent, and deference for her Consort to give him the precedence
virtually which the House of Lords refuses to bestow formally. I
think the Duke has acted strangely in this matter, and the
Conservatives generally very unwisely. _Volentibus non fit
injuria_, and the Dukes of Sussex and Cambridge, who alone were
concerned, had consented to the Prince's precedence. The King of
Hanover, it seems, was never applied to because they knew he
would have refused; and they did not deem his consent necessary.
There is no great sympathy for the lucky Coburgs in this country,
but there is still less for King Ernest, and it will have all the
effect of being a slight to the Queen out of a desire to gratify
him. There certainly was not room for much more dislike in her
mind of the Tories; but it was useless to give the Prince so
ungracious and uncordial a reception, and to render him as
inimical to them as she already is. As an abstract question, I
think his precedence unnecessary; but under all the circumstances
it would have been expedient and not at all unjust to grant it.
February 13th, 1840 {p.266}
The discussion about the Precedence question induced me to look
into the authorities and the ancient practice, and to give the
subject some consideration. I came to the conclusion that she has
the power to give him precedence everywhere but in Parliament and
in Council, and on the whole that _her husband_ ought to have
precedence. So I wrote a pamphlet upon it, setting forth the
result of my enquiry and my opinion. I have been in many minds
about publishing it, and I believe I shall, though it is
certainly not worth much.
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S MARRIAGE.]
The wedding on Monday went off tolerably well.[25] The week
before was fine, and Albert drove about the town with a mob
shouting at his heels. Tuesday, Wednesday, and to-day, all
beautiful days; but Monday, as if by a malignant influence, was a
dreadful day--torrents of rain, and violent gusts of wind.
Nevertheless a countless multitude thronged the park, and was
scattered over the town. I never beheld such a congregation as
there was, in spite of the weather. The Queen proceeded in state
from Buckingham House to St. James's without any cheering, but
then it was raining enough to damp warmer loyalty than that of a
London mob. The procession in the Palace was pretty enough by all
accounts, and she went through the ceremony with much grace and
propriety, not without emotion, though sufficiently subdued, and
her manner to her family was very pretty and becoming. Upon
leaving the Palace for Windsor she and her young husband were
pretty well received; but they went off in a very poor and shabby
style. Instead of the new chariot in which most married people
are accustomed to dash along, they were in one of the old
travelling coaches, the postilions in undress liveries, and with
a small escort, three other coaches with post-horses following.
The crowds on the road were so great that they did not reach the
Castle till eight o'clock.
[25] [Queen Victoria was married to Prince Albert of Saxe-
Coburg-Gotha on the 10th February, 1840.]
February 15th (Saturday), 1840 {p.267}
The Duke of Wellington had a serious seizure on Thursday.[26] He
dines early, and he rode out after dinner. The first symptom of
something wrong was, that he could not make out the numbers on
the doors of the houses he wanted to call at. He went to Lady
Burghersh, and when he came away, the footman told his groom he
was sure his Grace was not well, and advised him to be very
attentive to him. Many people were struck with the odd way he sat
on his horse. As he went home this got more apparent. When not
far from Apsley House he dropped the reins out of his left hand,
but took them up with the other, and when he got to his own door,
he found he could not get off his horse. He felt his hand
chilled. This has been the first symptom in each of his three
attacks. He was helped off. Hume was sent for, came directly, and
got him to bed. He had a succession of violent convulsions, was
speechless, and his arm was affected. They thought he would have
died in the night. The doctors came, physicked but did not bleed
him, and yesterday morning he was better. He has continued to
mend ever since, but it was a desperate blow, and offers a sad
prospect. He will probably again rally, but these things must be
always impending, and his mind must be affected, and will be
thought to be so. Lyndhurst asked me last night what could be
done. He said, 'The Duke ought now to retire from public life,
and not expose himself to any appearance of an enfeebled
understanding. Above all things to be deprecated is, that he
should ever become a dotard like Marlborough, or a driveller like
Swift.' 'How,' he said, 'would Aberdeen do?' He owned that nobody
could replace the Duke or keep the party in order, and he said
that the consequence would be it would break up, that '_there are
many who would be glad of an opportunity to leave it_.' This I
told him I did not believe, but it certainly is impossible to
calculate on the consequences of the Duke's death, or, what is
nearly the same thing, his withdrawal from the lead of the party.
[26] [The Duke was seventy when he had this seizure,
supposed at the time to be fatal, at least to his
faculties. But he lived for twelve years after it and
continued during the greater part of that time to
render great public services and to lead the Tory
party.]
February 16th, 1840 {p.268}
The Duke of Wellington, although his life was in such danger on
Thursday night, that the chances were he would die, has thrown
off his attack in a marvellous manner, and is now rapidly
approaching to convalescence, all dangerous symptoms subsiding.
The doctors, both Astley Cooper and Chambers, declare that they
have never seen such an extraordinary power of rallying in
anybody before in the whole course of their practice, and they
expect that he will be quite as well again as he was before. It
is remarkable that he has an accurate recollection of all the
steps of his illness from the first perception of uneasy
sensations to the moment of being seized with convulsions. He
first felt a chillness in his hand, and he was surprised to find
himself passing and repassing Lady Burghersh's house without
knowing which it was. He called, however, and went up; and to her
enquiry--for she was struck with his manner--he replied that he
was quite well. Going home he dropped the rein, but caught it up
with the other hand. When he arrived at his door, the servants
saw he could not get off his horse, and helped him, and one of
them ran off instantly for Hume. The Duke walked into his
sitting-room, where Hume found him groaning, and standing by the
chimney-piece. He got him to bed directly, and soon after the
convulsions came on.
[Page Head: PAMPHLET ON ROYAL PRECEDENCE.]
I have sent forth my pamphlet, and there seems a chance of its
being read. Lord Melbourne said to me, 'What is to be done about
this Precedence?' I said, 'I have told you[27] what I think is to
be done. Have you sent my pamphlet to the Queen?' 'I have sent it
her, and desired her to show it to Prince Albert; and I have sent
it to the Chancellor, and desired him to give me his opinion on
the law, as it requires great consideration and great care.'[28]
I asked him, 'if he had any doubt about the law, that is, about
_my_ law.' He said, 'he had doubts whether the Act of Henry VIII.
was not more stringent.' I told him I had consulted Parke,
Bosanquet, and Erskine, that we had read the Act together, and
they were all clear that the Prerogative was not limited except
as to Parliament and the Council. At all events, I said, he ought
not to be made a Privy Councillor till after this matter was
settled, and to that he agreed; and it was settled that he should
not be sworn at the Council to-morrow. So thus it stands, and if
the Chancellor sees no objection, my plan will be adopted, and I
shall have settled for them, having no earthly thing to do with
it, what they ought to have settled for themselves long ago, and
have avoided all the squabbling and bad blood which have been the
result of their unlucky Bill. In the meantime the Duke read my
pamphlet yesterday, and to-day I went there to hear what he said
to it, and found that he agreed with me entirely, and that he is
all for the adoption of my suggestion. This I forthwith
despatched to Clarendon, who was gone to the Levée, and desired
him to tell Melbourne of it.
[27] I had already sent my pamphlet to Melbourne and to a
few other people.
[28] [Mr. Greville contended in his pamphlet that the Act of
Henry VIII. for 'Placing the Lords' applied only to
their precedence in the House of Lords and in the Privy
Council, which being statutory could not be changed;
but that it was competent to the Crown to confer any
precedence elsewhere. Prince Albert was not a Peer, and
he was not at this time a Privy Councillor; therefore,
the provisions of the statutes of Henry VIII. did not
apply to him. He was subsequently introduced into the
Privy Council, where by courtesy rank was given him
next the Queen when no other member of the Royal Family
was present. As this pamphlet has some legal and
historical interest, it is reprinted in the Appendix to
this volume.]
February 21st, 1840 {p.270}
On Thursday morning I got a note from Arbuthnot, desiring I would
call at Apsley House. When I got there, he told me that the Duke
of Cambridge had sent for Lord Lyndhurst to consult him; that
they were invited to meet the Queen on Friday at the Queen
Dowager's, and he wanted to know what he was to do about giving
precedence to Prince Albert. Lord Lyndhurst came to Apsley House
and saw the Duke about it, and they agreed to report to the Duke
of Cambridge their joint opinion that the Queen had an
unquestionable right to give him any precedence she pleased, and
that he had better concede it without making any difficulty. The
Duke acquiesced, and accepted the invitation. Melbourne told me
the Queen was well satisfied with my pamphlet, but 'she remarked
that there was a very high compliment to the Duke of Wellington
at the end of it.' I asked if she had said it was a _just one_.
He said, 'No, she did not say that.'
[Page Head: BILL ON THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.]
I heard from Arbuthnot this morning that the Duke has set his
face resolutely against any Bill in the House of Lords to settle
the Privilege question; and that Lyndhurst, though not so strong
in his opinion as the Duke, is resolved to abide by his
determination, and to go with him. The Duke, in fact, goes as far
as any of the opponents of the Privilege, for he not only thinks
that the dicta of the Judges are not to be questioned, but that
the House of Commons ought not to have the Privilege at all--that
is, that their papers ought not to be sold, and that they ought
not to be circulated without anything being previously weeded out
of them which the law would consider libellous. This strong
opinion of his renders the question exceedingly difficult and
embarrassing, for it was become very clear that nothing but the
intervention of the House of Lords could untie so ravelled a
knot. All the Tories are in a state of mingled rage and despair
at the impetuosity with which Peel has plunged into this matter,
and at the irretrievable manner in which he has identified
himself with Lord John Russell upon it. Stanley and Graham have
always voted with him, but have never once opened their lips,
from which it is sufficiently clear that they don't go nearly so
far as he does, and now Graham is acting as a sort of mediator
and negotiator, to try and effect some compromise or arrangement,
but the case seems nearly hopeless. Peel, on the other hand, is
evidently as much annoyed and provoked with his party as his
party with him. The other day, Arbuthnot, Peel, and Graham met at
Apsley House, and talked upon every subject, Arbuthnot told me,
but that of Privilege, on which none of them touched--a pretty
clear proof how tender the ground is become. The Tory press has
grown very violent, and treats Peel with no more forbearance for
his conduct on this question than the Whig and Radical did John
Russell for his speech about Church rates; so rabid and
unscrupulous are all Ultras of whatever opinion. I told Melbourne
how matters stood, at which he seemed mightily disconcerted.
February 25th, 1840 {p.271}
Yesterday I saw the Duke of Wellington, whom I had not seen for
above six months, except for a moment at the Council just after
his first illness. He looked better than I expected--very thin,
and his clothes hanging about him, but strong on his legs, and
his head erect. The great alteration I remarked was in his voice,
which was hollow, though loud, and his utterance, which, though
not indistinct, was very slow. He is certainly now only a ruin.
He is gone to receive the Judges at Strathfieldsaye, and he will
go on again when he comes back to town, and hold on while he can.
It is his desire to die with the harness on his back, and he
cannot endure the notion of retirement and care of his life,
which is only valuable to him while he can exert it in active
pursuits. I doubt if he could live in retirement and inactivity--
the life of a valetudinarian.
Besides the Precedence question, another is now raised about the
Liturgy. The Queen wants to insert the Prince's name in it; they
sent to me to know if Prince George's (of Denmark) had been
inserted, and I found it had not. There was a division of
opinion, but the majority of the Cabinet were disposed to put in
Prince Albert's. Before deciding anything they consulted the
Archbishop of Canterbury. Yesterday, however, on looking into the
Act of Uniformity, I satisfied myself that the Queen has not the
power to insert his name; and I believe that the insertion, on
former occasions, of Princesses of Wales was illegal, and could
not have been sustained if it ever had been questioned. This I
imparted to Lords Lansdowne and Clarendon, to deal with the fact
as they pleased; and I asked the opinions of Parke, Bosanquet,
and Lushington, who were sitting at the Judicial Committee, and
they all agreed that she had not the power, under the 25th sec.
of the Act of Uniformity.
March 5th, 1840 {p.272}
The Duke of Wellington returned to town; went up with the Oxford
address, and dines at the Palace on Monday. So he is again in
harness; but he is a broken man, and I fear we shall see him show
himself in eclipse, which will be a sorry sight. He has consented
to waive his objections to the settlement by Bill of the
Privilege question, so it probably will be settled; and high time
it is that it should be. It is curious to see how little interest
the public takes in it, not caring a straw for the House of
Commons, or the sheriffs, and regarding the squabble with extreme
apathy. There has been a great delay in getting ready the patent
of precedence for Prince Albert, because the law officers can't
make up their minds as to the terms of it, and whether
exceptional words should be introduced or not. My pamphlet has
succeeded far beyond my hopes or expectations, and got me many
compliments, which I never looked for from such a trifle. Peel
said civil things to FitzGerald about it; only the Royal Family
and the Cambridges don't like it, on account of my having
explained the status of Prince George (of Cambridge); and they
fancy, in the event of his going to Germany, it might be
injurious to him, which seems very fanciful; but their pride is
hurt.
March 6th, 1840 {p.273}
[Page Head: JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL.]
The Chancellor spoke to me at the Council on Thursday about his
Judicial Committee[29] Amendment Bill, and begged to have any
information about practice, and any suggestions, I could give
him. Some of the provisions of his Bill appeared objectionable,
and I consulted Dr. Lushington about it. He agreed, particularly
as to the plan of making the Master of the Rolls (as Vice-
President) the organ of the court, and making it imperative on
him to give judgement in all cases. Yesterday I went to the
Chancellor and told him the objections to which I thought his
plan was liable, which he received very candidly and thankfully,
and seemed only anxious to hear and consider anything that could
be suggested. He is very different from Brougham, who, when he
framed the original Bill, was full of tricks and mystery, and
tried to make a job of it and create patronage for himself,
besides being very obstinate about the details which were then
objected to. The Chancellor said he would send me the Bill, which
he wished me to examine, and return with any observations I
thought fit.
[29] [This Bill with reference to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council did not pass. It would have made the
Master of the Rolls head of the Court, and its chief
organ.]
Prince Albert was gazetted last night. His precedence is not
fixed by patent under the Great Seal, but by Warrant (I suppose,
under the Sign Manual).
Copleston has got £1,000 for the little volume of Dudley's
letters[30] which he has just published. They are very well in
their way--clever, neatly written, not very amusing, rather
artificial, such as everybody reads because they were Dudley's,
but which nobody would think worth reading if they were
anonymous. A mighty proof of the value of a name.
[30] [Copleston, Bishop of Llandaff and Dean of St. Paul's,
was an intimate friend of the late Lord Dudley, and
published part of their correspondence; but the
executors of Lord Dudley, who were the Bishop of Exeter
and Lord Hatherton, caused part of it to be
suppressed.]
March 12th, 1840 {p.274}
The Chancellor sent me his Bill, after which I called on him, and
told him all my objections, and made several suggestions, which
he received very well, and begged me to put in writing what I had
said to him. This I did, and sent the paper to him, which he said
he would send to Lushington, whom I had begged him to consult. I
met Lyndhurst at Lady Glengall's, and had some talk with him
about it, and found he agreed pretty well with me, and that he is
strongly in favour of appointing a permanent Chief of our court,
for _ministerial_ purposes. The Chancellor has himself been very
unwillingly compelled to propose this scheme of reform, for he
hates all alterations, and does not like to begin cleansing the
Augean stable of the Court of Chancery.
When I was with the Chancellor the other day, he said a
difficulty had been started about making Prince Albert a Privy
Councillor before he was of age, and asked me if there was
anything in it. I found, on looking into the books, that the
Royal Dukes had not been brought into Council till they were of
age, but probably that was because they could not take their
seats in the House of Lords before; but I also found very clear
proofs that George III.'s sons had not been sworn but
_introduced_ in his reign, and this puzzled me, for I remembered
to have sworn several of them at different times, during the
present and two last reigns. I therefore wrote to the Duke of
Sussex, and asked him what had occurred in his case. His reply
cleared the matter up. He said the King's sons are _born_ Privy
Councillors, and that they are declared sworn by the King
whenever he pleases; that accordingly he was merely introduced
into Council in 1807; but after the death of George III., when he
stood in a different relation to the reigning Sovereign, he was
sworn; and again at the accessions of King William IV. and Queen
Victoria. I found an account in the Council Books of the form
with which the Prince of Wales was introduced into Council in
1784, and this I sent to Melbourne to show to the Queen,
suggesting that Prince Albert should be introduced upon the same
terms as Prince George of Denmark had been, and with the same
ceremonies as the Prince of Wales in 1784.
The Duke of Wellington has reappeared in the House of Lords, goes
about, and works as usual, but everybody is shocked and grieved
at his appearance. Lyndhurst expressed his alarm to me, lest he
should go on until it became _desirable_ that he should retire,
and his regret that his friends could not prevail upon him to do
so while he still can with dignity. He dined at the Palace on
Monday, and was treated with the greatest civility by the Queen.
Indeed, she has endeavoured to repair her former coldness by
every sort of attention and graciousness, to which he is by no
means insensible.
[Page Head: CREEVEY'S JOURNAL.]
Her Majesty went last night to the Ancient Concert (which she
particularly dislikes), so I got Melbourne to dine with me, and
he stayed talking till twelve o'clock. He told us, among other
things, that he had seen Dudley's Diary (now said to be
destroyed), which contained very little that was interesting upon
public matters, but the most ample and detailed disclosures about
women in society, with their names at full length. Melbourne
expressed his surprise that anybody should write a journal, and
said that he had never written anything, except for a short time
when he was very young, and that he had soon put in the fire all
that he had written. He talked of Creevey's Journal, and of that
which Dover is supposed to have left behind him; both of whom, at
different times and in different ways, knew a good deal of what
was going on. Melbourne said Creevey had been very shrewd, but
exceedingly bitter and malignant; and I was rather surprised to
hear him talk of Lord Dover as having been very bitter also, an
underhand dealer and restless intriguer. I knew very well that he
had ambition and vanity, which were constantly urging him to play
a part more than commensurate with his capacity, and that he
delighted in that sort of political _commérage_ which gave him
importance (and this was the great cause of his friendship with
Brougham, who was just the man for him, and he for Brougham), but
I did not think it was his nature to be bitter, or that he ever
intended to be mischievous--only busy and bustling, within the
bounds of honour and fairness.