Successes in India, China, and Syria--The Hereditary Pashalik of
Egypt--Lord Palmerston's Hostility to France--Lord Palmerston
and the Tories--His extraordinary Position--A Communication
from M. Guizot--Death of the Duchess of Cannizzaro--Her
History--Dinner with Lady Holland--Macaulay's Conversation--
Opening of the Session--A Sheriffs' Dinner--Hullah's Music
Lecture--Tory Successes--Duke of Wellington ill--Irish
Registration Bill--Opposed by the Conservatives--Conservative
Government of Ireland--Petulance of Lord Palmerston--Double
Dealing of Lord Palmerston--Ill Temper of the French--M.
Dedel's account of the State of Affairs--M. Dedel's account
corrected--Termination of the Disputes with France--Bad News
from China--Hostility of the United States--The Sultan's Hatti-
sherif--The Hatti-sherif disapproved by some Ministers--Peel's
Liberality--The Hatti-sherif disavowed--The Bishop of Exeter
left in the lurch--Poor Law Amendment Bill--Lord Granville's
Illness--Death of Mrs. Algernon Greville--Loss of 'The
President'--Government defeated--China Troubles--Danger of the
Government.
January 7th, 1841 {p.360}
Yesterday arrived (through the French telegraph) the news of the
death of the King of Lahore, the surrender of Dost Mahomed, and
the settlement of the Chinese quarrel, all coming just in time to
swell out the catalogue of successes to be announced in the
Queen's Speech. In France the aspect of affairs is improving, the
King has given answers on New Year's Day which he would not have
ventured to make a short time ago, and His Majesty assures Lord
Granville that the war fever is rapidly diminishing. The French
hardly trouble themselves now (except in an occasional undergrowl
in some Liberal paper) about Syria, and the Government
considering Mehemet Ali's destiny decided, only desire to be re-
admitted into the great European Council, for the purpose of
participating in the measures to be adopted for determining the
condition of the Christian population of Syria, and for securing
Constantinople from any exclusive protection or influence.
[Page Head: LORD PONSONBY'S VIOLENCE.]
At this moment, however, everything is unsettled with regard to
Egypt, and Lord Ponsonby has been acting in his usual furious
style with such effect that it is not at all certain the question
will be settled without a good deal of trouble. Upon the receipt,
at Constantinople, of Napier's unauthorised Convention with the
Pasha, Ponsonby instantly assembled the ambassadors, moved that
it should be rejected and disavowed, and signified the same to
the Ministers of the Porte, who, of course, desired no better
than to acquiesce. At Ponsonby's instigation, Redschid Pasha
wrote to say that the Sultan utterly disavowed this Convention;
that he might be disposed, out of deference to his allies, and at
their request, to grant some temporary favour and indulgence to
the family of the Pasha, but as to the hereditary possession of
Egypt, _he had never heard of_, or contemplated, any such thing,
nor would ever listen to it; and he reminded the Allied Powers
that such a grant would be in direct contravention of the
principle of the Treaty itself, which had for its object the
maintenance of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. It remains to
be seen what will be done at Constantinople when the intelligence
of Stopford's Convention (so to call it) arrives there, which, in
fact, differs in no respect from that of Napier; but it is very
extraordinary that Ponsonby should write word that the Sultan had
never _heard_ any question of the hereditary grant of Egypt,
when, in the middle of October, a despatch was written to him
(which was at the same time communicated to the French
Government) ordering him to propose to the Sultan this
restitution. Unless, therefore, this despatch was not sent, or he
took upon himself to disobey his instruction, it must be false
that the Turkish Government never heard of such a question. Lord
John Russell, who went to Broadlands the other day, wrote to
Melbourne that he found Bülow, Neumann, and Esterhazy there, and
there seemed to be a great deal of discussion going on between
them all, and much doubt as to the question of _hérédité_, but
that he was of opinion that this question admitted of no doubt,
and that we were bound to insist upon it after the assurances we
had given to France. Of Palmerston's opinions he did not say a
word. However, whether Palmerston wishes to push matters to
further extremities against the Viceroy or not, he will hardly
attempt it, for, easy as he has hitherto found it, with the
opportune aid of events, to baffle all opposition in the Cabinet,
he would certainly meet with a resistance to any such design that
he would not be able to overcome. His successes have not made him
more moderate and conciliatory towards France, and I have no
doubt that if he had the drawing up of the Queen's Speech, he
would take an insulting and triumphant tone in it, which would
fan the expiring flame of passion and hostility, and widen the
breach between the two countries.
[Page Head: LORD PALMERSTON AND THE TORIES.]
The other day Lord Clarendon wrote to him, sending a sort of
message from the French Court (through Madame de Montjoie)
expressive of a hope that a conciliatory disposition would
prevail; to which he responded in a strain of insolent invective
against France and her designs, saying that her object was to
extort concessions from us which we should never make, and that
now we were strong in our alliance with the other Powers we might
defy her to injure us. This letter Clarendon showed to Melbourne,
who had asked him if he knew what Palmerston's feelings were (he
himself knowing nothing), and he was, of course, struck with the
bitterness and asperity of his tone. Melbourne told Clarendon
that Palmerston was still very sore at the articles which had
appeared in the 'Times,' and at the communications that had taken
place between parties here and their French correspondents, and
he particularly mentioned Reeve's with Tocqueville--Lord
Lansdowne having probably shown Palmerston the letter which
Tocqueville wrote to Reeve[1] just before the great debate in the
Chamber. Clarendon said he could not imagine what Palmerston had
to complain of in the 'Times,' as, though there had been some
articles attacking him, the far greater number had been in his
favour. Melbourne said there had been a great deal the other way,
and that Palmerston and his Tory friends with whom he had
communicated had been constantly surprised to find that there was
an influence stronger than their own in that quarter.
[1] [This was a very remarkable letter M. de Tocqueville
wrote to me in November, showing the danger of driving
France to extremities, which might involve the
overthrow of the Government in that country.
Tocqueville was always penetrated with the conviction
that the throne of Louis Philippe rested on no solid
foundation; and undoubtedly the Treaty of July 1840 was
a severe blow to its stability, and led to further
disputes, and more fatal consequences. The letter in
question was shown by me to Lord Lansdowne, and I was
told it was read to the Cabinet. At any rate, it was
read by Lord Melbourne, who attached great importance
to it.--H.R.]
January 9th, 1841 {p.363}
The other day at Windsor, when Clarendon was sitting talking with
Melbourne, the latter in his lounging way, as if thinking aloud,
said, 'In all my experience, I never remember such a state of
things as the present; I never remember, in the course of my
political life, anything at all like it; it can't last--it's
impossible this Government can go on; Palmerston in communication
with the Tories--Palmerston and Ashley--' and then he stopped.
Clarendon said, 'What! you think Palmerston and the Tories will
come together?' To which Melbourne nodded assent. 'And which,'
Clarendon persevered, 'will come to the other: will Palmerston go
to Ashley, or will Ashley come to Palmerston?' To which Melbourne
chuckled and grunted, laughed and rubbed his hands, and only
said, 'Oh, I don't know.' These are the sentiments of the Prime
Minister about his own Government--a strange state of things:
while Palmerston is in confidential communication with the
Tories, or some of them, for the purpose of obtaining their
support to his policy, half of his own colleagues, though
committed, being adverse to it, and regarded by him as his worst
adversaries. He and John Russell, the two Secretaries of State--
the latter leader of the House of Commons--pass some days
together in the house of the former, without exchanging one word
upon the subject of foreign policy, and Lord John is reduced to
the necessity of gathering in conversation from Neumann and
Esterhazy what Palmerston's views and opinions are. These two
diplomats expressed the greatest indignation at Ponsonby's
proceedings, and Palmerston himself has renewed to Bourqueney the
assurances of his resolution to adhere to the engagements he had
already made to France with regard to Egypt. Melbourne, however,
acknowledged that he was entirely in the dark as to Palmerston's
real views and opinions, as he believed was every one of his
colleagues. He has no intimacy, no interchange of thought and
complete openness with anybody, and all they know is (and that
only as soon as he thinks fit to impart it) his notions with
regard to each particular question as its exigencies become
pressing. His position, however, is now a very remarkable one.
Belonging to a Government almost every member of which dislikes
or distrusts him, he has acquired, by recent events, a great
reputation, and is looked upon generally as a bold, able, and
successful statesman. In the event of a dislocation of parties,
he is free to adopt any course, and to join with any party.[2]
Almost all the domestic questions which have hitherto excited
interest have been settled, compromised, or thrown aside, and a
sudden interest has been awakened, and attention generally drawn
to our foreign policy and international relations. All that has
recently occurred--our treaties and our warlike operations--are
not looked upon as the work of the Government, but as that of
Palmerston alone--Palmerston, in some degree, as
contradistinguished from the Government. All this confers upon
him a vast importance, and enables him, neither unreasonably nor
improbably, to aspire to head and direct any Government that may
hereafter be formed by a dissolution and fresh combination of
parties.
[2] [I believe at this time, Lord Palmerston, irritated by
the opposition and distrust of his own colleagues, and
encouraged by the applause of the Tories, who were
delighted at the rupture of the alliance with France,
and eager to bully that country, did contemplate a
junction with the Tory party. But to this there was an
insurmountable obstacle, the deep distrust and dislike
of Sir Robert Peel, who thought Palmerston a dangerous
and mischievous Foreign Minister, and the hostility of
Lord Aberdeen. In fact, when these statesmen came into
office a few months later, they applied themselves
mainly to obliterate the traces of Palmerston's
quarrels. Nothing would have induced Sir Robert Peel to
take Palmerston into his Cabinet. It was otherwise,
some years later, when Lord Stanley had succeeded to
the leadership of the Conservative Party, and at that
time the negotiations between him and Lord Palmerston
were renewed, though without any result.--H.R.]
January 13th, 1841 {p.365}
Notwithstanding the comparative tranquillity which now prevails
in France, the madness of that people having taken another turn,
and venting itself upon a reckless expenditure, and the
extravagant project of fortifying Paris, Guizot is evidently
aware of, and alarmed at, certain intrigues now at work, for the
purpose of his ejection. Of these Molé is the object or the
agent, or both. Guizot sent over the other day to Reeve a paper,
cleverly done, in which Molé's position was discussed, and the
morality as well as possibility of his coming into office with
the aid of a coalition.
[Page Head: THE DUCHESS OF CANNIZZARO.]
The other day died the Duchess of Cannizzaro, a woman of rather
amusing notoriety, whom the world laughed with and laughed at,
while she was alive, and will regret a little because she
contributed in some degree to their entertainment. She was a Miss
Johnstone, and got from her brother a large fortune; she was very
short and fat, with rather a handsome face, totally uneducated,
but full of humour, vivacity, and natural drollery, at the same
time passionate and capricious. Her all-absorbing interest and
taste was music, to which all her faculties and time were
devoted. She was eternally surrounded with musical artists, was
their great patroness, and at her house the world was regaled
with the best music that art could supply. Soon after her
brother's death, she married the Count St. Antonio (who was
afterwards made Duke of Cannizzaro), a good-looking, intelligent,
but penniless Sicilian of high birth, who was pretty successful
in all ways in society here. He became disgusted with her,
however, and went off to Italy, on a separate allowance which she
made him. After a few years he returned to England, and they
lived together again; he not only became more disgusted than
before, but he had in the meantime formed a _liaison_ at Milan
with a very distinguished woman there, once a magnificent beauty,
but now as old and as large as his own wife, and to her he was
very anxious to return. This was Madame Visconti (mother of the
notorious Princess Belgioso), who, though no longer young, had
fine remains of good looks, and was eminently pleasing and
attractive. Accordingly, St. Antonio took occasion to elope (by
himself) from some party of pleasure at which he was present with
his spouse, and when she found that he had gone off without
notice or warning, she first fell into violent fits of grief,
which were rather ludicrous than affecting, and then set off in
pursuit of her faithless lord. She got to Dover, where the sight
of the rolling billows terrified her so much, that, after three
days of doubt whether she should cross the water or not, she
resolved to return, and weep away her vexation in London. Not
long afterwards, however, she plucked up courage, and taking
advantage of a smooth sea she ventured over the Straits, and set
off for Milan, if not to recover her fugitive better half, at all
events to terrify her rival and disturb their joys. The advent of
the Cannizzaro woman was to the Visconti like the irruption of
the Huns of old. She fled to a villa near Milan, which she
proceeded to garrison and fortify, but finding that the other was
not provided with any implements for a siege, and did not stir
from Milan, she ventured to return to the city, and for some time
these ancient heroines drove about the town glaring defiance and
hate at each other, which was the whole amount of the hostilities
that took place between them. Finding her husband was
irrecoverable, she at length got tired of the hopeless pursuit,
and resolved to return home, and console herself with her music
and whatever other gratifications she could command. Not long
after, she fell in love with a fiddler at a second-rate theatre
in Milan, and carried him off to England, which he found, if not
the most agreeable, the most profitable business he could engage
in. The affair was singular and curious, as showing what society
may be induced to put up with. There was not the slightest
attempt to conceal this connexion; on the contrary it was most
ostentatiously exhibited to the world, but the world agreed to
treat it as a joke, and do nothing but laugh at it. The only
difference 'the Duchesse' ever found was, that her Sunday parties
were less well attended; but this was because the world (which
often grows religious, but never grows moral) had begun to take
it into its head that it would keep holy the Sabbath _night_. The
worst part of the story was, that this profligate blackguard
bullied and plundered her without mercy or shame, and she had
managed very nearly to ruin herself before her death. What she
had left, she bequeathed to her husband, notwithstanding his
infidelities and his absence.
January 21st, 1841 {p.367}
[Page Head: MACAULAY'S CONVERSATION.]
[Page Head: MACAULAY'S MEMORY.]
I dined with Lady Holland yesterday. Everything there is exactly
the same as it used to be, excepting only the person of Lord
Holland, who seems to be pretty well forgotten.[3] The same talk
went merrily round, the laugh rang loudly and frequently, and,
but for the black and the mob-cap of the lady, one might have
fancied he had never lived or had died half a century ago. Such
are, however, affections and friendships, and such is the world.
Macaulay dined there, and I never was more struck than upon this
occasion by the inexhaustible variety and extent of his
information. He is not so _agreeable_ as such powers and
resources ought to make any man, because the vessel out of which
it is all poured forth is so ungraceful and uncouth; his voice
unmusical and monotonous, his face not merely inexpressive but
positively heavy and dull, no fire in his eye, no intelligence
playing round his mouth, nothing which bespeaks the genius and
learning stored within and which burst out with such
extraordinary force. It is impossible to mention any book in any
language with which he is not familiar; to touch upon any
subject, whether relating to persons or things, on which he does
not know everything that is to be known. And if he could tread
less heavily on the ground, if he could touch the subjects he
handles with a lighter hand, if he knew when to stop as well as
he knows what to say, his talk would be as attractive as it is
wonderful. What Henry Taylor said of him is epigrammatic and
true, 'that his memory has swamped his mind;' and though I do not
think, as some people say, that his own opinions are completely
suppressed by the load of his learning so that you know nothing
of his mind, it appears to me true that there is less of
originality in him, less exhibition of his own character, than
there probably would be if he was less abundantly stored with the
riches of the minds of others. We had yesterday a party well
composed for talk, for there were listeners of intelligence and a
good specimen of the sort of society of this house--Macaulay,
Melbourne, Morpeth, Duncannon, Baron Rolfe, Allen and Lady
Holland, and John Russell came in the evening. I wish that a
shorthand writer could have been there to take down all the
conversation, or that I could have carried it away in my head;
because it was curious in itself, and curiously illustrative of
the characters of the performers. Before dinner some mention was
made of the portraits of the Speakers in the Speaker's House, and
I asked how far they went back. Macaulay said he was not sure,
but certainly as far as Sir Thomas More. 'Sir Thomas More,' said
Lady Holland, 'I did not know he had been Speaker.' 'Oh, yes,'
said Macaulay, 'don't you remember when Cardinal Wolsey came down
to the House of Commons and More was in the chair?' and then he
told the whole of that well-known transaction, and all More had
said. At dinner, amongst a variety of persons and subjects,
principally ecclesiastical, which were discussed--for Melbourne
loves all sorts of theological talk--we got upon India and Indian
men of eminence, proceeding from Gleig's 'Life of Warren
Hastings,' which Macaulay said was the worst book that ever was
written; and then the name of Sir Thomas Munro came uppermost.
Lady Holland did not know why Sir Thomas Munro was so
distinguished; when Macaulay explained all that he had ever said,
done, written, or thought, and vindicated his claim to the title
of a great man, till Lady Holland got bored with Sir Thomas, told
Macaulay she had had enough of him, and would have no more. This
would have dashed and silenced an ordinary talker, but to
Macaulay it was no more than replacing a book on its shelf, and
he was as ready as ever to open on any other topic. It would be
impossible to follow and describe the various mazes of
conversation, all of which he threaded with an ease that was
always astonishing and instructive, and generally interesting and
amusing. When we went upstairs we got upon the Fathers of the
Church. Allen asked Macaulay if he had read much of the Fathers.
He said, not a great deal. He had read Chrysostom when he was in
India; that is, he had turned over the leaves and for a few
months had read him for two or three hours every morning before
breakfast; and he had read some of Athanasius. 'I remember a
sermon,' he said, 'of Chrysostom's in praise of the Bishop of
Antioch;' and then he proceeded to give us the substance of this
sermon till Lady Holland got tired of the Fathers, again put her
extinguisher on Chrysostom as she had done on Munro, and with a
sort of derision, and as if to have the pleasure of puzzling
Macaulay, she turned to him and said, 'Pray, Macaulay, what was
the origin of a _doll_? when were dolls first mentioned in
history?' Macaulay was, however, just as much up to the dolls as
he was to the Fathers, and instantly replied that the Roman
children had their dolls, which they offered up to Venus when
they grew older; and quoted Persius for
'Veneri donatae a virgine puppae,'
and I have not the least doubt, if he had been allowed to
proceed, he would have told us who was the Chenevix of ancient
Rome, and the name of the first baby that ever handled a doll.
[3] [He had been dead three months.]
The conversation then ran upon Milman's 'History of
Christianity,' which Melbourne praised, the religious opinions of
Locke, of Milman himself, the opinion of the world thereupon, and
so on to Strauss's book and his mythical system, and what he
meant by mythical. Macaulay began illustrating and explaining the
meaning of a _myth_ by examples from remote antiquity, when I
observed that in order to explain the meaning of 'mythical' it
was not necessary to go so far back; that, for instance, we might
take the case of Wm. Huntington, S.S.: that the account of his
life was historical, but the story of his praying to God for a
new pair of leather breeches and finding them under a hedge was
mythical. Now, I had just a general superficial recollection of
this story in Huntington's 'Life,' but my farthing rushlight was
instantly extinguished by the blaze of Macaulay's all-grasping
and all-retaining memory, for he at once came in with the whole
minute account of this transaction: how Huntington had prayed,
what he had found, and where, and all he had said to the tailor
by whom this miraculous nether garment was made.
January 30th, 1841 {p.370}
[Page Head: M. GUIZOT'S ESTIMATE OF LORD HOLLAND.]
Parliament opened on Tuesday last with a very meagre speech, on
which no amendment could be hung. The Duke spoke extremely well
in the House of Lords, and Peel the same in the House of Commons.
Both approved (the Duke without any qualification, Peel more
guardedly) of the foreign policy of the Government, and both said
everything that was conciliatory, nattering, and cordial to
France. John Russell and Palmerston both spoke in the same tone,
the latter especially, and his speech was totally free from
anything like triumph or exultation; in short, nothing could be
more favourable for Government than what passed, and nothing more
creditable to the country. It was temperate and dignified, and
exhibited a strong contrast to the fury and bluster of the French
debates and the Press, and consequently displayed the superiority
in every respect of our national character over theirs. At
present everything promises a very easy session, and the
Conservatives are confessedly reduced to look to the chapter of
accidents for some event which may help them to turn out the
Government and get hold of their places.[4] Lord John said
something about Lord Holland in the House of Commons, but
Melbourne could not be prevailed upon to say anything in the
House of Lords. Lady Holland was satisfied with Lord John's
speech, but though it was a prettily turned compliment, it was of
no great service in relieving him from the charges which have
been levelled at him in some of the newspapers.[5]
[4] [It is curious that a session which was destined to
witness the important proposals of the Whigs in the
direction of free trade, and to end so disastrously for
the Liberal party, and so well for the Conservatives,
should have begun thus tamely.]
[5] [Lord Holland had been attacked for the part he took in
opposition to the Treaty of July in the preceding year,
and for his earnest endeavours to avert a rupture with
France. The best answer to these aspersions on the
conduct of a most excellent man and true patriot occurs
in a letter from M. Guizot to Lady Holland of January
3, 1841, which has recently been published. I
transcribe the following sentences:--
'J'ai ressenti un vrai, un vif chagrin quand j'ai vu
le nom qui vous est cher compromis d'une façon si
inconvenante dans nos débats. J'aurais voulu raconter
moi-même, à tout le monde, sa bienveillance si sincère
pour la France, son désir si persévérant de maintenir
entre nos deux pays une amitié qu'il regardait comme
excellente pour tous les deux, et en même temps sa
constante préoccupation pour son propre pays, son
dévouement si tendre pour la Reine, son attachement si
fidèle pour ses collègues. Je n'ai rencontré personne
qui sût concilier à ce point tous les devoirs, tous les
sentiments, toutes les ideés. Dans la confiance de nos
entretiens j'ai bien souvent regretté que tout le monde
ne fût pas là pour l'entendre, tout le monde, Anglais,
Français, ceux dont il ne partageait pas les opinions
comme ceux qui étaient de son avis. Il aurait exercé
sur tout le monde une influence bien salutaire, et les
absurdes propos qui out été tenus, depuis qu'il n'est
plus là, auraient été complètement impossibles.']
February 1st, 1841 {p.371}
The Sheriffs' dinner at the Lord President's on Saturday.[6] It
must be owned they decide very conscientiously. One man asked for
exemption because he had, by keeping away Conservative votes,
decided an election in favour of a Whig candidate, and, though
otherwise disposed to let him off, they made him Sheriff directly
on reading this excuse. I sat next to Palmerston. It was amusing
to see how everything is blown over, and how success and the
necessity of making common cause has reconciled all jarring
sentiments; and it was amusing to hear Melbourne in one house and
John Russell in the other vigorously defending and praising
Palmerston's policy. It must be owned that Palmerston has
conducted himself well under the circumstances, without any air
of triumph or boasting either over his colleagues or his
opponents or the French. He has deserved his success by the
moderation with which he has taken it. I saw Bourqueney last
night, delighted with all that was said in Parliament,
especially, of course, by the Duke and Peel, but well satisfied
with John Russell and Palmerston, and he owned the tone of the
latter was unexceptionable.
[6] [The list of Sheriffs for the ensuing year is settled
at an annual dinner attended by the Cabinet Ministers,
when the three names designated by the judges for each
county are passed in review, excuses considered, and
one of the number chosen to be submitted to the Queen.]
February 4th, 1841 {p.372}
Went the night before last to Exeter Hall, to hear Mr. Hullah[7]
give a lecture on the teaching of vocal music in the Poor Law
schools (and elsewhere). Very interesting, well done, and the
illustration of his plan by the boys of Dr. Kay's school and
other (adult) pupils of Hullah's was excellent. The plan has been
tried with great success in France, Germany, and Switzerland, and
the Education Committee are disposed to assist in giving it a
trial here. These plans, which are founded in benevolence and a
sincere desire for the diffusion of good among the people, merit
every encouragement, and will in the end get it, for there is, in
the midst of much indifference and prejudice, a growing
disposition to ameliorate the condition of the masses, both
morally and physically.
[7] [I had myself put Mr. Hullah in relation with the
Government, and with Mr. Eden, who tried his system of
musical instruction (based on Wilhem's plan) at the
schools at Battersea. Indeed, I persuaded Hullah to go
to France to study Wilhem's system, which was in
operation there. Lord Lansdowne saw that musical
education was a neutral ground on which all parties
(those most divided) might agree; and he took up this
idea with success. Sydney Smith went to this lecture,
to Hullah's great delight, and it was very successful.
Mr. Hullah, after a long and useful career, died in
1884.--H.R.]
[Page Head: IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.]
Yesterday all the Tories were in high glee at their success at
the Canterbury and Walsall elections, the former not having been
expected by either party, and nevertheless they had a majority of
165 votes. It is certainly curious, for the Government have a
right to be popular, or, at least, to expect that no tide of
unpopularity should rise against them; and after all their
successes, and the declared inability of their opponents to find
fault with them, it is strange that they should lose ground to
the extent that they have. The Government see all the danger of
their position, and how very probable it is that they may be
reduced to the necessity of resignation or dissolution, and,
though they have no hopes of bettering themselves by the latter,
they have made up their minds to try the experiment, in order
that they may give the Queen no reason to accuse them of
unnecessarily deserting her, and not exhausting every expedient
to retain their places before they give them up. They are,
however, very much divided upon the question of what to dissolve
upon, some being for so doing on Stanley's Irish Registration
Bill, if then defeated, while others (more judiciously, _meâ
sententiâ_) are against going to the country on any Irish
question.[8]
[8] [The Irish system for the registration of voters
differed materially from that of England. In Ireland,
every person claiming to vote for the first time was
obliged to prove his title; in England, all claims were
admitted that were not objected to, and other abuses
had crept in. Attempts had been made by the Government
to remedy this evil, but in vain; and in 1840 Lord
Stanley, then in Opposition, took it in hand, and
brought in an Irish Registration Bill, which was
opposed by O'Connell and by Lord Morpeth, then Irish
Secretary, but on two successive divisions Ministers
were beaten. This Bill was, however, withdrawn. In 1841
Lord Stanley and Lord Morpeth both brought in Irish
Registration Bills; the former was meant to clear the
Register of fictitious voters, the latter was a Reform
Bill in disguise, for it extended the franchise to
leaseholders rated at £5 a year. The contest between
these two rival Bills occupied the early parts of the
session. The second reading of Lord Morpeth's Bill was
carried by 299 to 294, but eventually the qualification
clause was struck out of the Bill in Committee by a
division of 300 to 294 on April 29. (See Walpole's
_History of England_, vol. iii. p. 520.)]
February 9th, 1841 {p.373}
The Duke of Wellington had an attack the other night in the House
of Lords, and was taken home speechless, but not senseless. It
was severe, but short, and after the stomach was relieved, he
rapidly recovered, and in a day or two _pronounced_ himself as
well as ever. Of course the alarm was very great. He is very
eager about politics, and the Tory language is that of exceeding
gloom about the general aspect of affairs, while their own
affairs, as far as elections are concerned, flourish. In
Monmouthshire the Whig has resigned without a contest; the Tories
affect to consider Morpeth's Registration Bill as a revolution,
while the Whigs pretend that Stanley's will make every county in
Ireland a close Orange borough. Perhaps the debates may strike
out something approaching to the truth. Great disquietude at the
French armaments, considerable uneasiness at the dispute with
America, and much disgust at our having been apparently
bamboozled by the Chinese, form the principal topics of political
grievance and complaint.
February 12th, 1841 {p.373}
The other day I met Lord Howick, and had a talk with him about
the Irish questions now pending. The Government are much pleased
with his support of Morpeth's Bill. As he stands, as it were,
midway between the two Bills, I asked him to explain to me the
merits of the question, which he did, as it seemed to me, fairly
enough. He approves of the machinery of Stanley's registration,
and of Morpeth's definition of the franchise, not binding himself
to _amount_, but not objecting to that proposed. He showed me a
letter he wrote to Stanley, in a very amicable strain, setting
forth the danger which he thought would attend any settlement of
the question which did not embrace a definition of the franchise,
and entreating him to reconsider the question, for the purpose of
coming to some arrangement. The answer was not encouraging, for
it consisted of a note from Lady Stanley to Lady Howick, in which
she said that Stanley had got the gout in his hand, and could not
write, but desired her to say that he entirely disagreed with
Howick. Howick talked sensibly enough about it, and asked me if I
could not do anything to bring about a compromise, his notion
being that there should be a committee above stairs to take
evidence as to the effect of the £5 franchise, and that only the
principle of definition should be admitted. I told him I had no
means whatever, had no access to any of the leaders, that the
only men to whom I could talk were Graham or Fitzgerald, and that
if I fell in with either, I would see if any possibility
presented itself.
February 14th, 1841 {p.374}
[Page Head: SIR JAMES GRAHAM ON IRISH AFFAIRS.]
The day before yesterday I met Graham by accident at Boodle's, so
I took the opportunity of talking to him about these Bills, and I
soon found that there is no possibility of any compromise. He
expressed the greatest alarm and disgust at Morpeth's measure;
said that he had never seen Stanley so determined, and that he
and Peel both entirely agreed with him; that he could not
understand how John Russell, or indeed any member of Lord Grey's
Government, could consent to such a violation of the principle of
the Reform Bill, and to the formation of a new franchise, which,
if granted, must entail similar concessions in England and
Scotland; that the intention of the framers of the Reform Bill
was that, in the counties, property and not numbers should have
influence, and the effect of this Bill would be to transfer
influence from property to numbers. He spoke much of the
unpopularity of the Government, which he attributed to the Irish
connexion, and thought that this Bill would do them great harm in
England. When I urged the importance of settling affairs in
Ireland, and not leaving such a question as this to unite all the
country against them, if they came in again, and to revive the
great power of O'Connell, which had for some time been waning,
and I pointed out the great danger that might arise from Ireland
in the present unsettled state of Europe, he said, rather than
consent to such a measure as this, he was prepared to encounter
every difficulty and danger; he would never consent to transfer
power from the landed interest to the multitude; and as long as
the priests interfered in Irish elections, it could not be
expected that landlords would not counteract that influence by
diminishing as much as they could the numbers of those who were
made to act under it; that the old saying that Cromwell had
confiscated too much, or exterminated too little, was the truth;
he saw no way of pacifying that country, and as to concessions
they must have a limit, every concession had been made that could
be reasonably desired, and he would do no more. If they came into
power, he would be prepared to govern equitably, without fear or
favour, encouraging, without reference to political or religious
opinions, all those who supported the British connexion, and with
a determination to uphold without flinching the national
institutions. I asked him if he thought no transaction could be
effected with the Irish priests, so as to reconcile them to
Government; but he said that none was, he thought, now feasible.
He had been for the measure, but now England would not grant an
establishment to the Catholic clergy, and if she would, they
would not accept it, for they never would abandon the advantages
they enjoyed under the present system of voluntary contributions,
which was in most cases more profitable than any provision which
could possibly be held out to them.
The result of all this presents very serious matter for
reflexion, for this Irish question will probably draw a broad
line of separation between parties, afford respective rallying-
points, and secure a formidable and united opposition if the
Tories come in; and one cannot regard without the greatest
apprehension the prospect of a systematic determined hostility on
the part of the Irish masses towards this country with the
certainty almost that the ground on which the battle will be
fought will be that of maintaining the Irish Church. This is in
point of fact the interest which the Tory or English party
regard. Ireland is denied her share in representation, hers is
made an exceptional case, because she is under Catholic
influence, and because that Catholic influence will, they
suspect, if ever it is strong enough, exert its strength in
overturning the English Church. I do not think anybody of sense
and information believes that the Irish Catholic clergy or laity
have any disinclination to British connexion, except so far as
they are in their own eyes degraded or injured by it. There
exists, and there ever will exist, that one deep feeling,
constantly kept burning in the minds of the laity by the undying
zeal of the clergy, that Catholic Ireland is insulted and
impoverished by the vast Protestant ecclesiastical establishment,
that in the most important, the most heart-stirring of all
interests, an interest at once temporal and spiritual, they are
stripped of those equal and essential rights which are possessed
by England and Scotland. I have never doubted that sooner or
later this contest would arise, and that the end of it will be,
however long in coming, the downfall of the Church of England in
Ireland, as fall it ought.[9]
[9] [This prediction was fulfilled in 1868. But the measure
was not followed by that cessation of discord which Mr.
Greville hopefully anticipated from it.]
February 27th, 1841 {p.376}
The debate lasted four nights on Morpeth's Bill, and Ministers
got a majority of five, both sides bringing down the sick and the
dying without remorse. A close division and parties nicely
balanced, extinguish all feelings of humanity. The best speeches
were Charles Buller's, Sheil's, Follett's, Peel's, and John
Russell's. It is supposed this will bolster them up for the
Session, but something still depends on Stanley's Bill.
[Page Head: SETTLEMENT OF THE EASTERN QUESTION.]
Foreign affairs have assumed a better aspect. A negotiation is
going on _here_ for the purpose of inviting France to join the
alliance, and take part in the final settlement of the Eastern
Question, which she desires no better than to accept, and then to
disarm; indeed, she has already begun to do so. The delay is
occasioned by some difficulty as to the forms to be adopted. The
French want some phrases, which don't seem unreasonable in
themselves, but about which the Russian makes a difficulty. There
is to be a Note, and in this Note Bourqueney wishes it to be
expressly stated that the integrity of the Ottoman Empire is now
secured, but Brunnow makes this strange objection, that they
should thereby be admitting the _de jure_ occupation of Algiers
by the French. This seems such a frivolous objection that it is
difficult to conceive it can be the real one. The wonder is that
Palmerston, who carries everything with so high a hand, does not
overrule it _auctoritate suâ_. He has been showing off his
flippancy lately not only to France, but to Austria, writing
despatches to Lord Granville, which are in such a tone that he
complains bitterly of being instructed to read them to Guizot;
and, with regard to Austria, this occurred: Metternich wrote some
letter complaining of delay in settling the question of Mehemet
Ali's hereditary possession of Egypt, which, it seems, nettled
Palmerston, and he wrote a remarkably clever but very insolent
answer, in which he reviewed the vacillations and inconsistencies
of the Austrian Cabinet in a very offensive style. This despatch
was read by the Cabinet; and I fancy generally disapproved, very
much so by Melbourne, who however did not interfere, and let it
go. But Frederick Lamb, who has all the confidence and courage
which Melbourne wants, very quietly put it in his drawer, and
wrote word to Palmerston that circumstances were changed and he
should not give it to Metternich. Melbourne was very much pleased
at this, and said it was very judicious; but he forgot that it
was his business to stop it in the first instance, and that,
thinking it imprudent, as Prime Minister he ought to have put his
veto on it. But he is only Prime Minister in name, and has no
authority. He is all in all at Buckingham Palace, but very little
in Downing Street.
March 2nd, 1841, Tuesday {p.378}
[Page Head: THE PROTOCOL DELAYED.]
On Sunday I met Bourqueney at dinner. He was very gloomy, talked
of the debate in the Chamber and the declarations in favour of
keeping up the _isolement_ as '_très-grave_,' and then complained
bitterly, but obscurely, of the difficulties he encountered here,
and how hard it was, after the unanimous expressions in both
Houses of Parliament, that such obstacles should be cast in the
way of a settlement, hinting at Palmerston as the cause, but
without being explicit; indeed, it was in the carriage going to
Lady Holland's, and there was not time for more. To-day, however,
I have heard more; and it seems that Palmerston has been at his
tricks again, though I don't yet know precisely what he has done.
My brother keeps writing me word that his tone in his
communications to the French Government, through Lord Granville,
is very offensive; but here he appeared to be really anxious to
conciliate. It is, however, quite impossible to make out what he
is at. He has contributed more than anybody to give this
Government a _federal_ character; for in the Foreign Office he
has resolved to be, and he is, wholly independent of his
colleagues. He tells them as much or as little of his proceedings
as it suits his purpose or his fancy to do; and they are now so
well aware of this, and have so little confidence in him, that
when he does tell the Cabinet anything they feel no security that
they are acquainted with the truth or, at least, the whole truth.
In the pending matter, Esterhazy and Bülow have been vehemently
urging the completion of an arrangement, but the Cabinet settled
that no overture should be made to France without previously
ascertaining that she would accept it when made. All very proper!
It was settled that the other Powers should beg Palmerston to
invite France in all their names to join in a Convention for
securing the free navigation of the Bosphorus; and this
Convention was arranged at a Conference some day last week, and
at the same time a Protocol--which was to _precede_ it--stating
that, the objects of the July alliance being completed, the
alliance was at an end. All this was agreed to, and on Saturday
at the Cabinet the Convention was read and approved of; but
objections were made to the Protocol on the ground that questions
might still arise requiring the intervention of the alliance,
that no certain intelligence had yet arrived either of the
evacuation of Syria by Ibrahim or the publication of the firman
by the Sultan, and, therefore, it would be imprudent to break up
the alliance just at this moment, and this operation might as
well be deferred for a brief space. Such was the general
sentiment. Melbourne said, 'Are you sure France will take the
Convention?' to which Palmerston replied, he had no doubt she
would, as it had been put into his hands by Esterhazy, who had
probably already communicated it to Bourqueney. But he did not
tell the Cabinet that he had agreed at the Conference to the
Protocol likewise, and had left his foreign colleagues under the
impression that it would be agreed to by the Cabinet.
On Sunday night Bülow and Bourqueney met Normanby at Lady
Holland's, when they both spoke to him in the strongest terms,
more especially Bülow; who said it was very painful to him to
complain to Normanby of the conduct of Palmerston, and he would
not repeat what had passed at the Conference, but he must tell
him if Palmerston continued to conduct himself as he did, the
most fatal consequences would ensue, and the affairs of Europe
would become more embroiled and be in a more perilous state than
they had ever been yet. He frightened Normanby so much that the
next morning he went off to Melbourne, told him what had passed,
and entreated him to interfere. Melbourne promised he would, but
of course he will not; and Palmerston will probably not care a
straw what he says, or be in the slightest degree biassed by any
opinion he may express. As far as I can guess, Bourqueney's
excessive discontent arises from this: He very naturally wants
this Protocol, and Bülow and Esterhazy, no doubt, told him that
Palmerston had consented to it and would propose it to him;
whereas, in their conference on Sunday, Palmerston probably
offered him the Convention but did not say a word about the
Protocol, and this both he and Bülow consider a great breach of
faith. Notwithstanding the good reason which there really is for
not formally dissolving the alliance till all the arrangements
concerning Egypt and Syria are completed, it is easy to
understand that in the present temper of France it would be
impossible for Guizot to enter into any relations with the other
Powers till their separate and exclusive alliance is at an end.
It is no wonder, therefore, that Bourqueney looks upon the
Protocol as an essential condition of his acceptance of the
Convention; and if he has been first given to understand that the
Protocol was admitted, and then told by Palmerston that it could
not be, he might naturally be indignant. One never knows what
else Palmerston may have said nor what tone he may have taken.
[Page Head: A MISREPORTED SPEECH.]
While these difficulties are obstructing a pacific arrangement
here, they are rendered much more serious by the discussions in
the French Chamber on the Secret Service money, when the insolent
and extravagant speeches in favour of keeping up the _isolement_
and the state of armed observation were hailed with vociferous
applause; and this frantic violence is the Parliamentary response
to the calm and dignified expression of peace and goodwill to
France which marked our first Parliamentary night, and in which
the leaders of all parties joined with equal cordiality. If this
goes on, and if Guizot is not strong enough to give effect to his
pacific disposition and to venture upon a reconciliation, all
amicable feelings towards France will be swallowed up in a
general sentiment of indignation at her insolence; and instead of
wasting any more time in fruitless endeavours to bring her back
into the councils of Europe, we shall begin to think of the means
of securing ourselves against any possible effects of her ill-
will and obstinate resentment. Those who have most strongly
advocated the French alliance will be soon ready to cement that
of the four great Powers, to curb the extravagant pretensions and
mischievous designs of France, if the latter does not come to her
senses and descend from her high horse very soon.
March 4th, 1841 {p.381}
Yesterday morning Dedel, who was pretty accurately acquainted
with all that has lately passed, called on me. His account
confirmed my notions. The other Ministers of the Conference had
told Bourqueney what he was to expect at his conference with
Palmerston. When, therefore, the latter tendered him the draft of
the Convention, he said, 'This is very well, but have you nothing
else to give me?' 'No,' said Palmerston; 'what do you mean? I
know of nothing else.' 'Have you not also a Protocol, announcing
the _clôture_ to propose to me?' 'Oh no; that is impossible.
There has been a question of such a Protocol, but great
difficulties have arisen. Chekib says he cannot agree to such a
Protocol without previous application to his Court and receiving
a specific authority.' On this, Bourqueney very indignantly said,
'he must know it was quite useless to offer him the one without
the other, as the formal termination of the alliance of July was
an indispensable preliminary of any convention to which France
could be a party.' A warm conversation followed, in the course of
which (as Dedel says), Bourqueney saying, 'Nous ne sommes pas
pressés,' Palmerston replied in his most insolent tone, 'Et nous
ne sommes pas pressés non plus; si vous ne craignez pas les
bâtiments anglais, vous sentez bien que nous ne craignons pas les
bâtiments français....'[10]
[10] [This was untrue, as appears by the next entry.]
March 5th, 1841 {p.381}
[Page Head: PROTOCOL AND CONVENTION SIGNED.]
At the Cabinet dinner the day before yesterday, Palmerston
announced that 'everything was going on well, everybody
satisfied,' and as this rose-coloured aspect of affairs was so
inconsistent with the gloom and discontent of Bourqueney and
Bülow, and the account given me by Dedel, I resolved to call on
Bourqueney, and find out from him in what position the affair
stood. I did so, and the result proved with what caution one
ought to listen to the reports of persons the best informed, and
who relate what they have heard with the most veracious
intentions. Instead of correcting or expunging what I have said
above, I shall put down the substance of what Bourqueney said to
me, which agrees with much of Dedel's account, but differs in
some very important particulars. I told him that I had (as he
would be sure) no desire to _fourrer_ myself into his affairs,
but that I thought a little conversation between us might be
useful in promoting the object we had in common--that of
restoring amicable relations between the two countries; and
having seen how annoyed he was on Sunday last, and knowing what
had passed, I wished to know if he was not _now_ better satisfied
than he was _then_; and that as I, and those with whom I
communicated, only knew what passed between him and Palmerston,
or at the conferences, from Palmerston's own reports, when he
told his colleagues just what he pleased and no more, and as I
had heard from other quarters an account of his interview on
Sunday with Palmerston, I wished to know what had really passed.
He had, he said, been extremely annoyed and disappointed, after
being told that he was to have the Protocol (by Bülow and
Esterhazy, of course), when Palmerston told him this was out of
the question, as Chekib refused to sign it without orders. He
then gave me the conversation between himself and Palmerston,
which does not appear to have been acrimonious, and instead of
Palmerston's having made that insolent speech which was put in
his mouth when Bourqueney said, 'Mais nous ne sommes pas
pressés,' he only said, 'Ni nous non plus, c'est l'Autriche et la
Prusse qui sont pressées;' so that all the offensive part was a
fabricated addition, and I have no doubt of this by Bourqueney's
way of speaking of it. He said, moreover, 'Il faut rendre justice
à Lord Palmerston, son ton a été excellent, et jamais il n'a
prononcé le mot de désarmement;' that if he had, or had attempted
to impose any condition, he should at once have rejected all
overtures; but nothing of the kind had been attempted, and he
admitted that every respect had been shown to France, and a
sincere desire evinced to renew relations with her. He said,
'Enfin vous êtes triomphants, et nous sommes humiliés,' and you
can well afford to treat us 'avec des égards;' but he seemed to
think that in point of fact the Conference was already
practically dissolved, for both Bülow and Esterhazy had declared
(in their anxiety for the _clôture_, as an indispensable
preliminary to the Convention, for which their eagerness is
intense), that, happen what might, they would take no farther
part in Eastern affairs. On the whole, the prospect is good, and
it is but just to Palmerston to say that he does not seem to have
acted unfairly or insolently, or to be obnoxious to any reproach
in his relations with Bourqueney.
March 12th, 1841 {p.383}
The Protocols were duly signed and the Convention sent to Paris.
They were well received by Guizot, who returned them for some
verbal alterations which have been agreed to, and if no new
difficulties arise in the East to prevent a settlement, our
relations with France will be restored. But within these few days
a whole budget of bad news has poured in--from China, where the
admiral has resigned on the plea of ill-health, having done
nothing but lose half the troops he took out, and leaving affairs
in a very uncertain and unsatisfactory state. I had a letter from
Emily Eden[11] yesterday, in great disgust at the waste of time,
money, and life, and the failure hitherto of all the objects we
had in view. The Chinese have bamboozled and baffled us, that is
the plain truth.
[11] [Miss Emily Eden had accompanied her brother, Lord
Auckland, to India, where he was Governor-General. This
impression of the state of our relations with China
appears to have been erroneous. On February 1st,
Captain Elliot annexed the island of Hong Kong, which
has been permanently united to the British Empire, and
on April 18th Her Majesty's forces occupied Canton.]
Then the violence and bad spirit displayed in America have
produced no small consternation here, though everybody goes on
saying that a war between the two countries, and for so little
cause, is impossible.[12] It does seem impossible, and the
manifest interest of both nations is opposed to it; but when a
country is so mob-governed as America, and the Executive is so
destitute of power, there must be great danger. However, the
general conviction is, that the present exhibition of violence is
attributable to the malignity of the outgoing party, which is
desirous of embarrassing their successors, and casting on them
the perils of a war or the odium of a reconciliation with this
country, and strong hopes are entertained that the new Government
will be too wise to fall into the snare that is laid for them,
and strong enough to check and master the bad spirit which is
rife in the Northern States. The real difficulty arises from the
conviction here, that in the case of M'Leod we are in the right,
and the equally strong conviction there, that we are not, and the
actual doubt on which side the truth lies. Senior, whom I met the
other day, expressed great uncertainty, and he proposes, and has
written to Government on the subject, that the question of
International Law shall be submitted to the decision of a German
University--that of Berlin, he thinks, would be the best. This
idea he submitted to Stevenson, who approved of it, but the great
difficulty would be to agree upon a statement of facts. Yesterday
Lord Lyndhurst was at the Council Office, talking over the matter
with Sir Herbert Jenner and Justice Littledale, and he said it
was very questionable if the Americans had not right on their
side; and that he thought, in a similar case here, we should be
obliged to try the man, and if convicted, nothing but a pardon
could save him. These opinions casting such serious doubts on the
question of right, are at least enough to restrain indignation
and beget caution.
[12] [This refers to the case of one M'Leod, who had been
engaged as a member of the Colonial forces in repelling
the attack made upon Canada from United States
territory, and who had consequently acted as an agent
of the British Government. But M'Leod was arrested at
New York in 1841 upon a charge of the murder of one
Durfee, who was killed during the capture of the
'Caroline.' The American authorities refused to give
him up on the demand of the British Minister, who
alleged that M'Leod's deed was a legitimate act, done
in obedience to his superior officers. He was tried,
and fortunately acquitted; but Mr. Webster, the
American Secretary of State, subsequently admitted that
individuals concerned in a public transaction under the
orders of their Government could not be held
responsible to the ordinary tribunals of law for their
participation in it. See Halleck's _International Law_,
vol. i., p. 430; and Hale's _International Law_,
p. 261.]
Besides China and America, two days ago appeared the Sultan's
firman restoring the Pasha, but on terms which he was certain not
to accept. This document, which arrives just as we are renewing
our relations with France, and which carries on the face of it
the strongest marks of Lord Ponsonby's interference and
influence, is well calculated to obstruct the arrangement, and so
it appeared to Clarendon, to Lord Lansdowne, to Melbourne, and to
John Russell. Clarendon immediately appealed to Lord John, who,
however, took it very quietly, and was averse to saying or doing
anything; and when he spoke to Melbourne, the latter said
Palmerston had shown him Ponsonby's private letter, in which he
said that he had nothing to do with it, that it was all
Stürmer's[13] doing, and that for some time past he had not been
able to make Redschid Pasha mind a word he said. On the other
hand, Lord John also spoke to Palmerston, when Palmerston said
not a word of Ponsonby's letter, but told him it was the best
possible arrangement; that Mehemet Ali had not understood it at
first, but that he would in the end be quite satisfied with it,
and that it was the only way of preventing confusion. Of course
Melbourne and Lord John were quite content, and fully partake of
Palmerston's entire satisfaction. Yesterday morning, however, I
found that Francis Egerton was full of indignation at this fresh
outrage, as he considered it, of Ponsonby's, and had taken a
resolution to bring the matter forward in the House of Commons,
but previously to speak to the Duke and Peel. Nothing was done
last night, and this morning he came and told me that they both
agreed with him, but that the Duke urged the necessity of extreme
caution, and of previously ascertaining the sentiments of the
other Allies, as we must not do or say anything which might
disturb our harmony with them. This caution, and not any
indisposition to take the matter up, was the reason no notice was
taken in the House of Commons last night, and they are now
waiting for further information to determine what course to take.
[13] [M. Stürmer was the Austrian Internuncio at
Constantinople.]
March 14th, 1841
[Page Head: BAD EFFECT OF THE HATTI-SHERIF.]
On Friday, Francis Egerton put questions to Palmerston, and Peel
took a part. He told me that he was much surprised at the way in
which Palmerston received as well as answered them, as they had
intended nothing hostile and thought it was doing him a service,
and affording him an opportunity of explaining away the bad
effect of the Hatti-sherif, but that he took it very ill, and
answered with evident embarrassment. From his manner, and the way
in which Labouchere cheered when Palmerston said that their
intention had been to give a _bonâ fide hérédité_ to Mehemet Ali,
he inferred there was some disagreement in the Cabinet.
Yesterday Reeve went off to Paris, having had a conference with
Lord Lansdowne, who not only expressed his dissatisfaction with
the firman, but authorised him to say so to M. Guizot, and to
assure him that this was the sentiment of the Government, and
that it was quite inconsistent with any instructions to Ponsonby
_which he had ever seen or heard of_.
The Tories were extremely dissatisfied with Palmerston's answers
the other night, but they have an extraordinary reluctance to
provoke any discussion on foreign affairs, though he is so
vulnerable on all points. It is, however, highly probable that
the matter will not be suffered to rest here. In such a manner
does one bold, unscrupulous, and able man predominate over his
colleagues, one of whom is John Russell, not less bold at times,
and as able as himself; but of a quiet disposition, shrinking
from contest, controversy, and above all, I take it, from the
labyrinth of underhand dealing which he must thread and
disentangle, if he insists upon a regular settlement of accounts
with Palmerston. There is no other way of accounting for his
acquiescence in the latter's proceedings. As for the rest,
Melbourne is too indolent, Lansdowne too timid, and the others
too indifferent to interfere. Clarendon has the will and the
courage, but he can do nothing alone, and he cannot rouse anybody
else to take part with him. If Lord Holland were still alive,
something might now be done.
[Page Head: FRESH OBSTACLES.]
The other night Peel, who has been a good deal nettled by the
attacks on him in a series of letters, signed 'Catholicus,' in
the 'Times,' made a very striking speech upon the education and
recreation of the people, which was enthusiastically cheered by
the Whigs, but received in silence by the Tories. He made a sort
of reply in this speech to the charges of irreligion insinuated
in these letters, and took the opportunity of expressing those
liberal sentiments which mark his own identification with the
progress of society, and which render him, from their liberality
and wisdom, the object of such suspicion, fear, and dislike with
the Tory democracy who reluctantly own him for their leader.
March 16th, 1841 {p.387}
On Friday last, after the House of Lords was over, the
Ministerial Lords gathered on the bench and had a sort of
Cabinet, a practice in which Melbourne takes pleasure. Clarendon
held forth about the state of the Eastern Question, and said all
he thought without reserve. He worked up Lansdowne to a
considerable amount of zeal and resolution to bestir himself. The
next day Lansdowne called on Melbourne, and he owned to Clarendon
that he was shocked and surprised to find that Melbourne had
never had any communication with Palmerston on the subject, and,
in point of fact, knew very little about what was going on. The
next day there was a Cabinet, when both Lansdowne and Clarendon
expressed their opinion with vivacity, complaining of the
proceeding at Constantinople, and urging the necessity of some
decisive step being taken here to correct its effects. Palmerston
knocked under; that is, he made no defence and no resistance, and
ostensibly acquiesced in the opinions expressed, and promised to
act in conformity with them. Though no reliance can be placed on
him, and none is placed, it would appear as if he was become
aware of the necessity of making his actions correspond with his
professions and with the opinions which have been so strongly
expressed in all quarters; for I met Bourqueney last night, who
told me that he really did think they were at last making
progress towards a satisfactory conclusion, that he had received
his instructions (which I already knew were to say the French
Government would hear of nothing till this Hatti-sherif was
disavowed) and had instantly got the Conference convened, and
that a formal notification had been made by the Four Powers to
the Turkish Ministers of their disapprobation of the firman, and
this seems to have been done in a way he considers satisfactory.
March 19th, 1841 {p.388}
The Bishop of Exeter got a heavy fall in the House of Lords the
other night on the St. Sulpice question.[14] He brought it
forward in an elaborate speech the week before, with his usual
ability and cunning; and he took the Duke of Wellington in; for,
after hearing the Bishop protest, and apparently make out, that
'a great blow had been struck at the Reformation,' he got up,
and, in total ignorance of the subject, committed his potential
voice and opinion to an agreement with the Bishop's dictum. The
truth, however, was that there was no case at all; the Government
had not only done what they were justified in doing, but they had
acted in precise conformity with the conduct held by all their
Tory predecessors, colonial secretaries, and with that of the
Duke of Wellington himself, who had forgotten all that had
occurred and the part he had previously taken. The consequence
was that the Tories resolved to throw the Bishop over, and so
they did, greatly to his rage and disgust and to the satisfaction
of all the bigots; not even a solitary Bishop or high Tory had a
word to say in his favour. He was detected in the course of the
debate of having sent a report to the 'Times' of his former
speech containing a very essential paragraph which he had omitted
in the speech itself. He tried to back out of it, and brought the
'Times' reporter as his witness; but he stood convicted in
general opinion.
[14] [This related to the Catholic foundation of St. Sulpice
in Canada.]
Reeve is gone to Paris. He saw Guizot on his arrival, who
announced to him what he meant to do. He waits till the Four
Powers have settled the Eastern Question, in which he will not
meddle in the slightest degree; and when it is settled, he will
be ready to join in the Convention. Bourqueney has signed the
document _de bene esse_; this is his wisest and most dignified
course.
March 30th, 1841 {p.388}
Nothing new for the last fortnight, the Eastern Question
apparently progressing to a settlement through some not very
important obstacles, and, what is of much greater consequence, a
fair prospect of an amicable arrangement with America. The new
President's inaugural speech, pedantic and ridiculous as it was,
had the merit of being temperate; and Webster had already written
to Evelyn Denison, desiring him not to judge of the real
sentiments of America by the trash spoken and the violence
exhibited in Congress, or by the mob of New York. John Bull, too,
who had begun to put himself into a superfine passion, and to
bluster a good deal in the French vein, is getting more tranquil,
and begins to see the propriety of going to work moderately and
without insisting on having everything his own way.
[Page Head: DEBATE ON THE POOR LAW.]
In Parliament there has been nothing of interest but the Poor Law
Bill, debated with great heat, and the several clauses carried by
majorities very little indicative of the real opinion of the
majority of the House. But the truth is that the Tories are
(generally) behaving very ill on this question, and their
shabbiness is the more striking because the Government have
behaved so well. The Tories are just as anxious for the passing
of the Bill as their opponents, or more so, nevertheless they
stay away or abuse and oppose the clauses, in order to curry
favour with their own constituencies and to cast odium on their
opponents, by which they may profit in the event of a general
election. There is probably not a man of them who would not be
annoyed and disappointed to the greatest degree if the Bill
should be impaired in its leading principles and material
provisions. The Government might, if they had chosen it, have
proposed the law as an experimental measure for a short period,
so as to cast upon their opponents the ultimate responsibility of
the measure, but they dealt with it liberally and wisely, and
without reference to temporary interests or party purposes,
which, so far from eliciting a corresponding spirit from their
opponents, only afforded them the opportunity (of which, without
shame or decency, they are availing themselves) to convert it
into a source of unpopularity against the Government who bring it
forward.
April 5th, 1841 {p.390}
While the American question looks well, the affairs of the East
are all unsettled again. The Pasha has, with all humility,
declined the conditions of the Sultan's Hatti-sherif, and the
whole thing remains still to be adjusted. Nobody, however, cares
or thinks much about it at all, for the Eastern business is
become as tedious as a twice-told tale. No more danger to the
peace of Europe is apprehended from it; nobody cares a straw for
Sultan or Pasha, and still less for the repose of the countries
they misgovern or the happiness of the people they oppress.
Sir Robert Peel has dined at the Palace for the first time since
the Bedchamber quarrel, and this is deemed important. All
domestic interest is absorbed in the blow which has fallen upon
Lord Granville at Paris, in the shape of a paralytic stroke,
which, from the character of the man, his social position, and
the important and unhappy consequences of this affliction to a
numerous class of people, excites a very deep and general
interest.
May 2nd, 1841 {p.390}
The approach of the Newmarket meetings usually absorbs my
thoughts, oppresses me with its complicated interests, and
destroys all my journalising energies. After a month's interval,
I take up my pen to note down the events that have occurred in
it. I went to Newmarket on Saturday before the Craven Meeting,
and on Sunday morning received a letter informing me of the
sudden death of my sister-in-law (Mrs. Algernon Greville), which
obliged me to return to town. This grievous affliction, so heavy
and irreparable to those whom it immediately concerns, matters
but little to the mass of society, who for the most part good-
naturedly sympathised with the sufferers; but the object, so
precious to the narrow circle of her own family, was too
unimportant to the world at large to be entitled to anything more
than a passing expression of regret. I went down to the funeral,
and was unutterably disgusted with the ceremony, with the
bustling business of the undertaker, mixing so irreverently with
the profound grief of the brothers and other relations who
attended, the decking us out in the paraphernalia of woe, and
thus dragging us in mourning coaches through crowds of curious
people, by a circuitous route, that as much of us as possible
might be exhibited to vulgar curiosity. These are things
monstrous in themselves, but to which all-reconciling custom
makes us submit.
[Page Head: LOSS OF THE 'PRESIDENT.']
This is not the only misfortune which has fallen upon individual
heads; but of all occurrences that which has excited the greatest
interest has been the loss, as it must now be concluded, of the
'President' steamer, with, among others, the Duke of Richmond's
young son on board. Day after day people have watched and
enquired with the most intense interest for the arrival or for
news of this vessel, and are only now slowly and reluctantly
abandoning all hope, while the wretched parents have been for
weeks past agitated with all the alternations of hope and
despair, and suffering a protracted torture worse than any
certainty. So much for private woes.
In the world of politics we have had an interval of repose till
after the recess, when Government sustained two defeats on the
Irish Registration Bill,[15] and Walter came in for Nottingham on
an Anti-Poor-Law cry, and by the union of Chartists and Tories to
defeat the Whig candidate. After the first division, Clarendon
wrote to me as follows: 'The defeat last night was a signal one.
We have had a Cabinet about it, and I went there fully expecting
that resignation would be the order of the day--_the word never
crossed the lips of anyone!_ Various expedients were suggested,
but, except by me, the thought of going out was not entertained.
The result is, that another trial of strength is to be had, and
if we are beaten the Bill is to be withdrawn for the year. How
Stanley's is afterwards to be opposed remains to be seen, but for
that we trust to luck and O'Connell's ingenuity in devising
delays--not very creditable or satisfactory, but as John has to
defend his course, he is the best judge of what he should do. He
quite scouted to me afterwards the idea of resigning, though he
admitted the Tory chances had advanced prodigiously, and that
Peel's language was quite that of determination, and of a man
ready to take the government.' Nobody has a guess what will
happen--whether Government will try and go on, dissolve or
resign; and a thousand speculations, and, of course, lies, are
afloat.
[15] [Lord Morpeth's Irish Registration Bill was withdrawn,
two amendments having been carried by the Opposition by
291 to 270 votes. Mr. Walter was elected at Nottingham
by a majority of 296 over the Government candidate.]
The affairs of the East are still unsettled, but there seems a
chance of their being patched up, though not in a way very
creditable or consistent. Metternich is now threatening the
Porte, that unless she consents to what the Conference shall
suggest he will quit the concern. Palmerston, meanwhile, talks of
again licking Mehemet Ali, while Ponsonby is as furious as ever
at Constantinople, and would blow up the coals again if he knew
how. The manner in which things are mystified, and facts
perverted from the truth, is curiously exemplified in the matter
of the recent Hatti-sherif. It was affirmed, when the severity of
its terms was objected to and Ponsonby blamed, that Ponsonby had
had no hand in it whatever. This was true, but how? He insisted
upon a _much more severe_ clause being inserted, on the Pasha's
being made a mere stipendiary of the Porte, and his revenue being
levied by Turkish officers; and because the Turkish Minister
would not go this length, Ponsonby flew into a rage, and refused
to sanction the Hatti-sherif with his approval unless this clause
was added, so that he had nothing to do with it, only because it
was not so stringent and violent as he wished to make it.
May 3rd, 1841 {p.392}
[Page Head: DEFEAT OF THE MINISTRY.]
Great agitation yesterday at the clubs, and excessive interest
and curiosity about coming events, on which hang the existence of
the Government. The Tories are talking of a vote of want of
confidence, and wish to follow up their successes by this
decisive blow. There is the greatest difference of opinion among
the Whigs as to the necessity of resigning, and, above all, as to
a dissolution. The event of the day was the resignation of
Gordon, Secretary of the Treasury, who could not stand the Corn
alteration that is threatened. Nobody thinks Ministers will carry
their Budget, and that will probably be their _coup de
grâce_.[16]
[16] [It turned out to be so. On April 30th the Chancellor
of the Exchequer introduced his Budget. He proposed to
meet the deficiency in the revenue of £2,421,000 by an
increase of the duty on Colonial timber and a reduction
of the duty on Baltic timber, and by a reduction of
duty on foreign sugar. The debate lasted eight nights,
and on May 18th Ministers were defeated on the sugar
question by a majority of 36. On May 7th Lord John
Russell had given notice of a resolution to reduce the
duties on corn to a fixed sum. On May 24th Sir Robert
Peel gave notice of a vote of want of confidence in the
Government, on which the House divided on June 4th,
Ministers being beaten by a majority of _one_.]
APPENDIX.
The Royal Precedency Question.
[As Mr. Greville's pamphlet on the Precedency Question is
now rarely to be met with, it may be convenient to
reprint it in this place. It is a tract of considerable
originality and research, and it was carefully revised
and approved by Lord Wensleydale and some of the most
eminent lawyers of the time when it was written. This
essay has therefore a substantial legal and historical
value. Moreover, its application is not exclusively
retrospective or confined to the peculiar case of the
precedency of the late Prince Consort at the time of his
marriage, which gave rise to warm debates, for it deals
with the precedency of the members of the Royal Family,
not being sons or daughters of a sovereign, or standing
in close propinquity to the throne. In the course of
years these personages have become numerous, and for the
first time in our history (at least, since the reign of
James I.), between twenty and thirty grandchildren and
great-grandchildren of the reigning sovereign are in
existence, whose claims to precedency will have to be
considered. By the 31st Henry VIII., which assigns places
in Parliament and Council to the sons, brothers, uncles,
and nephews of the king, after these degrees are past,
peers or others of the blood royal are entitled to no
place or precedence, except what belongs to them by their
personal rank or dignity. The mere fact of their descent,
in a more remote degree, from the sovereign, gives them
in law no precedency at all, although it may be conceded
to them by custom, and the respect willingly paid to
members of the Royal Family. Nor are they entitled to
bear the title of 'Royal Highness' unless it be conferred
upon them by the Crown. Thus, if I am not mistaken, the
late Duke of Gloucester, who was a nephew of George III.,
was not a 'Royal Highness' until he married the Princess
Mary, the king's daughter, when that distinction was
conferred upon him. In two or three generations from the
present time it is not improbable that the descendants of
Queen Victoria and Prince Albert will exceed a hundred
persons, and, although they will doubtless all look back
with pride to their illustrious ancestry, they will have
no rank or precedency, in the strict sense of the term,
except such as may be conferred upon them personally by
the Crown. For these reasons, it appears to me that Mr.
Greville's remarks on the subject may have some future
interest.--H.R.]
In the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4th February, when Prince
Albert's Naturalisation Bill was under discussion, Lord Brougham
said:--
'That these questions of precedence were of a very difficult and
doubtful nature. It was therefore a great convenience to submit
them to the House, because it enabled Parliament to make that
quite certain, which, if dealt with under the common law of the
country, might be open to objection.'
The interest which has been excited by this question, and the
doubts which prevail, even among the learned in the law, as to
the actual extent of the Royal prerogative in the matter of
granting precedence, are sufficient to provoke an enquiry into
the opinions of writers upon constitutional law, an examination
of the ancient practice, and of some of the cases which seem to
bear immediately upon the point, in order, if possible, to arrive
at something like a reasonable conclusion as to the power
actually possessed by the crown, and the manner in which, and
extent to which, it might be just and expedient to exercise it
upon the present occasion.
The first question which presents itself is, What have been the
ancient prerogatives of the Crown in granting dignities or pre-
eminencies of any description; and, secondly, In what respect, if
at all, these prerogatives have been limited or restrained by any
Parliamentary enactment. By the laws of England, the Sovereign is
considered the fountain of honour and of privilege, and the
constitution has entrusted to him the sole power of conferring
dignities and honours, in confidence that he will bestow them on
none but such as deserve them.[1]
[1] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 271.
The King may create new titles, and has the prerogative of
conferring privileges upon private persons,[2] _such as granting
place or precedence to any of his subjects_. He may make an
_Arch_-duke, who would not, however, take place of any duke his
ancient.[3]
[2] Ibid. i. 272, 4th Inst. 361.
[3] 4th Inst 363.
The King could create a peer, and give him precedence over all
other peers of the same rank,[4] a prerogative which was not
unfrequently exercised in ancient times. Henry VI. created Henry
Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and Praecomes totius Angliae, and
afterwards Duke of Warwick, with a right to sit in Parliament
after the Duke of Norfolk, but _before_ the Duke of Buckingham;
the same King created Edmund of Hadham Earl of Richmond, and gave
him precedence over all other earls, and Jasper of Hatfield Earl
of Pembroke with precedence next to the said Earl of Richmond.[5]
There appears to have been no limit to the authority of the Crown
in granting honours, titles, dignities, and offices, excepting
only that it could not grant new offices with fees annexed,
because that would be a tax upon the subject, which can only be
imposed by Act of Parliament. Assuming, then, that such was the
extent of the prerogative previously to the 31st of Henry VIII.,
the next question is, Whether it was restrained by that statute;
and if it was, within what limits it was thenceforward confined?
The preamble asserts the prerogative of the Crown in the
strongest terms; probably for the express purpose of guarding
against any inference that it was thereby abridged or restrained.
It is difficult to believe that, in passing the Act entitled 'for
placing the Lords,' Henry VIII. felt any doubt as to the
possession, or scruple as to the exercise, of the prerogative of
his progenitors, and still less that he had the remotest idea of
divesting himself of an iota of his own. The despotic temper of
the King, the subservient character of his Parliaments, and his
habitual employment of them as the most obsequious instrument of
his will, make it probable that he adopted this, merely as the
easiest and most convenient mode of settling a difficult and
complex question, but without the slightest misgiving as to his
own power, or any notion of restraining himself from granting any
privilege or precedence it might at any subsequent period be his
pleasure to bestow. The circumstances under which the provisions
of this Act were carried into operation were remarkable, and give
it much more the appearance of a decree of the King, or a
resolution of the Lords, than of an Act of the Three Estates. The
assent of the Commons seems to have been assumed as a matter of
course, and as soon as it had passed the Lords (which it did very
hastily), it was immediately put in force, 'Concerning the
passing it, it is observable, that on Monday, 1st May, the Lord
Chancellor quandam introduxit billam concernentem assignationem
locorum, &c., which was that day read twice; the next day it had
a third reading, and on Friday a fourth; on the morrow, the Lord
Cromwell is placed before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the
others are placed according to the Act, being before placed
without regard to their offices, but it was not returned from the
House of Commons with their assent till the Monday following.'[6]
[4] Ibid.
[5] 4th Inst 361.
[6] Selden, Titles of Honour, p. 117.
The preamble of the Act is in the following terms:--
'For in as much as in all great councils, or congregations of
men, having sundry degrees and offices in the commonwealth, it is
very requisite and convenient that an order should be had and
taken for the sitting of such persons, that they knowing their
places may use the same without displeasure, or let of the
council, therefore the King's Most Royal Majesty, _tho' it
appertaineth unto his prerogative Royal, to give such honour,
reputation, and placing to his counsellors, and other his
subjects as shall be seeming to his most excellent wisdom_, is,
nevertheless, pleased and contented for an order to be had and
taken in this his Most High Court of Parliament, that it shall be
enacted by the authority of the same, in manner and form as
hereafter followeth:--'
Then come nine sections settling the places in which the Royal
Family, great officers of state, and others, are to sit in the
Parliament Chamber, and the tenth section enacts that, 'as well
in all Parliaments as in the Star Chamber, _and in all other
assemblies and conferences of council_, the Chancellor, Lord
President, Privy Seal (that is the Chancellor, President, and
Privy Seal, above all dukes, not being the king's sons, &c., and
the Great Chamberlain, Marshal, Lord Steward, Chamberlain, and
Chief Secretary, being a Baron above all others of the same
degree), shall sit and be placed in such order and fashion as is
above rehearsed, and not in other place by authority of this
present Act.'
There exists what may be deemed very fair evidence to show that
in those days the Royal prerogative _as to precedence_ was never
supposed to be abridged by this Act, but on the contrary that it
still continued to flourish in undiminished force. Only two
months afterwards Henry was divorced from Anne of Cleves, when,
as is well known, he bribed her into compliance with his wishes
by a liberal grant of money and of honours. By his letters patent
he declared her his adopted sister, and gave her _precedence_
before all the ladies in England, next his queen and daughters,
and therefore before his nieces[7] and their children, who were
directly in the succession to the crown.[8] On the 3rd November,
1547, Edward VI. granted to his uncle, the Duke of Somerset,
immediately after his victory in Scotland, letters patent of
precedence, in the following terms:--
[7] The Duchess of Suffolk, and the Countess of Cumberland,
daughter of Charles Brandon and Mary, Queen Dowager of
France.
[8] Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 565.
'As our most dear uncle Edward, Duke of Somerset, by the advice
of the Lords, we have named ... to be governor of our person and
protector of our realm ... during our minority, hath no such
place appropriated and appointed to him in our High Court of
Parliament, as is convenient and necessary, as well as in
proximity of blood unto us, being our uncle ... as well as for
the better maintaining and conducting of our affairs. We have,
therefore, as well by the consent of our said uncle, as by the
advice of other the Lords and the rest of the Privy Council,
willed, ordained, and appointed, that our said uncle shall sit
alone, and be placed at all times ... in our said Court of
Parliament, upon the bench or stole standing next our seat royal,
in our Parliament Chamber.... And further, that he do enjoy all
such other privileges, pre-eminences, &c. &c. _The statute
concerning the placing of the Lords in the Parliament Chamber and
other assemblies of council, made in the thirty-first year of our
most dear father, of famous memory, King Henry VIII.;
notwithstanding_.'[9]
[9] Rymer 15.--Collins' Peerage.
This instrument must, under the circumstances, be taken as the
act of Somerset himself; and it is inconceivable that he should
have had the audacity to attempt in his own behalf, that for
which the plenitude of Henry VIII.'s power had been deemed
insufficient, or to have perpetrated in the name of a minor king,
a direct and useless violation of a recent statute--more
especially when the same object might have been as easily
accomplished by the authority of Parliament, where the
Protector's popularity would have ensured a ready compliance with
his wishes. This view of the case receives confirmation from the
total absence of any allusion to this grant in the charges which
were soon afterwards urged against him--everything that malice
could devise was raked together for the purpose of swelling the
articles of impeachment; but neither when he was degraded from
the Protectorate, nor afterwards when he was deprived of life,
was any accusation brought against him, tending to show that
these letters patent were considered illegal or unconstitutional.
Nearly a century later, Lord Coke lays it down that no Act of
Parliament can bind the king from any prerogative which is
inseparable from his person, 'but that' (Mr. Hallam adds) 'was
before he had learned the bolder tone of his declining
years.'[10]
[10] Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. 84.
The order of Baronets was a new creation by James I., but his
decision of the controversy which arose touching a point of
precedency thereupon, shows the prevailing notions of the royal
prerogative.
'The King's most excellent Majesty, having taken into his royal
audience and censure a certain controversy, touching place and
precedence, between the younger sons of viscounts and barons, and
the baronets, being a degree by His Majesty recently created,
which controversy did arise out of some dark words contained in
the letters patent of the said baronets. His Majesty well
weighing that the letters patent of the Baronets have no special
clause or express words to give them the said precedence, and
being a witness unto himself, which is a testimony above all
exception, that his princely meaning was only to give and advance
the new dignity of His Majesty's creation, but never therewithal
tacitly and obscurely to injure a third party.'[11] ... And then
he goes on to give precedency to Knights of the Garter, Privy
Councillors, Judges, &c.; over the younger sons of Viscounts and
Barons, 'in all places, and upon all occasions, any constitution,
order, degree, office, service, place, employment, custom, use,
or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding.' From Henry VIII.
to James I. were the high and palmy days of prerogative, when the
authority of the Crown was something even more transcendental
than that of Parliament itself, and when it was no doubt held
that, while the Crown could dispense with the provisions of an
Act of Parliament, an Act of Parliament could never bind the
prerogative of the Crown; but when Lord Coke began to adopt his
'bolder tone' he laid down very different law, and he says
expressly, in speaking of the Act of Henry VIII., 'But Henry,
though standing as much upon his prerogative, as any of his
progenitors, finding how vexatious it was to himself, and
distasteful to his ancient nobility, to have new raised degrees,
raised to precedency of them, and finding that this kind of
controversy for precedency was of that nature, that it had many
partakers, spent long time, and hindered the arduous, urgent, and
weighty affairs of the Parliament, was content to bind and limit
his prerogative by Act of Parliament, concerning the precedency
of his great officers, and his nobility.'[12]
[11] Titles of Honour, p. 119.
[12] 4th Inst. 362.
Whatever may have been the constitutional notions of the
sixteenth or the seventeenth century, there can be no doubt that
the lawyers of the nineteenth would hold, according to Lord
Coke's latter dictum, that the prerogative of the Crown is
limited and restrained by the 31st Henry VIII., and it is only
worth while to ascertain what it previously was, in so far as
such an enquiry can assist in the solution of the present
question; for the same lawyers would probably be unanimous in
declaring that, except so far as it was expressly limited and
restrained by that statute, the prerogative still remains
undiminished and in all its pristine vigour--that Queen Victoria
possesses all the power which Henry VIII. enjoyed, saving that of
which he was specifically divested by this Act.
The Act 'for placing the Lords' restrains the Queen from granting
any precedence in Parliament _or in the Council_, over any of the
Royal and official personages and others, who have places
assigned to them therein. She may make any man a Privy
Councillor, but she cannot authorise him to sit in a higher place
than that to which he is by law entitled, or above those whose
places are marked out by the statute. If Prince Albert, for
example, was to be made a Privy Councillor, not being a peer, he
would, _of absolute right_, be entitled to no place but that of a
junior Privy Councillor, or to such as a Knight of the Garter
might claim; and all the persons specified in the Act would have
_an absolute right_ to take precedence of him _in Council_. And
it is worth while to consider in what a curious predicament he
might have been placed, if the Bill for his naturalisation had
passed with those amendments as to his precedence which are said
to have been contemplated by the Opposition Lords--that is,
supposing always the rule of precedence established by law to be
carried inflexibly into operation.
If the status of Prince Albert had been fixed immediately after
all the members of the Royal Family, and immediately before the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and if Her Majesty should be hereafter
pleased to make both Prince George of Cambridge and Prince Albert
members of her Most Honourable Privy Council, in what order of
precedence would these princes be obliged to take their
respective seats at the board? In order clearly to comprehend
this point, it is necessary to explain the ancient usage as to
Royal precedence, and the manner in which it has been affected by
the 31st Henry VIII. The Royal Family are to be considered in two
lights, according to the different senses in which the term
_Royal Family_ is used--the larger sense includes all who may
_possibly_ inherit the Crown; the confined sense, those within a
certain degree of propinquity _to the reigning Prince_, and to
whom the law pays an extraordinary respect; but, after that
degree is past, they fall into the rank of ordinary subjects. The
younger sons of the king, and other branches of the Royal Family,
not in the immediate line of succession, were only so far
regarded by the ancient law as to give them a certain degree of
precedence over peers and other officers, ecclesiastical and
temporal. This was done by the 31st of Henry VIII., which assigns
places in the Parliament Chamber and Council to the king's sons,
brothers, uncles, and nephews, &c.--'therefore, after these
degrees are past, peers, or others of the blood royal, are
entitled to no place or precedence, except what belongs to them
by their personal rank or dignity, which made Sir Edward Walker
complain that, by the creation of Prince Rupert to be Duke of
Cumberland, and of the Earl of Lennox to be duke of that name,
previous to the creation of James to be Duke of York, it might
happen that their grandsons would have precedence of the
grandsons of the Duke of York.'[13]
[13] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 226.
Prince George of Cambridge, then, being neither son, brother,
uncle, or nephew to the Queen, and having no personal dignity, is
not entitled to any precedence over the Archbishop of Canterbury,
or the great officers of state; the 31st Henry VIII. would place
him below them all; but the 3rd Victoria (supposing such an Act
to have passed) would have placed Prince Albert below Prince
George, but above the Archbishop, who is himself above Prince
George, thus giving to the Master of the Ceremonies the solution
of a somewhat difficult problem of precedence--namely, how to
place A above B, B above C, and C above A. This _reductio ad
absurdum_ at least proves that the amended Act would not only not
have settled the question of precedence satisfactorily, but would
not have settled it at all.
It may seem surprising or paradoxical to assert, and many may
with difficulty believe, that Prince George of Cambridge is
entitled to no precedence of his own, inseparable from his royal
birth, but such, nevertheless, is undoubtedly the fact. By law,
he can only take _royal_ rank as the son, brother, uncle, or
nephew, of the reigning sovereign, none of which he is, and he
derives none whatever from having been nephew of William IV. and
George IV., and grandson of George III. The princes of the Blood
Royal have, as to precedence, a moveable and not a fixed status,
constantly shifting, with their greater or less propinquity to
the actual sovereign; and in the event of Prince George's
succession to his father's dukedom, he would only be entitled to
a place _in Parliament and in the Council_, according to the
ancienty of his peerage.
The practice, however, does not wait upon the right, and is
regulated by the universal sense and feeling of the respect and
deference which is due to the Blood Royal of England. The
Archbishop of Canterbury does not take a legal opinion or pore
over the 31st of Henry VIII. to discover whether he has a right
to jostle for that precedence with the cousin, which he knows he
is bound to concede to the uncle, of the Queen; but he yields it
as a matter of course, and so uniform and unquestionable is the
custom, that in all probability neither the Prince nor the
Prelate are conscious that it is in the slightest degree at
variance with the right.
The obscurity which involves the question of precedence, and the
prevailing doubts as to the extent of the Royal prerogative,
proceed, in a great measure, from the intermixture of law and
custom, by which the practice is regulated and enforced. The
table of precedence, the authority of which is recognised for all
social and ceremonial purposes, rests upon statutory enactments,
ancient usages, and the king's letters patent; usage creeping in
to disarrange the order, and break the links of the chain forged
by the law; for, while the 31st of Henry VIII. places earls after
marquises, custom interposes and postpones the former to the
eldest sons of dukes (and so of Marquis's eldest sons and
viscounts), though these are only commoners in the eye of the
law. Now, as no custom (unless expressly saved) can prevail
against the force of a statute, this renders it still more clear,
that nothing was intended by the 31st Henry VIII. but 'the
placing the Lords' in Parliament,[14] and that the question of
general precedence (with all the prerogatives of the Crown
thereunto appertaining) was left untouched by it.[15] In point of
fact, the royal prerogative always has been, and still
continually is exercised, in violation of the order of the
established table; for when the King, by his Royal warrant, gives
to one of his subjects, having neither rank nor dignity, the
place and precedence of a duke's or an earl's son, the individual
thus elevated supersedes all those (below that rank) whose place
and precedence is determined either by law or custom.
[14] Lord Herbert, in his Life of Henry VIII, says, in
allusion to this statute, 'it was declared also how the
Lords in Parliament should be placed,' p. 218.
[15] Lord Coke clearly distinguishes between precedence in
Parliament and Council and general precedence:--Thus
far for avoiding contention about precedency in
Parliament, Star Chamber, and all other assemblies,
Council, &c. Now, they that desire to know the places
and precedency of the nobility and subjects of the
realm, as well men as women, and of their children
(which we have added the rather, for that the
contention about precedency between persons of that sex
is even fiery, furious, and sometimes fatal), we will
refer you to a record of great authority in the reign
of Henry VII., entitled.'--4th Inst. 363.
The result, then, appears to be that, in the olden time, the king
had unlimited power in matters of honour and precedence, and
could confer whatever dignity or pre-eminence he thought fit,
upon any of his subjects. That this power has been expressly
restrained, quoad the Parliament Chamber and the Council, but
exists unfettered in all other respects.
In Parliament (should Prince Albert be created a peer), he would
only be entitled to a seat at the bottom of the degree to which
he might belong, and he would be expressly prohibited from
sitting nearer to the throne. In the Privy Council likewise (if
made a Privy Councillor) he would be entitled to no especial
place, but everywhere else, at ceremonials of every description,
at royal marriages, christenings or funerals, at banquets,
processions, and courtly receptions, at installations and
investitures, at all religious, civil, or military celebrations,
upon all occasions, formal or social, public or private, the
Queen may grant to her husband an indisputable precedence and
pre-eminence over every other subject in the realm. It will
probably be less difficult to obtain a concurrence of opinion as
to the extent of the Queen's constitutional right in granting
precedence, than as to the manner in which it would be morally
fit, and just to others, that this right should be exercised.
The bill, as originally introduced in the House of Lords, was
undoubtedly liable to serious objections; but it is difficult to
discover any valid reason why the Prince, Consort to the Queen,
should not be invested for his own life with the highest personal
dignity which it is in the power of the Crown to confer.
It has been said, that to place Prince Albert before the princes
of the blood royal would be an invasion of the _birth right_ of
these illustrious persons. This seems to be the result of a
confused notion, that a privilege of precedence is identical with
a beneficial interest--it may be a man's birth right to succeed
in some contingency to the throne, or to a title or to an estate,
and it would be injurious, and therefore unjust, to thrust any
interloper between him and his chance, however remote it might
be, of such succession. But the same Act which limits the
prerogative of the Crown, confers on the Royal Dukes and Great
Officers of State the only right of precedence which they
possess, and while they can claim no more than was given to them,
the Crown is as surely entitled to all that was left to it by
that Act. No individual can insist upon an indefeasible right
never to be preceded, under any circumstances, by any other
individual not having a status defined by this Act, and as the
uncles of the Queen, and the hereditary Earl Marshal of England,
occupy their respective steps in the ladder of precedence, by the
self-same title, there would be no greater violation of
birthright in placing an individual without a status before the
Duke of Sussex, than there would in placing him before the Duke
of Norfolk; if there be any injustice at all, the difference
would not be in the principle, but in its local or personal
application.
The question, then, is one of expediency, and of propriety, to be
determined with reference to its own special circumstances, and
according to the analogies which can be brought to bear upon it;
there is not only no case exactly in point to refer to, but there
is none sufficiently analogous to be taken as a precedent. When
Queen Anne came to the throne, Prince George of Denmark was the
only prince in England (all his children being dead), and no new
Act was necessary to give him precedence, if the Queen had
desired it, inasmuch as there was nobody for him to precede. The
condition of a Queen Consort is certainly very different from
that of a Prince Consort; but upon the broad principle of moral
fitness, there seems no reason why the husband of the Queen
regnant should not be invested, by virtue of his _consortium_,
with the highest dignity, over other men, just as the wife of the
king is participant by virtue of her marriage of divers
prerogatives over other women. For the prerogatives with which
the law invests her are allotted to her not upon her own account,
but upon that of the king; she is considered as a _feme sole_,
and has certain capacities and rights, 'in order that the king
whose continual care and study is for the public, should not be
troubled and disquieted on account of his wife's domestic
affairs.' And the law, which out of respect to the king makes it
high treason to compass or imagine the death of his wife, when
she becomes a widow ceases to surround her with this protection.
It is the king alone, his dignity and his comfort, which the law
regards, and the privileges and pre-eminences of his family are
conferred or established in such modes and proportions as may be
most conducive thereto.
The principle on which precedence is established is that of
propinquity to the sovereign, and no propinquity can be so close
as that of the husband to the wife, nor does it seem unreasonable
that all other subjects should be required to yield the outward
forms of honour and respect to the man who is elevated to a
station so far above them, whom she is herself bound to 'love,
honour, serve, and obey,' and who is superior to her in their
natural, while still subordinate in their civil and political
relations. Many people who are not unwilling to concede a high
degree of precedence to the Prince, are very sensitive about the
dignity of the heir apparent, and while they are content that he
should precede his other children, would on no account allow him
to be superior in rank to a Prince of Wales. The difficulty in
these cases is to establish a principle; but that difficulty is
rendered much greater if, when the principle is once admitted, it
is not taken with all its legitimate and necessary consequences.
If the Prince is entitled to claim precedency over any of the
blood-royal of England, above all others, he may claim it upon
every moral ground over his own children, nor is there any civil
or political consideration in reference to the heir apparent,
requiring that an exception should be made in his behalf. There
seem to exist confused notions of something very extraordinary
and transcendant in the status of a Prince of Wales, but the
difference between him and his younger brother is not very great;
and the only positive privilege with which the law certainly and
exclusively invests the heir apparent, is that of making it high
treason to attempt his life.[16]
[16] It is also treason to kill certain judicial officers
when in actual execution of their offices.--Hale, P. C.
13.
The heir apparent is Prince of Wales, and Duke of Cornwall, but
he is not necessarily either the one or the other, and except on
a certain condition he cannot be the latter.[17] For as the king
_creates_ his elder son, or heir apparent, Prince of Wales, he
has the power of withholding such creation, and though the eldest
son of the king is Duke of Cornwall by inheritance, the dukedom
is limited to the first begotten son of the king.[18]
[17] Two months elapsed between the death of Frederick
Prince of Wales, and the creation of his son, George
III., Prince of Wales.
[18] If, for example, George IV. had died in his youth, his
next brother might have been heir apparent, with no
other title than that of Bishop of Osnaburgh. Henry
VIII. after the death of Prince Arthur, and Charles I.
after that of Prince Henry, were Dukes of Cornwall, but
by special new creation.--H., P.C. 13.
The Prince of Wales has no right or privilege beyond those of any
other subject; he owes the same faith and allegiance to the
sovereign; and since 1789 none have ever ventured to assert that
he could claim the regency rather than any other subject. His
political condition, therefore, is little if at all different
from that of the rest of the Royal Family. His personal
propinquity to the sovereign must be less than that of his
father, and the question is, whether there is anything so
peculiar in his status as to supersede those natural relations of
father and son, which, according to all human custom, as well as
divine injunction, involve the duty of honour from the latter to
the former.
The son's enfranchisement from parental rule when he arrives at
years of discretion does not exempt him from the honour he is
bound by the law of God and nature to pay to his parents.[19] The
son is under a perpetual obligation to honour his father by all
outward expressions, and from this obligation no state can
absolve him. 'The honour due to parents' (says Locke) 'a monarch
on his throne owes his mother, and yet this lessens not his
authority, nor subjects him to her government.'[20] The
monarchical theory ascribes to the King of England two bodies or
capacities, a natural body, and a politic or mystical body, and
'from this mystical union of the ideal with the real king, the
enquirer after constitutional information is led through childish
reasoning and unintelligible jargon, to practical consequences
founded on expediency.'[21] These practical consequences are the
complete subordination of the natural to the politic capacity of
the sovereign, and that moral revolution which supersedes the
duty of the son to the father by the superior duty of the subject
to the sovereign. Nothing less transcendental seems sufficient to
cancel the force of this natural obligation, and while father and
son are both in the condition of subjects, the filial and
parental relations need not be outwardly reversed.
[19] Locke, vol. iv. p. 347.
[20] Ibid. vol. iv. p. 376.
[21] Allen on the Royal Prerogative, p. 29.
If the Queen, therefore, should be advised to grant to her Royal
Consort letters patent of precedence immediately next to her own
person, and at the same time make him a Privy Councillor, there
would be no practical difficulty with regard to his place at the
Council Board, notwithstanding the legal exception; there custom
has in a great measure superseded law. The occasions are very
rare when any of the Royal Dukes are present; and upon all
others, the Prince would sit upon the right hand of Her Majesty,
and precedence would be conceded to him as a matter of course.
The Council Board is no longer what it was in the days of Henry
VIII., at which time the King sat there regularly in person. The
greater part of the Privy Councillors were in constant attendance
upon him.[22] They resided in the Court, and accompanied him
wherever he went; much (though far from all) of the most
important business of the State was transacted there, and the
order of sitting, when the members had to deliver their opinions
seriatim, beginning with the lowest, was not unimportant.
Councils are now merely formal assemblies, for the expedition of
certain orders, which must emanate from the sovereign in person.
[22] Sir H. Nicholas' Preface to Council Register, vol. i.
p. 13.
When any of the Royal Dukes are present, they sit next the Queen
on her right hand, the Lord President always next her on her
left. And, although the Lord President and the Chancellor (when
present) sit on either side of the Queen, all the other officers
are indiscriminately placed. It would not probably be deemed
advisable to go back to the end of the seventeenth century for a
precedent, or it would be found that Prince George of Denmark sat
in council, without taking any oaths; not, therefore, as a Privy
Councillor, but _pro honoris causâ_. He always, however, occupied
the place of honour, and his attendance was very regular, though
there is no record of his having ever taken the oaths; and, at
the accession of King William, when all the other Privy
Councillors were sworn, it is expressly stated that Prince George
was not.[23]
[23] He was first brought into Council by James II. in
person, and placed on his right hand, but not sworn.
It is much to be regretted that such heat and irritation have
been manifested in the discussion of this question, and certainly
between the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament. Prince
Albert may well have thought his reception neither cordial nor
flattering; but the truth is, that any mortification which either
the Prince or the Queen may have felt (and in her it is only
natural, whether just or not) is at least as attributable to the
really objectionable nature of the propositions which were made,
as to the opposition which they encountered.
Nothing herein is more to be deplored than that any mistaken zeal
should misrepresent the conduct, or any hasty impression
misconstrue the motives, of the Duke of Wellington. His whole
life has been a continual manifestation of loyalty and of
superiority to petty purposes, and unworthy inducements; but his
notions of loyalty are of a nature which mere courtiers are
unable to comprehend, because he always considers the honour and
the interests of the Crown, in preference to the personal
inclination of the sovereign.
Of all men who ever lived he has sought the least the popularity
he has so largely acquired--the tide of which, sometimes diverted
by transient causes, has always returned with accumulated force.
With him it is no 'echo of folly, and shadow of renown,' but a
deep, affecting, almost sublime national feeling, which exults in
him as the living representative of national glory. If there be
an exception in any place to this universal sentiment, let us
hope that the impression will not endure, that the cloud of
momentary error will be dispersed, and that justice, ample and
not tardy, will be rendered to
'The noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of time.'
END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
INDEX.
Abbotsford, visit to, iii. 291
Aberdeen, Rt. Hon. Earl of, Foreign Secretary in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, ii. 37; and the Spanish quarrels, 73, 74; at
the Château d'Eu, 200; communications of, with the 'Times,'
200; Scotch Church Patronage Bill, 206; handsome behaviour of,
to Lord Palmerston, 406; communications of, with the 'Times' on
the Corn Laws, 311; reluctance of, to distrust M. Guizot, iii.
53; negotiations with, on the formation of a Government (1851),
383
Acland, Sir Thomas, motion of, i. 92
Adair, Sir Robert, anecdotes, iii. 212
Adelaide, Queen, at Exeter Hall, ii. 97
Afghanistan, expedition to, i. 241; events in (1842), ii. 85, 89;
withdrawal from, 99, 101; recapture of Ghuznee and Cabul and
release of the prisoners, 123, 125; indignation in England, 136
Aix-la-Chapelle, visit to, ii. 167
'Alarm,' accident to, at the Derby, ii. 284; wins at Newmarket,
302; wins the Emperor's Cup, 396
Alava, General, i. 241; conversation with, 241, 242
Albert, H.R.H. Prince, betrothal of, to the Queen announced,
i. 247; proposed allowance for, 258; naturalisation of, 259;
precedence of, 259, 263; refused, 265; Mr. Greville's pamphlet
on the Precedence Question, 266, 269; _see_ Appendix, vol. i.;
marriage of, 266, 269, 272; precedence conceded by the Duke of
Cambridge, 270; name inserted in the Liturgy, 272; gazetted,
273; introduction of, 305; at Oxford, ii. 13; declines an
invitation to the Waterloo Dinner, 15; and the King of Hanover,
192; hunting at Belvoir, 216; conversation with the Duke of
Bedford, 264; elected Chancellor of the University of
Cambridge, iii. 65; installed, 97; at Balmoral, 296; on Lord
Palmerston's conduct of foreign affairs, 317
Aldborough, Lady, at Baden Baden, ii. 183
Alexander, Grand Duke (afterwards Emperor Alexander II. of
Russia), departure of, i. 215; munificence of, 215
Allen, Mr. John, i. 38; death of, ii. 153; account of, 154
Alliance meeting at Hertford, ii. 415
Althorp, library at, ii. 275
Alvanley, Lord, death of, iii. 304; character of, 305
America, case of McLeod, i. 383; boundary question settled,
ii. 101; discovery of a missing map, 102
Ampthill, visit to, i. 250
Anglesey, Marquis of, the, speech of, at the Waterloo Dinner,
i. 102-104; wounded at Waterloo, 135; visit to, in North Wales,
ii. 16-17; reception of, at Carnarvon, 18