Measures for carrying the Second Reading of the Reform Bill in
the House of Lords--The Party of the Waverers--The Russo-Dutch
Loan--Resistance of the Tory Peers--Lord Melbourne's Views on
the Government--Macaulay at Holland House--Reluctance of the
Government to create Peers--Duke of Wellington intractable--
Peel's Despondency--Lord Grey on the Measures of Conciliation--
Lord Wharncliffe sees the King--Prospects of the Waverers--
Conversations with Lord Melbourne and Lord Palmerston--Duke of
Richmond on the Creation of Peers--Interview of Lord Grey with
the Waverers--Minute drawn up--Bethnal Green--The Archbishop of
Canterbury vacillates--Violence of Extreme Parties--Princess
Lieven's Journal--Lord Holland for making Peers--Irish National
Education--Seizure of Ancona--Reform Bill passes the House of
Commons--Lord Dudley's Madness--Debate in the Lords.
January 24th, 1832 {p.237}
Yesterday morning Frederick Lamb came to me and told me that the
question of the Peers was again in agitation, that the King had
agreed to make as many as they pleased, and had understood
Wharncliffe's conversation with his Majesty not to have contained
any distinct assurance that he would vote for the second reading
of the Bill. Our party in the Cabinet still fight the battle,
however, and Stanley (on whom all depends) is said to be firm,
but circumstances may compel them to give way, and Lord Grey (who
is suspected to have in his heart many misgivings as to this
measure), when left to Durham and Co., yields everything. Under
these circumstances I went to Wharncliffe last night, to persuade
him to declare his intentions without loss of time. He owned that
he had not _pledged_ himself to the King, and he was frightened
to death at the idea of taking this step, lest it should give
umbrage to the Tories, and he should find himself without any
support at all. We went, however, together to Grosvenor Square,
and had a long conference with Harrowby, whom I found equally
undecided.
[Page Head: PLANS OF CONCILIATION.]
In the meantime the Tories are full of activity and expectation,
and Lord Aberdeen is going to bring on a motion about Belgium on
Thursday, on which they expect to beat the Government, not
comprehending that a greater evil could not occur, or a better
excuse be afforded them for an immediate creation; still they have
got it into their heads that if they can beat the Government
_before_ the Reform Bill comes on they will force them to resign.
I found Harrowby and Wharncliffe equally undecided as to the
course they should adopt, the former clinging to the hope that the
Peerage question was at last suspended, that Lord Grey was
compunctious, the King reluctant, and so forth--Wharncliffe afraid
of being abandoned by those who are now disposed to consult and
act with him, and indisposed to commit himself irretrievably in
the House of Lords. After a long discussion I succeeded in
persuading them that the danger is imminent, that there is no
other chance of avoiding it, and they agreed to hoist their
standard, get what followers they can, and declare in the House
for the second reading without loss of time. Harrowby said of
himself that he was the worst person in the world to conciliate
and be civil, which is true enough, but he has a high reputation,
and his opinion is of immense value. Until they declare themselves
not a step will be made, and if they cannot gain adherents, why
the matter is at an end; while if their example be followed, there
is still a chance of averting the climax of all evils, the
swamping the House of Lords and the permanent establishment of the
power of the present Government. Wharncliffe is to go to the Duke
of Wellington to-day, to entreat him not to let his party divide
on Aberdeen's motion on Thursday, and Harrowby will go to the
Archbishop to invite his adhesion to their party. I am very
doubtful what success to augur from this, but it is the only
chance, and though the bulk of the Tory Peers are prejudiced,
obstinate, and stupid to the last degree, there are scattered
amongst them men of more rational views and more moderate
dispositions. Sandon came in while we were there, and expressed
precisely the same opinion that I had been endeavouring to enforce
upon them. He said that in the House of Commons, whence he was
just come, the Government had refused to give way upon a very
reasonable objection, without assigning any reason (the numbers in
Schedule B), that this evinced an unconciliatory spirit, which was
very distressing to those who wished for a compromise, that
Hobhouse came to him after the debate, and said how anxious he was
they should come to some understanding, and act in a greater
spirit of conciliation, and talked of a meeting of the moderate on
either side, that his constituents were eager for a settlement,
and by no means averse to concession, but that while Peel, Croker,
and others persisted in the tone they had adopted, and in the sort
of opposition they were pursuing, it was quite impossible for the
Government to give way upon anything, or evince any disposition to
make concessions. Sandon said he had no doubt whatever that if
Peel had assumed a different tone at the beginning of the session
the Government would have been more moderate, and mutual
concessions might have been feasible even in the House of Commons.
Hobhouse, however, said that the alterations, whatever they might
be (and he owned that he should like some), would come with a
better grace in the House of Lords, and this is what I have all
along thought. O'Connell arrived yesterday, took his seat, and
announced his intention of supporting Government at any rate. All
the Irish members do the same, and this great body, that everyone
expected would display hostility to the Bill, have formed
themselves into a phalanx, and will carry it through any
difficulties by their compactness and the regularity of their
attendance.
January 25th, 1832 {p.239}
We met at Lord Harrowby's last night--Wharncliffe, Harrowby,
Haddington, and Sandon--and I found their minds were quite made
up. Wharncliffe is to present a petition from Hull, and to take
that opportunity of making his declaration, and the other two are
to support him. Wharncliffe saw the Bishop of London in the
morning, who is decided the same way, and he asked Lord Devon,
who knows the House of Lords very well, if he thought, in the
event of their raising the standard of moderate Reform, that they
would have adherents, to which he replied he was convinced they
would. Lord Harrowby saw the Archbishop, who would not pledge
himself, but appeared well disposed; and altogether they think
they can count upon nine bishops. Wharncliffe spoke to the Duke
of Wellington about Lord Aberdeen's motion, and represented all
the impolicy of it at this moment, and the connection it might
have with the Peerage question; to which he only replied by
enlarging on 'the importance of the Belgic question,' either
unable or unwilling to embrace this measure in its complex
relations, and never perceiving that the country cares not a
straw about Belgium or anything but Reform, though they may begin
to care about such things when this question is settled.
Haddington also went to Aberdeen, who would hear nothing; but he
and the Duke severally promised to speak to one another. The
question last night was whether Wharncliffe should say his say
directly, or wait (as he wishes to do) for a few days. The
decision of this he referred to me, and I have referred it to
Melbourne, to whom I have communicated what has passed.
News came yesterday that the cholera had got within three miles
of Edinburgh, and to show the fallacy of any theory about it, and
the inutility of the prescribed precautions, at one place
(Newport, I think) one person in five of the whole population was
attacked, though there was no lack of diet, warmth, and clothing
for the poor. This disease escapes from all speculation, so
partial and eccentric is its character.
January 29th, 1832 {p.240}
[Page Head: DISCREDIT OF MINISTERS.]
There were two divisions on Thursday night last--in the House of
Lords on the Belgian question, and in the House of Commons on the
Russian Loan. Harrowby, Wharncliffe, and Haddington stayed away;
Lyndhurst voted. Only two bishops, Durham and Killaloe. Ministers
had a majority of thirty-seven, for Aberdeen and the Duke
persisted in bringing on the question and dividing upon it. The
former spoke nearly three hours, and far better than ever he had
done before; the Duke was prosy. In the other House the
Government had not a shadow of a case; their law officers, Home
and Denman, displayed an ignorance and stupidity which were quite
ludicrous, and nothing saved them from defeat but a good speech
at the end from Palmerston, and their remonstrances to their
friends that unless they carried it they must resign. Not a soul
defends them, and they are particularly blamed for their folly in
not coming to Parliament at once, by which they might have
avoided the scrape.[1] They had only a majority of twenty-four.
They were equally disgusted with both these divisions, both
plainly showing that they have little power (independently of the
Reform question) in either House. To be sure the case in the
House of Commons was a wretched one, but in the House of Lords
there was nothing to justify a vote of censure on Government, to
which Aberdeen's motion was tantamount. But while they had a
majority which was respectable enough to make it impossible to
propose making Peers on _that account_, it was so small that they
see clearly what they have to expect hereafter from such a House
of Lords, and accordingly their adherents have thrown off the
mask. Sefton called on me the day after, and said it was
ridiculous to go on in this way, that the Tories had had
possession of the Government so many years, and the power of
making so many Peers, that no Whig or other Ministry could stand
without a fresh creation to redress the balance.
[1] [For a more particular account of the question of the
Russo-Dutch Loan, see _infra_ [February 4, 1832], p.
244. It has since been universally admitted that the
conduct of the Government was wise and honourable, and
that the separation of Holland and Belgium did not
exonerate Great Britain from a financial engagement to
foreign Powers.]
After having, as I supposed, settled everything with Wharncliffe
about his declaration, I got a letter from him yesterday (from
Brighton), saying he thought it would be premature, and wished to
put it off till the first reading of the Bill in the House of
Lords. I took his letter to Melbourne, and told him I was all
against the delay. He said it was no doubt desirable they should
get as many adherents as they can, and if the delay would enable
them to do so it might be better, but they must not imagine
Government was satisfied with the division in the House of Lords.
However, the question of Peers seems not to be under discussion
at this moment, though it is perpetually revived. In the evening
I went to Harrowby's and showed him Wharncliffe's letter. He
concurred in the expediency of delay, but without convincing me.
He showed me a letter, and a very good one, he has written to
Lord Talbot, explaining his views, and inviting his concurrence,
and of this he has sent copies to other Peers, whom he thinks it
possible he may influence. The question of time and manner is to
be reserved for future discussion.
February 2nd, 1832 {p.242}
[Page Head: SIR HENRY PARNELL.]
Met Frederick Lamb at dinner to talk over the state of affairs
before he goes to Vienna. What he wishes for is the expulsion of
this Government, and the formation of a moderate one taken from
all parties. Received another letter from Wharncliffe yesterday,
in which he stated that he had communicated to the Duke of
Wellington his intention of supporting the second reading, and
asked if the Duke would support his amendments in Committee. In
the meantime I wrote to Harrowby, begging he would communicate
with Lord Carnarvon and the Duke of Buckingham. They keep
doubting and fearing about who will or will not join them, but do
not stir a step. George Bentinck told me that Lord Holland said
to the Duke of Richmond the other day 'that he had heard a
declaration was in agitation; that nothing could be more
unfortunate at this moment, as it would make it very difficult to
create fifty Peers.' In the meantime a difficulty is likely to
arise from another source, and the Government to derive strength
from their very weakness. Robert Clive (who is a moderate Tory)
called on me the other day, and when (after expressing his
anxiety that the question should be settled) I asked him whether
such a declaration would meet with much success, said he thought
that it would have done so a fortnight ago, but that the extreme
discredit into which Ministers were fallen would now operate as a
reason against supporting them in any stage of the business, and
offered so good a chance of expelling them altogether that people
would be anxious to try it. Still it must be so obvious that it
would be next to impossible to make a Government now, that it is
to be hoped all but the most violent will feel it. Herries indeed
told somebody that he had no doubt the Tories could make a
Government, and that on a dissolution they would get a Parliament
that would support them. Parnell[2] has been turned out for not
voting on the Russian Loan affair, and Hobhouse appointed in his
place. Tennyson resigned from ill health. Parnell was properly
enough turned out, and he is a good riddance, but it is not the
same thing as turning people out on Reform. He wrote an excellent
book on finance, but he was a very bad Secretary at War, a rash
economical innovator, and a bad man of business in its details.
After waiting till the last moment for the arrival of the Russian
ratification, the French and English signed the Belgian treaty
alone, and the others are to sign after as their powers arrive.
[2] [Sir Henry Parnell had been appointed Secretary at War
on the formation of Lord Grey's Ministry. He had
exasperated his colleagues by entering upon an
unauthorised negotiation with the French Post Office,
without the knowledge of the Duke of Richmond, then
Postmaster-General, and by encouraging Joseph Hume to
bring on a motion against the Post Office. Hume brought
this letter to the Duke of Richmond, who was indignant
and laid the whole matter before Lord Grey, who behaved
very well about it. Parnell narrowly escaped dismissal
at that time, and on his next sign of disaffection to
the Government he was turned out of office.]
February 4th, 1832 {p.243}
Called on Lord Harrowby in the morning; found him in very bad
spirits, as well he might, for to all the invitations he had
written to Peers he had received either refusals or no reply, so
that he augurs ill of their attempt. Carnarvon and Talbot refused;
these besotted, predestinated Tories _will_ follow the Duke; the
Duke _will_ oppose all Reform because he said he would. Those who
are inclined will not avow their conversion to moderate
principles, and so they will go on, waiting and staring at one
another, till one fine day the Peers will come out in the
'Gazette.' The thing looks ill. Dined with Lord Holland.
Melbourne, who was there, asked me if I had heard from Wharncliffe,
but I did not tell him of Lord Harrowby's refusals.
Falck dined there, and in conversation about the Russian Loan he
told us the original history of it. The Emperor of Russia had
borrowed ninety millions of florins, and when his concurrence and
support were desired to the new kingdom of the Netherlands he
proposed in return that the King of Holland should take this debt
off his hands. The King said he would gladly meet his wishes, but
could not begin by making himself unpopular with his new subjects
and saddling them with this debt. Whereupon England interposed,
and an arrangement was made [in 1815] by which Russia, England,
and the King of the Netherlands divided the debt into three equal
shares, each taking one. With reference to the argument that the
countries being divided we ought no longer to pay our share,
Falck said the King of the Netherlands had not refused to pay on
those grounds, that he had only (with reference to his heavy
expenses) expressed his present inability and asked for time,
which the Emperor of Russia had agreed to. What he meant was that
the kingdoms were not as yet _de jure_ separated, and that the
_casus_ had not yet arrived. This, however, is nothing to the
purpose, for the King and the Emperor understand one another very
well, and it is not likely that the King should do anything to
supply us with a motive or a pretext for refusing our _quota_ to
his imperial ally. Brougham's speech on the Russian Loan
everybody agrees to have been super-excellent--'a continued
syllogism from the beginning to the end.' Lord Holland said, and
the Duke of Wellington (I am told) declared, it was the best
speech he had ever heard.
February 5th, 1832 {p.245}
Met Melbourne yesterday evening, and turned back and walked with
him; talked over the state of affairs. He said Government were
very much annoyed at their division in the House of Commons,
though Brougham had in some measure repaired that disaster in the
House of Lords; that it became more difficult to resist making
Peers as Government exhibited greater weakness. I told him the
Tories were so unmanageable because they wished to drive out the
Government, and thought they could. Dined at the Sheriff's
dinner--not unpleasant--and went in the evening to Lady Harrowby;
Lord Harrowby gone to his brothers'. Melbourne had told me that
he had spoken to Haddington, and I found Haddington had given a
report of what he said such as I am sure Melbourne did not mean
to convey; the upshot of which was that there was only one man in
the Cabinet who wished to make Peers, that there was no immediate
danger, and that it would do more harm than good if they declared
themselves without a good number of adherents. Called this
morning on Lady C., who said that Melbourne was in fact very much
annoyed at his position, wanted _caractere_, was wretched at
having been led so far, and tossed backwards and forwards between
opposite sentiments and feelings; that he thought the Government
very weak, and that they would not stand, and in fact that he did
not desire they should remain in, but the contrary. And this is
Frederick's opinion too, who has great influence over him, while
at the same time he is rather jealous of Frederick.
February 6th, 1832 {p.245}
[Page Head: MACAULAY AT HOLLAND HOUSE.]
Dined yesterday with Lord Holland; came very late, and found a
vacant place between Sir George Robinson and a common-looking man
in black. As soon as I had time to look at my neighbour, I began
to speculate (as one usually does) as to who he might be, and as
he did not for some time open his lips except to eat, I settled
that he was some obscure man of letters or of medicine, perhaps a
cholera doctor. In a short time the conversation turned upon early
and late education, and Lord Holland said he had always remarked
that self-educated men were peculiarly conceited and arrogant, and
apt to look down upon the generality of mankind, from their being
ignorant of how much other people knew; not having been at public
schools, they are uninformed of the course of general education.
My neighbour observed that he thought the most remarkable example
of self-education was that of Alfieri, who had reached the age of
thirty without having acquired any accomplishment save that of
driving, and who was so ignorant of his own language that he had
to learn it like a child, beginning with elementary books. Lord
Holland quoted Julius Caesar and Scaliger as examples of late
education, said that the latter had been wounded, and that he had
been married and commenced learning Greek the same day, when my
neighbour remarked 'that he supposed his learning Greek was not an
instantaneous act like his marriage.' This remark, and the manner
of it, gave me the notion that he was a dull fellow, for it came
out in a way which bordered on the ridiculous, so as to excite
something like a sneer. I was a little surprised to hear him
continue the thread of conversation (from Scaliger's wound) and
talk of Loyola having been wounded at Pampeluna. I wondered how he
happened to know anything about Loyola's wound. Having thus
settled my opinion, I went on eating my dinner, when Auckland, who
was sitting opposite to me, addressed my neighbour, 'Mr. Macaulay,
will you drink a glass of wine?' I thought I should have dropped
off my chair. It was MACAULAY, the man I had been so long most
curious to see and to hear, whose genius, eloquence, astonishing
knowledge, and diversified talents have excited my wonder and
admiration for such a length of time, and here I had been sitting
next to him, hearing him talk, and setting him down for a dull
fellow. I felt as if he could have read my thoughts, and the
perspiration burst from every pore of my face, and yet it was
impossible not to be amused at the idea. It was not till Macaulay
stood up that I was aware of all the vulgarity and ungainliness of
his appearance; not a ray of intellect beams from his countenance;
a lump of more ordinary clay never enclosed a powerful mind and
lively imagination. He had a cold and sore throat, the latter of
which occasioned a constant contraction of the muscles of the
thorax, making him appear as if in momentary danger of a fit. His
manner struck me as not pleasing, but it was not assuming,
unembarrassed, yet not easy, unpolished, yet not coarse; there was
no kind of usurpation of the conversation, no tenacity as to
opinion or facts, no assumption of superiority, but the variety
and extent of his information were soon apparent, for whatever
subject was touched upon he evinced the utmost familiarity with
it; quotation, illustration, anecdote, seemed ready in his hands
for every topic. Primogeniture in this country, in others, and
particularly in ancient Rome, was the principal topic, I think,
but Macaulay was not certain what was the law of Rome, except that
when a man died intestate his estate was divided between his
children. After dinner Talleyrand, and Madame de Dino came in. He
was introduced to Talleyrand, who told him that he meant to go to
the House of Commons on Tuesday, and that he hoped he would speak,
'qu'il avait entendu tous les grands orateurs, et il desirait a
present entendre Monsieur Macaulay.'
February 7th, 1832 {p.247}
[Page Head: RELUCTANCE TO MAKE PEERS.]
Called on Melbourne. He said he had not meant Haddington to
understand that it was desirable the declaration should be
delayed; on the contrary, that it was desirable Ministers should
be informed as speedily as possible of the intentions of our
friends and of the force they can command, but that if only a few
declared themselves, they would certainly be liable to the
suspicion that they could not get adherents; he added that every
man in the Government (except one) was aware of the desperate
nature of the step they were about to take (that man of course
being Durham.) I told him that his communication to Haddington
had to a certain degree had the effect of paralysing my
exertions, and he owned it was imprudent. I was, however,
extremely surprised to hear what he said about the Cabinet, and I
asked him if it really was so, and that all the members of it
were _bona fide_ alarmed at, and averse to, the measure; that I
had always believed that, with the exception of those who were
intimate with him, they all wanted the pretext in order to
establish their power. He said no, they really all were conscious
of the violence of the measure, and desirous of avoiding it; that
Lord Grey had been so from the beginning, but that Durham was
always at him, and made him fall into his violent designs; that
it was 'a reign of terror,' but that Durham could do with him
what he pleased. What a picture of secret degradation and
imbecility in the towering and apparently haughty Lord Grey! I
told Melbourne that it was important to gain time, that there was
an appearance of a thaw among the 199, but that most of them were
in the country; communications by letter were difficult and
unsatisfactory; that many were averse to breaking up the party or
leaving the Duke--in short, from one cause or another doubtful
and wavering; that it was not to be expected they should at a
moment's warning take this new line, in opposition to the
opinions and conduct of their old leaders, and that when Lord
Harrowby was exerting himself indefatigably to bring them to
reason, and to render a measure unnecessary which in the opinion
of the Cabinet itself was fraught with evil, it was fair and just
to give him time to operate. He said this was very true, but that
time was likewise required to execute the measure of a creation
of Peers, that people must be invited, the patents made out, &c.
We then parted. Downstairs was Rothschild the Jew waiting for
him, and the _valet de chambre_ sweeping away a _bonnet_ and a
_shawl_.
On my way from Melbourne called on Lord Harrowby, and read a
variety of letters--answers from different Peers to his letters,
Wharncliffe's correspondence with the Duke of Wellington, and
Peel's answer to Lord Harrowby. Wharncliffe wrote a long and very
conciliatory letter to the Duke, nearly to the effect of Lord
Harrowby's circular, and containing the same arguments, to which
the Duke replied by a long letter, written evidently in a very
ill humour, and such a galimatias as I never read, angry, ill
expressed, and confused, and from which it was difficult to
extract anything intelligible but this, 'that he was aware of the
consequences of the course he should adopt himself,' and wished
the House of Lords to adopt, viz., the same as last year, but
that be those consequences what they might, the responsibility
would not lie on his shoulders, but on those of the Government;
he acknowledged that a creation of Peers would swamp the House of
Lords, and, by so doing, destroy the Constitution, but the
Government would be responsible, not he, for the ruin that would
ensue; that he was aware some Reform was necessary (in so far
departing from his former declaration of the 30th of November),
but he would neither propose anything himself, nor take this
measure, nor try and amend it.' In short, he will do nothing but
talk nonsense, despair, and be obstinate, and then he is hampered
by declarations (from which he now sees himself that he must
dissent), and obliged from causes connected with the Catholic
question and the Test and Corporation Acts to attend more to the
consistency of his own character than to the exigencies of the
country, but with much more personal authority than anybody, and
still blindly obeyed and followed by men many of whom take very
rational and dispassionate views of the subject, but who still
are resolved to sacrifice their own sense to his folly. He really
has accomplished being a prophet in his own country, not from the
sagacity of his predictions, but from the blind worship of his
devotees.
[Page Head: PEEL'S DESPONDENCY.]
Peel's letter, though arriving at the same conclusion, was in a
very different style. It certainly was an able production, well
expressed and plausibly argued, with temper and moderation. He
owned that much was to be said on the side of the question which
he does not espouse, but the reasons by which he says he is
mainly governed are these: that it is of vital importance to
preserve the consistency of the party to which we are to look for
future safety, and that when this excitement has passed away the
conduct of the anti-Reformers will have justice done to it. But
there is a contradiction which pervades his argument, for he
treats the subject as if all hope had vanished of saving the
country, 'desperat de republica,' and he does not promise himself
present advantage from the firmness and consistency of the
Tories, but taking it in connection with the folly and wickedness
of the other party (who he is persuaded bitterly regret their own
precipitate violence and folly), he expects it to prove
serviceable as an example and beacon to future generations. All
the evils that have been predicted may flow from this measure
when carried into complete operation, but it is neither
statesmanlike nor manly to throw up the game in despair, and
surrender every point, and waive every compensation, in order to
preserve the consistency of himself and his own party, not that
their consistency is to produce any advantage, but that hereafter
it
May point a moral or adorn a tale.
So senseless is this, that it is clear to me that it is not his
real feeling, and that he promises himself some personal
advantage from the adoption of such a course. Peel 'loves'
himself, 'not wisely but too well.'
February 9th, 1832 {p.249}
[Page Head: CONVERSATION WITH LORD GREY.]
Yesterday I met Lord Grey and rode with him. I told him that the
Tories were pleased at his speech about the Irish Tithes. He said
'he did not know why, for he had not said what he did with a view
to please them.' I said because they looked upon it as an
intimation that the old Protestant ascendency was to be restored.
He rejected very indignantly that idea, and said he had never
contemplated any ascendency but that of the law and the
Government. I said I knew that, but that they had been so long
used to consider themselves as the sole representatives of the
law and the Government, that they took the assertion he had made
as a notification that their authority was again to be exercised
as in bygone times. He then asked me if I knew what Lord Harrowby
had done, said he had spoken to him, that he was placed in a
difficult position and did not know what to do. I said that
Harrowby was exerting himself, that time was required to bring
people round, that I had reason to believe Harrowby had made a
great impression, but that most of the Peers of that party were
out of town, and it was impossible to expect them on the receipt
of a letter of invitation and advice to reply by return of post
that they would abandon their leaders and their party, and change
their whole opinions and course of action, that I expected the
Archbishop and Bishop of London would go with him, and that they
would carry the bench. He said the Bishop of London he had
already talked to, that the Archbishop was such a poor, miserable
creature that there was no dependence to be placed on him, that
he would be frightened and vote any way his fear directed. Then
he asked, how many had they _sure_? I said, 'At this moment not
above eight Lords and eight bishops.' He said that was not
enough. I said I knew that, but he must have patience, and should
remember that when the Duke of Wellington brought the Catholic
Bill into the House of Commons he had a majority on paper against
him in the House of Lords of twenty-five, and he carried the Bill
by a hundred. He said he should like to talk to Harrowby again,
which I pressed him to do, and he said he would. I find Lord John
Russell sent for Sandon, and told him that he and the others were
really anxious to avoid making Peers, and entreated him to get
something done by his father and his associates as soon as
possible, that there was no time to be lost, that he should not
deny that he wished Peers to be made, not now, but after the
Reform Bill had passed. I called on Lord Harrowby in the
afternoon, and found him half dead with a headache and dreadfully
irritable. Letters had come (which he had not seen) from Lord
Bagot refusing, Lord Carteret ditto, and very impertinently, and
Lord Calthorpe adhering. I told him what had passed between Lord
Grey and me. He said their insolence had been hitherto so great
in refusing to listen to any terms (at the meeting of the six),
and in refusing every concession in the House of Commons and not
tolerating the slightest alteration, that he despaired of doing
anything with them, that Lord Grey had told him he could not
agree to make a sham resistance in Committee, but that he on the
other hand would not agree to go into Committee, except on an
express understanding that they should not avail themselves of
the probable disunion of the Tories to carry all the details of
their Bill. The difficulties are immense, but if Grey and
Harrowby get together, it is possible something may be done,
provided they will approach each other in a _spirit_ of
compromise. It is certainly easier now, and very different from
the House of Commons, where I have always thought they _could_
make no concession. In the House of Lords they may without
difficulty. I dread the obstinate of both parties.
February 11th, 1832 {p.251}
Wharncliffe came to town on Thursday and called on me. At Brighton
he had seen Sir Andrew Barnard, and showed him the correspondence
with the Duke of Wellington, telling him at the same time he might
mention it to Taylor if he liked, and if Taylor had any wish to
see it he should. Accordingly Taylor sent him word he should be
glad to have an interview with him. They met at Lord Wharncliffe's
house and had a long conversation, in the course of which Taylor
gave him to understand that it was quite true that the King had
consented to everything about the creation of Peers, but _multa
gemens_, and that he was much alarmed, and could not endure the
thought of this measure. The end was that a memorandum was drawn
up of the conversation, and of Wharncliffe's sentiments and
intentions, which were much the same as those he had put forth at
the time of the old negotiations. This was taken away by Taylor
and shown to the King, and copies of it were forwarded to Grey,
Brougham, and Melbourne. The next day Wharncliffe dined with the
King, and after dinner his Majesty took him aside and said, 'I
have seen your paper, and I agree with every word you say; we are
indeed in a scrape, and we must get out of it as we can. I only
wish everybody was as reasonable and as moderate as you, and then
we might do so perhaps without difficulty.' That the King is
alarmed is pretty clear, but it is more probable that his alarm
may influence his Ministers than himself, and it looks very much
as if it had done so. Sir H. Taylor likewise told Wharncliffe that
the Duke of Wellington had written a letter which had been laid
before the King, and had given him great offence, and that it
certainly was such a letter as was unbecoming in any subject to
write. This letter is supposed to have been addressed to
Strangford; it got into Londonderry's hands, and he laid it before
the King (upon the occasion of his going with some address to
Brighton), who desired it might be left with him till the next
day. The reason why they think it was Strangford is that the word
'Viscount' was apparent at the bottom, but the name was erased. In
the meantime Harrowby has had some conversation with Lord
Lansdowne, who pressed the necessity of making a demonstration of
their strength, and added that if the Archbishop could be induced
to declare himself that would be sufficient. Lord Harrowby is
accordingly working incessantly upon the Archbishop on the one
hand, while he exhorts to patience and reliance on the other.
Yesterday he took a high tone with Lord Lansdowne, told him that
he had, as he firmly believed, as many as twenty-five Lords, lay
and spiritual, with him, which would make a difference of fifty,
but that as to a public irrevocable pledge, it was not to be had,
and that Lord Grey must place confidence in his belief and
reliance upon his exertions, or, if not, he must take his own
course. Upon Lord Grey's meeting with him, and the Archbishop's
being brought to the post, the matter now hinges.
[Page Head: WELLINGTON AND WHARNCLIFFE.]
In the meantime I have discovered the cause of the Duke of
Wellington's peevish reply to Wharncliffe, and the reason why Lord
Harrowby's letter to Lord Bagot was unanswered for ten days, and
then couched in terms so different from what might have been
expected. Lord Howe was at Bliffield at the time, and they,
between them, sent Harrowby's letter up to the Duke of Wellington,
who of course wrote his sentiments in reply. For this they waited,
and on this Lord Bagot acted. My brother told me yesterday that
the Duke had seen the letter, and that _Lord Howe_ had been the
person who sent it him. This explains it all. Wharncliffe's letter
was but another version of Lord Harrowby's, and he had therefore
in fact seen it before, but seen it addressed to those whom he
considered bound to him and his views, and I have no doubt he was
both angry and jealous at Lord Harrowby's interference. Nothing
could be more uncandid and unjustifiable than Lord Bagot's
conduct, for he never asked Lord Harrowby's leave to communicate
the letter, nor told him that he had done so; on the contrary, he
gave him to understand that the delay (for which he made many
apologies) was owing to his reflection and his consulting his
brother the bishop. The Duke, no doubt, gave him his own
sentiments; yet, in his letter to Wharncliffe, he says 'he has not
endeavoured to influence anybody, nor shall he;' and at the same
time eludes the essential question 'whether he will support in
Committee.' So much for Tory candour. As to the Duke, he is
evidently piqued and provoked to the quick; his love of power and
authority are as great as ever, and he can't endure to see anybody
withdrawn from his influence; provoked with himself and with
everybody else, his mind is clouded by passion and prejudice, and
the consequences are the ill-humour he displays and the abominable
nonsense he writes, and yet the great mass of these Tories follow
the Duke, go where he will, let the consequences be what they may,
and without requiring even a reason; _sic vult sic jubet_ is
enough for them. One thing that gives me hopes is the change in
the language of the friends of Government out of doors--Dover, for
instance, who has been one of the noisiest of the bawlers for
Peers. I walked with him from the House of Lords the night before
last, and he talked only of the break-up of the 199, and of the
activity of Harrowby and Wharncliffe and its probable effects.
February 14th, 1832 {p.254}
On Saturday evening I found Melbourne at the Home Office in his
lazy, listening, silent humour, disposed to hear everything and to
say very little; told me that Dover and Sefton were continually
_at_ the Chancellor to make Peers, and that they both, particularly
the latter, had great influence with him. Brougham led by Dover
and Sefton!! I tried to impress upon him the necessity of giving
Harrowby credit, and not exacting what was not to be had, viz.,
the _pledges_ of the anti-Reformers to vote for the second
reading. He owned that in their case he would not pledge himself
either. I put before him as strongly as I could all the various
arguments for resisting this desperate measure of making Peers (to
which he was well inclined to assent), and pressed upon him the
importance of not exasperating the Tories and the Conservative
party to the last degree, and placing such an impassable barrier
between public men on both sides as should make it impossible for
them to reunite for their common interest and security hereafter.
[Page Head: CONVERSATION WITH LORD PALMERSTON.]
In the evening I got a message from Palmerston to beg I would
call on him, which I did at the Foreign Office yesterday. He is
infinitely more alert than Melbourne, and more satisfactory to
talk to, because he enters with more warmth and more detail into
the subject. He began by referring to the list of Peers likely to
vote for the second reading, which I showed to him. At the same
time I told him that though he might make use of the information
generally as far as expressing his own belief that Lord Harrowby
would have a sufficient following, he must not produce the list
or quote the names, for, in fact, not one of them had given any
authority to be so counted; that he must be aware there were
persons who would be glad to mar our projects, and they could not
more effectually do so than by conveying to these Peers the use
that had been made of their names. To all this he agreed
entirely. He then talked of the expediency of a declaration from
Lord Harrowby, and how desirable it was that it should be made
soon, and be supported by as many as could be induced to come
forward; that Lord Grey had said to him very lately that he
really believed he should be obliged to create Peers. I said that
my persuasion was that it would be quite unnecessary to do so _to
carry the second reading_; that nothing was required but
confidence in Lord Harrowby, and that his character and his
conduct on this occasion entitled him to expect it from them;
that if they were sincere in their desire to avoid this measure
they would trust to his exertions; that I knew very well the
efforts that were made to force this measure on Lord Grey; that
it was in furtherance of this that Duncombe's[3] ridiculous
affair in the House of Commons had been got up, which had been
such a complete failure; but that I could not believe Lord Grey
would suffer himself to be bullied into it by such despicable
means, and by the clamour of such men as Duncombe and O'Connell,
urged on by friends of his own. He said this was very true, but
the fact was they could not risk the rejection of the Bill again;
that he knew from a variety of communications that an explosion
would inevitably follow its being thrown out on the second
reading; that he had had letters from Scotland and other places,
and had no doubt that such would be the case. I said that he
would find it very difficult to persuade our friends of this, and
it appeared to me as clear as possible that the feeling for the
Bill and the excitement had subsided; that they might be to a
certain degree renewed by its rejection, but no man could doubt
that modifications in it, which would have been impossible a few
months ago, would now be easy; that if it was not for that
unfortunate declaration of Lord Grey, by which he might consider
himself bound, he might safely consent to such changes as would
make the adjustment of the question no difficult matter; that
with regard to the rejection of the Bill, whatever excitement it
might produce, it was evident the Government had an immediate
remedy; they had only to prorogue Parliament for a week and
make their Peers, and they would _then_ have an excellent
pretext--indeed, so good a one that it was inconceivable to me
that they should hesitate for a moment in adopting that course.
This he did not deny. I then told him of the several
conversations between Lord Harrowby and Lords Grey and Lansdowne,
and mine with Lord Grey; that Lord Harrowby protested against
Lord Grey's availing himself of any disunion among the Opposition
(produced by his support of the second reading) to carry those
points, to resist which would be the sole object of Lord Harrowby
in seceding from his party; and that Lord Grey had said he could
not make a sham resistance. Palmerston said, 'We have brought in
a Bill which we have made as good as we can; it is for you to
propose any alterations you wish to make in it, and if you can
beat us, well and good. There are indeed certain things which, if
carried against us, would be so fatal to the principle of the
Bill that Lord Grey would not consider it worth carrying if so
amended; but on other details he is ready to submit, if they
should be carried against him.' I said that would not do, that I
must refer him to the early negotiations and the disposition
which was then expressed to act upon a principle of mutual
concession; that when Lord Harrowby and his friends were
prepared to concede to its fullest extent the principle of
disfranchisement (though they might propose alterations in a few
particulars), they had a right to expect that the Government
should surrender without fighting some of those equivalents or
compensations which they should look for in the alterations or
additions they might propose. He said that 'while Lord Harrowby
was afraid that Ministers might avail themselves of his weakness
to carry their details, _they_ were afraid lest Lord Harrowby and
his friends should unite with the
ultra-Tories to beat them in Committee on some of the essential
clauses of the Bill.' I replied, then it was fear for fear, and
under the circumstances the best thing was an understanding that
each party should act towards the other in a spirit of good
faith, and without taking any accidental advantage that might
accrue either way. We then discussed the possibility of an
agreement upon the details, and he enquired what they would
require. I told him that they would require an alteration of
Schedule B to exclude the town voters from county representation,
perhaps to vary the franchise, and some other things, with regard
to which I could not speak positively at the moment. He said he
thought some alteration might be made in Schedule B, particularly
in giving all the towns double members, by cutting off the lower
ones that had one; that it was intended no man should have a vote
for town and county on the _same_ qualification, and he believed
there were very few who would possess the double right. That I
said would make it more easy to give up, and it was a thing the
others laid great stress upon. He seemed to think it might be
done. As to the L10, he said he had at first been disposed to
consider it too low, but he had changed his mind, and now doubted
if it would not turn out to be too high. We then talked of the
metropolitan members, to which I said undoubtedly they wished to
strike them off, but they knew very well the Government desired
it equally. We agreed that I should get from Lord Harrowby
specifically what he would require, and he would give me in
return what concessions the Government would probably be disposed
to make; that these should be communicated merely as the private
opinions of individuals, and not as formal proposals; and we
should try and blend them together into some feasible compromise.
[3] Duncombe brought forward a petition from six men at
Barnet complaining that they had been entrapped into
signing Lord Verulam's and Lord Salisbury's address to
the King. The object was to produce a discussion about
the Peers. It totally failed, but it was got up with an
openness that was indecent by Durham and that crew, who
were all (Durham, Sefton, Mulgrave, Dover) under the
gallery to hear it. The thing was ridiculed by Peel,
fell flat upon the House, and excited disgust and
contempt out of it.
I afterwards saw the Duke of Richmond, who said that Dover and
Sefton had both attacked him for being against making Peers, and
he should like to know how they knew it. I told him, from the
Chancellor, to be sure, and added how they were always working at
him and the influence they had with him. He said the Chancellor's
being for making Peers was not enough to carry the question; that
if it was done it must be by a minute of the Cabinet, with the
names of the dissentients appended to it; and then the King must
determine; that if the dissentients seceded upon it it would be
impossible. He recollected, when there was a question of making
Peers on the Catholic question by the Duke of Wellington, that he
and some others had resolved, should it have been done, to avail
themselves of the power of the House to come down day after day
and move adjournments before any of the new Peers could take
their seats; that the same course might be adopted now, though it
would produce a revolution. I told him that I had little doubt
there were men who would not scruple to adopt any course, however
violent, that the power of Parliament would admit of; that there
were several who were of opinion that the creation of Peers would
at once lay the Constitution prostrate and bring about a
revolution; that they considered it would be not a remote and
uncertain, but a sure and proximate event, and if by accelerating
it they could crush their opponents they would do so without
hesitation.
In the meantime the cholera has made its appearance in London, at
Rotherhithe, Limehouse, and in a ship off Greenwich--in all seven
cases. These are amongst the lowest and most wretched classes,
chiefly Irish, and a more lamentable exhibition of human misery
than that given by the medical men who called at the Council
Office yesterday I never heard. They are in the most abject state
of poverty, without beds to lie upon. The men live by casual
labour, are employed by the hour, and often get no more than four
or five hours' employment in the course of the week. They are
huddled and crowded together by families in the same room, not as
permanent lodgers, but procuring a temporary shelter; in short, in
the most abject state of physical privation and moral degradation
that can be imagined. On Saturday we had an account of one or more
cases. We sent instantly down to inspect the district and organise
a Board of Health. A meeting was convened, and promises given that
all things needful should be done, but as they met at a
public-house they all got drunk and did nothing. We have sent down
members of the Board of Health, to make preparations and organise
boards; but, if the disease really spreads, no human power can
arrest its progress through such an Augean stable.
February 14th, 1832 {p.259}
[Page Head: INTERVIEW OF LORD HARROWBY AND LORD GREY.]
Dined with Lord Harrowby, and communicated conversation with
Palmerston and Melbourne. He has not been able to decide the
Archbishop, who is on and off, and can't make up his mind. Lord
Harrowby is going to Lord Grey to talk with him. The Tories
obstinate as mules. The Duke of Buccleuch, who had got Harrowby's
letter, and copied it himself that he might know it by heart, has
made up his mind to vote the other way, as he did before; Lord
Wallace (after a long correspondence) the same. There can be
little doubt that they animate one another, and their cry is 'to
stick to the Duke of Wellington.' The cholera is established, and
yesterday formal communications were made to the Lord Mayor and
to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that London was no
longer healthy.
February 17th, 1832 {p.259}
Wharncliffe came to town the night before last, it having been
settled that Harrowby was to go to Lord Grey yesterday morning.
After consultation we agreed he had better go alone, that it
would be less formal, and that Lord Grey would be more disposed
to open himself. The same evening, at Madame de Lieven's ball,
Melbourne and Palmerston both told me that Grey was in an
excellent disposition. However, yesterday morning Harrowby had
such a headache that he was not fit to go alone, so the two went.
Nothing could be more polite than Grey, and on the whole the
interview was satisfactory. Nothing was agreed upon, all left
_dans le vague_; but a disposition to mutual confidence was
evinced, and I should think it pretty safe that no Peers will be
made. Lord Grey told them that if they could relieve him from the
necessity of creating Peers he should be sincerely obliged to
them, showed them a letter from the King containing the most
unlimited power for the purpose, and said that, armed with that
authority, if the Bill could be passed in no other way, it must
be so. A minute was drawn up to this effect, of which Wharncliffe
showed me a copy last night.
'Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe cannot give any names, or pledge
themselves to any particular persons or numbers who will support
their views, but they have no doubt in their own minds that there
will be, _in the event of no creation of Peers_, a sufficient
number to carry the second reading of the Bill. In voting
themselves for the second reading, their intention is to propose
such alterations in Committee as, in their opinion, can alone
render it a measure fit to be passed into law, and in the event of
their being unable to effect the changes they deem indispensable,
they reserve to themselves the power of opposing the Bill in its
subsequent stages. Lord Grey considers the great principles of the
Bill of such vital importance that he could not agree to any
alteration in them, but admits that a modification of its details
need not be fatal to it, reserving to himself, if any of its vital
principles should be touched, the power of taking such ulterior
measures as he may find necessary to ensure its success. Lords
Harrowby and Wharncliffe are prepared to make a declaration of
their sentiments and intentions in the House of Lords at a proper
time, that time to be a subject of consideration; and in the event
of their having reason to believe that their present expectations
are not likely to be fulfilled, they will feel bound to give Lord
Grey information thereof, in order that he may take such measures
as he may think right.'[4]
[4] This is the substance, not a textual copy.
At present the principal difficulty promises to be the L10
clause. Lord Grey seemed to think this could not be altered.
Wharncliffe asked if it might not be modified, and so settled as
to secure its being a _bona fide_ L10 clause, from which Lord
Grey did not dissent, but answered rather vaguely.
In the meantime I think some progress is made in the work of
conversion. Harris has gone back, and Wilton, whom I always
doubted. I doubt anybody within the immediate sphere of the Duke,
but Wynford is well disposed, and the Archbishop has nearly given
in. His surrender would clinch the matter. I am inclined to think
we shall get through the second reading. Lord Grey was attacked
by Madame de Lieven the other day, who told him he was naturally
all that is right-minded and good, but was supposed to be
influenced against his own better judgment by those about him.
She also said something to the Duke of Wellington about Lord
Harrowby, to which he replied that Lord Harrowby 'etait une
mauvaise tete!' Very amusing from him, but he is provoked to
death that anybody should venture to desert from him.
[Page Head: DISTRESS IN BETHNAL GREEN.]
The cholera has produced more alertness than alarm here; in fact,
at present it is a mere trifle--in three days twenty-eight
persons. Nothing like the disorders which rage unheeded every year
and every day among the lower orders. It is its name, its
suddenness, and its frightful symptoms that terrify. The
investigations, however, into the condition of the different
parishes have brought to light dreadful cases of poverty and
misery. A man came yesterday from Bethnal Green with an account of
that district. They are all weavers, forming a sort of separate
community; there they are born, there they live and labour, and
there they die. They neither migrate nor change their occupation;
they can do nothing else. They have increased in a ratio at
variance with any principles of population, having nearly tripled
in twenty years, from 22,000 to 62,000. They are for the most part
out of employment, and can get none; 1,100 are crammed into the
poor-house, five or six in a bed; 6,000 receive parochial relief.
The parish is in debt; every day adds to the number of paupers and
diminishes that of ratepayers. These are principally small
shopkeepers, who are beggared by the rates. The district is in a
complete state of insolvency and hopeless poverty, yet they
multiply, and while the people look squalid and dejected, as if
borne down by their wretchedness and destitution, the children
thrive and are healthy. Government is ready to interpose with
assistance, but what can Government do? We asked the man who came
what could be done for them. He said 'employment,' and employment
is impossible.
February 20th, 1832 {p.262}
Lord Grey was very much pleased with the result of his interview,
and expresses unbounded reliance on Lord Harrowby's honour. The
ultras, of course, will give him no credit, and don't believe he
can command votes enough; 'l'affaire marche, mais lentement,' and
the seceders (or those we hope will be so) will not declare
themselves positively. There is no prevailing upon them. The
Archbishop is with us one day, and then doubts, though I think we
shall have him at last. A good deal of conversation passed between
Grey and Harrowby, which the latter considers confidential and
won't repeat. It was about the details; the substance of the
minute he feels at liberty to communicate. By way of an episode,
news came last night of an insurrection of the slaves in Jamaica,
in which fifty-two plantations had been destroyed. It was speedily
suppressed by Willoughby Cotton, and the ringleaders were executed
by martial law.
February 23rd, 1832 {p.262}
[Page Head: LORD HARROWBY'S LETTER.]
At Court yesterday; long conversation with Melbourne, and in the
evening with Charles Wood and Richmond, who is more alarmed about
the Peers. Melbourne had got an idea that Lord Harrowby's letter,
which had been reported if not shown to the Government, had done
a great deal of harm, inasmuch as it set forth so strongly the
same arguments to the Tories to show them the danger of letting
Peers be made that Durham and Co. make use of as an argument for
the same. I promised to show it him, and replied that they could
not expect Lord Harrowby to do anything but employ the arguments
that are most likely to take effect with these people, but they
are not put in an offensive manner. Melbourne said that the King
is more reconciled to the measure, i.e. that they have got the
foolish, old man in town and can talk him over more readily. A
discussion last night about the propriety of making a declaration
to-day in the House of Lords, when the Duke of Rutland presents a
petition against Reform. The Archbishop will not decide; there is
no moving him. Curious that a Dr. Howley, the other day Canon of
Christ Church, a very ordinary man, should have in his hands the
virtual decision of one of the most momentous matters that ever
occupied public attention. There is no doubt that his decision
would decide the business so far. Up to this time certainly
Harrowby and Wharncliffe have no certainty of a sufficient number
for the second reading; but I think they will have enough at
last.
February 24th, 1832 {p.263}
Harrowby and Wharncliffe agreed, if the Duke of Rutland on
presenting his petition gave them a good opportunity, they would
speak. It was a very good one, for the petition turned out to be
one for a moderate Reform, more in their sense than in the Duke's
own; but the moment it was read Kenyon jumped up. Harrowby
thought he was going to speak upon it, whereas he presented
another; and I believe he was put up by the Duke to stop any
discussion.
In the evening went to Lord Holland's, when he and she asked me
about the letter. Somebody had given abstracts of it, with the
object of proving to Lord Grey that Harrowby had been uncandid, or
something like it, and had held out to the Tories that if they
would adopt his line they would turn out the Government. Holland
and the rest fancied the letter had been written _since the
interview_, but I told them it was _three weeks before_, and I
endeavoured to explain that the abstracts must be taken in
connection not only with the rest of the text, but with the
argument. Holland said Lord Grey meant to ask Harrowby for the
letter. From thence I went to Harrowby, and told him this. He said
he would not show it, that Grey had no right to ask for a private
letter written by him weeks before to one of his friends, and it
was beneath him to answer for and explain anything he had thought
fit to say. But he has done what will probably answer as well, for
he has given Ebrington a copy of it for the express purpose of
going to Lord Grey and explaining anything that appears ambiguous
to him. As the business develops itself, and the time approaches,
communication becomes more open and frequent; the Tories talk with
great confidence of their majority, and the ultra-Whigs are quite
ready to believe them; the two extreme ends are furious. Our list
up to this day presents a result of forty-three votes to
thirty-seven doubtful, out of which it is hard if a majority
cannot be got. I have no doubt now that they will take a very
early opportunity of making a declaration. Peel, in the other
House, is doing what he can to inflame and divide, and repress any
spirit of conciliation. Nothing is sure in his policy but that it
revolves round himself as the centre, and is influenced by some
view which he takes of his own future advantage, probably the
rallying of the Conservative party (as they call themselves,
though they are throwing away everything into confusion and
sinking everything by their obstinacy) and his being at the head
of it. He made a most furious and mischievous speech.
February 29th, 1832 {p.264}
Ebrington took Harrowby's letter to Lord Grey, who was satisfied
but not pleased; the date and the circumstances (which were
explained) removed all bad impressions from his mind. Since this
a garbled version (or rather extracts) has appeared in the
'Times,' which endeavours to make a great stir about it. Harrowby
was very much annoyed, and thought of sending the letter itself
to the 'Times' to be published at once; but Haddington and I both
urged him not, and last night he put a contradiction in the
'Globe.' I have little doubt that this as well as the former
extracts came from the shop of Durham and Co., and so Melbourne
told me he thought likewise. There was a great breeze at the last
Cabinet dinner between Durham and Richmond again on the old
subject--the Peers. I believe they will now take their chance.
Our list presents forty-seven sure votes besides the doubtful,
but not many pledges. As to me, I am really puzzled what to wish
for--that is, for the success of which party, being equally
disgusted with the folly of both. My old aversion for the High
Tories returns when I see their conduct on this occasion. The
obstinacy of the Duke, the selfishness of Peel, the pert
vulgarity of Croker, and the incapacity of the rest are set in
constant juxtaposition with the goodness of the cause they are
now defending, but which they will mar by their way of defending
it. A man is wanting, a fresh man, with vigour enough to govern,
and who will rally round him the temperate and the moderate of
different parties--men unfettered by prejudices, connections, and
above all by pledges, expressed or implied, and who can and will
address themselves to the present state and real wants of the
country, neither terrified into concession by the bullying of the
press and the rant of public meetings and associations, nor
fondly lingering over bygone systems of government and law. That
the scattered materials exist is probable, but the heated passion
of the times has produced so much repulsion among these various
atoms that it is difficult to foresee when a cooler temperature
may permit their cohesion into any efficient mass.
March 6th, 1842 {p.265}
[Page Head: VIOLENCE OF EXTREME PARTIES.]
The ultra-Whigs and ultra-Tories are both outrageous. Day after
day the 'Times' puts forth paragraphs, evidently manufactured in
the Durham shop, about Harrowby's letter, and yesterday there was
one which exhibited their mortification and rage so clearly as to
be quite amusing, praising the Duke and the Tories, and abusing
Harrowby and Wharncliffe and the moderates. In the meantime,
while Lord Grey is negotiating with Harrowby for the express
purpose of avoiding the necessity of making Peers, Durham, his
colleague and son-in-law, in conjunction with Dover, is (or has
been) going about with a paper for signature by Peers, being a
requisition to Lord Grey to make new Peers, inviting everybody he
could find to sign this by way of assisting that course of
bullying and violence he has long pursued, but happily in vain.
Lord Grey is, I believe, really disgusted with all these
proceedings; he submits and does nothing. Richmond quarrels with
Durham, Melbourne damns him, and the rest hate him. But there he
is, frowning, sulking, bullying, and meddling, and doing all the
harm he can. Never certainly was there such a Government as this,
so constituted, so headed--a chief with an imposing exterior, a
commanding eloquence, and a character[5] below contempt, seduced
and governed by anybody who will minister to his vanity and
presume upon his facility.
[5] By character I mean what the French call _caractere_,
not that he is wanting in honour and honesty, nor in
ability, but in resolution and strength of mind.
There has been nothing remarkable in either House of Parliament
but an attack made by Londonderry on Plunket, who gave him so
terrific a dressing that it required to be as _pachydermatous_ as
he is to stand it. He is, however, a glutton, for he took it all,
and seemed to like it. I dined with Madame de Lieven a day or two
ago, and was talking to her about politics and political events,
and particularly about the memoirs, or journal, or whatever it
be, that she has written. She said she had done so very
irregularly, but that what she regretted was not having kept more
exact records of the events and transactions of the Belgian
question (which is not yet settled), that it was in its
circumstances the most curious that could be, and exhibited more
remarkable manifestations of character and 'du coeur humain,' as
well as of politics generally, than any course of events she
knew. I asked her why she did not give them now. She said it was
impossible, that the 'nuances' were so delicate and so numerous,
the details so nice and so varying, that unless caught at the
moment they escaped, and it was impossible to collect them again.
March 9th, 1832 {p.266}
Went to Lord Holland's the other night, and had a violent battle
with him on politics. Nobody so violent as he, and curious as
exhibiting the opinions of the ultras of the party. About making
Peers--wanted to know what Harrowby's real object was. I told him
none but to prevent what he thought an enormous evil. What did it
signify (he said) whether Peers were made now or later? that the
present House of Lords never could go on with a Reformed
Parliament, it being opposed to all the wants and wishes of the
people, hating the abolition of tithes, the press, and the French
Revolution, and that in order to make it harmonise with the
Reformed Parliament it must be amended by an infusion of a more
Liberal cast. This was the spirit of his harangue, which might
have been easily answered, for it all goes upon the presumption
that his party is that which harmonises with the popular feeling,
and what he means by improving the character of the House is to
add some fifty or sixty men who may be willing to accept peerages
upon the condition of becoming a body-guard to this Government.
The 'Times' yesterday and the day before attacked Lord Grey with
a virulence and indecency about the Peers that is too much even
for those who take the same line, and he now sees where his
subserviency to the press has conducted him. In the House of
Commons the night before last, Ministers would have been beaten
on the sugar duties if Baring Wall, who had got ten people to
dinner, had chosen to go down in time.
[Page Head: IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION.]
The principal subject of discussion this last week has been the
Education Board in Ireland, the object of which is to combine the
education of Catholics and Protestants by an arrangement with
regard to the religious part of their instruction that may be
compatible with the doctrines and practice of both. This
arrangement consists in there being only certain selections from
the Bible, which are admitted generally, while particular days
and hours are set apart for the separate religious exercises of
each class. This will not do for the zealous Protestants, who
bellow for the whole Bible as Reformers do for the whole Bill.
While the whole system is crumbling to dust under their feet,
while the Church is prostrate, property of all kind threatened,
and robbery, murder, starvation, and agitation rioting over the
land, these wise legislators are debating whether the brats at
school shall read the whole Bible or only parts of it. They do
nothing but rave of the barbarism and ignorance of the Catholics;
they know that education alone can better their moral condition,
and that their religious tenets prohibit the admission of any
system of education (in which Protestants and Catholics can be
joined) except such an one as this, and yet they would rather
knock the system on the head, and prevent all the good that may
flow from it, than consent to a departure from the good old rules
of Orange ascendency and Popish subserviency and degradation,
knowing too, above all, that those who are to read and be taught
are equally indifferent to the whole Bible or to parts of it,
that they comprehend it not, have no clear and definite ideas on
the subject but as matter of debate, vehicle of dispute and
dissension, and almost of religious hatred and disunion, and that
when once they have escaped from the trammels of their school,
not one in a hundred will trouble his head about the Bible at
all, and not one in a thousand attend to its moral precepts.
March 10th, 1832 {p.268}
Yesterday morning Wharncliffe came to me to give me an account of
the conversation the other day between him and Harrowby on one
side and Lords Grey and Lansdowne on the other. Harrowby was
headachy and out of sorts. However, it went off very satisfactorily;
the list was laid before Grey, who was satisfied, and no Peers are
to be made before the second reading; but he said that if the Bill
should be carried by so small a majority as to prove that the
details could not be carried in Committee, he must reserve the
power of making Peers _then_. At this Harrowby winced, but
Wharncliffe said he thought it fair; and in fact it is only in
conformity with the protocol that was drawn up at the last
conversation. They entered into the details, and Lord Grey said
the stir that had been made about the metropolitan members might
raise difficulties, and then asked would they agree to this, to
give members to Marylebone and throw over the rest? To this
Harrowby would not agree, greatly to Wharncliffe's annoyance, who
would have agreed, and I think he would have been in the right. It
would have been as well to have nailed Grey to this, and if
Harrowby had not had a headache I think he would have done so.
With regard to the L10 clause, Wharncliffe _thinks_ they will not
object to a modification. Grey spoke of the press, and with just
wrath and indignation of the attacks on himself. On the whole this
was good. The capture of Vandamme was the consequence of a
bellyache, and the metropolitan representation depended on a
headache. If the truth could be ascertained, perhaps many of the
greatest events in history turned upon aches of one sort or
another. Montaigne might have written an essay on it.
March 12th, 1832 {p.269}
Durham made another exhibition of temper at the Cabinet dinner
last Wednesday. While Lord Grey was saying something he rudely
interrupted him, as his custom is. Lord Grey said, 'But, my dear
Lambton, only hear what I was going to say,' when the other jumped
up and said, 'Oh, if I am not to be allowed to speak I may as well
go away,' rang the bell, ordered his carriage, and marched off.
Wharncliffe came to me yesterday morning to propose writing a
pamphlet in answer to the 'Quarterly Review,' which has got an
article against his party. I suggested instead that an attempt
should be made by Sandon (who has been in some communication with
the editor about this matter) to induce the 'Morning Herald' to
support us, and make that paper the vehicle of our articles. This
he agreed to, and was to propose it to Sandon last night. We have
no advocate in the press; the Whig and Tory papers are equally
violent against us. Yesterday I saw a letter which has been
circulated among the Tories, written by young Lord Redesdale to
Lord Bathurst, a sort of counter-argument to Lord Harrowby's
letter, although not an answer, as it was written before he had
seen that document; there is very little in it.
March 16th, 1832 {p.269}
[Page Head: IRISH TITHES.]
Lord Grey made an excellent speech in the House of Lords in reply
to Aberdeen's questions about Ancona, and Peel made another in
the House of Commons on Irish Tithes, smashing Sheil, taking high
ground and a strong position, but doing nothing towards settling
the question. He forgets that the system is bad, resting on a
false foundation, and that it has worked ill and been bolstered
up by him and his party till now it can no longer be supported,
and it threatens to carry away with it that which is good in
itself. We owe these things to those who wilfully introduced a
moral confusion of ideas into their political machinery, and, by
destroying the essential distinction between right and wrong,
have deprived the things which are right of the best part of
their security. I have never been able to understand why our
system should be made to rest on artificial props when it did not
require them, nor the meaning of that strange paradox which a
certain school of statesmen have always inculcated, that
institutions of admitted excellence required to be conjoined with
others which were founded in crime and error, and which could
only be supported by power. This has brought about Reform; it
would be easy to prove it. The Ancona affair will blow over.
George Villiers writes me word that it was a little escapade of
Perier's, done in a hurry, a mistake, and yet he is a very able
man. Talleyrand told me 'c'est une betise.' Nothing goes on well;
the world is out of joint.
Fanny Kemble's new tragedy came out last night with complete
success, written when she was seventeen, an odd play for a girl
to write. The heroine is tempted like Isabella in 'Measure for
Measure,' but with a different result, which result is supposed
to take place between the acts.
March 26th, 1832 {p.270}
[Page Head: REFORM BILL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.]
Ten days since I have written anything here, but _en revanche_ I
have written a pamphlet. An article appeared in the 'Quarterly,'
attacking Harrowby and his friends. Wharncliffe was so desirous
it should be answered that I undertook the job, and it comes out
to-day in a 'Letter to Lockhart, in reply,' &c. I don't believe
anybody read the last I wrote, but as I have published this at
Ridgway's, perhaps it may have a more extensive sale. The events
have been the final passing of the Bill, after three nights'
debate, by a majority of 116, ended by a very fine speech from
Peel, who has eminently distinguished himself through this fight.
Stanley closed the debate at five o'clock in the morning, with
what they say was a good and dexterous speech, but which
contained a very unnecessary dissertation about the Peers. This,
together with some words from Richmond and the cheerfulness of
Holland, makes my mind misgive me that we shall still have them
created for the Committee. The conduct of the ultra-Tories has
been so bad and so silly that I cannot wish to bring them in,
though I have a great desire to turn the others out. As to a
moderate party, it is a mere dream, for where is the moderation?
This day Lord John Russell brings the Bill up to the House of
Lords, and much indeed depends upon what passes there. Harrowby
and Wharncliffe will make their speeches, and we shall, I
conclude, have the Duke and Lord Grey. I expect, and I beg his
pardon if I am wrong, that the Duke will make as mischievous a
speech as he can, and try to provoke declarations and pledges
against the Bill. The Ministers are exceedingly anxious that
Harrowby should confine himself to generalities, which I hope
too, for I am certain no good can, and much harm may, be done by
going into details. Grey, Holland, and Richmond all three spoke
to me about it last night, and I am going to see what can be done
with them. I should not fear Harrowby but that he is petulant and
sour; Wharncliffe is vain, and has been excited in all this
business, though with very good and very disinterested motives,
but he cannot bear patiently the abuse and the ridicule with
which both the extreme ends endeavour to cover him, and he is
uneasy under it, and what I dread is that in making attempts to
set himself right, and to clear his character with a party who
will never forgive him for what he has done, and to whom whatever
he says will be words cast to the winds, he will flounder, and
say something which will elicit from Lord Grey some declaration
that may make matters worse than ever. What I hope and trust is
that the Government and our people will confine themselves to
civil generalities, and pledge themselves _de part et d'autre_ to
nothing, and that they will not be provoked by taunts from any
quarter to depart from that prudent course.
There was another breeze in the House of Lords about Irish
Education, the whole bench of bishops in a flame, and except Maltby,
who spoke _for_, all declared against the plan--Phillpotts in a
furious speech. What celestial influences have been at work I know
not, but certain it is that the world seems going mad, individually
and collectively. The town has been more occupied this week with
Dudley's extravagancies than the affairs of Europe. He, in fact, is
mad, but is to be cupped and starved and disciplined sound again. It
has been fine talk for the town. The public curiosity and love of
news is as voracious and universal as the appetite of a shark, and,
like it, loves best what is grossest and most disgusting; anything
relating to personal distress, to crime, to passion, is greedily
devoured by this monster, as Cowley calls it.
I see
The monster London laugh at me;
I would at thee, too, foolish City,
But thy estate I pity.
Should all the wicked men from out thee go,
And all the fools that crowd thee so,
Thou, who dost thy thousands boast,
Would be a wilderness almost.--_Ode to Solitude._
But of all the examples of cant, hypocrisy, party violence, I
have never seen any to be compared to the Irish Education
business; and there was Rosslyn, an old Whig, voting against;
Carnarvon stayed away, every Tory without exception going against
the measure. As to madness, Dudley has gone mad in his own house,
Perceval in the House of Commons, and John Montague in the Park,
the two latter preaching, both Irvingites and believers in 'the
tongues.' Dudley's madness took an odd turn; he would make up all
his quarrels with Lady Holland, to whom he has not spoken for
sixteen years, and he called on her, and there were tears and
embraces, and God knows what. Sydney Smith told her that she was
bound in honour to set the quarrel up again when he comes to his
senses, and put things into the _status quo ante pacem_. It would
be hard upon him to find, on getting out of a strait waistcoat,
that he had been robbed of all his hatreds and hostilities, and
seduced into the house of his oldest foe.
March 27th, 1832 {p.272}
[Page Head: DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.]
I did the Duke of Wellington an injustice. He spoke, but without
any violence, in a fair and gentlemanlike manner, a speech
creditable to himself, useful and becoming. If there was any
disposition on the part of his followers to light a flame, he at
once repressed it. The whole thing went off well; House very
full; Harrowby began, and made an excellent speech, with the
exception of one mistake. He dwelt too much on the difference
between this Bill and the last, as if the difference of his own
conduct resulted from that cause, and this I could see they were
taking up in their minds, and though he corrected the impression
afterwards, it will be constantly brought up against him, I have
no doubt. After him Carnarvon, who alone was violent, but short;
then Wharncliffe (I am not sure which was first of these two),
very short and rather embarrassed, expressing his concurrence
with Lord Harrowby; then the Bishop of London, short also, but
strong in his language, much more than Lord Harrowby; then Lord
Grey, temperate and very general, harping a little too much on
that confounded word _efficiency_, denying that what he said last
year bore the interpretation that had been put upon it, and
announcing that he would give his best consideration to any
amendments, a very good speech; then the Duke, in a very handsome
speech, acknowledging that he was not against all Reform, though
he was against this Bill, because he did not think if it passed
it would be possible to carry on the government of the country,
but promising that if the Bill went into Committee he would give
his constant attendance, and do all in his power to make it as
safe a measure as possible. So finished this important evening,
much to the satisfaction of the moderate, and to the disgust of
the violent party. I asked Lord Holland if he was satisfied (in
the House after the debate), and he said, 'Yes, yes, very well,
but the Bishop's the man;' and in the evening at Lord Grey's I
found they were all full of the Bishop. Lord Grey said to me,
'Well, you will allow that I behaved very well?' I said, 'Yes,
very, but the whole thing was satisfactory, I think.' 'Yes,' he
said, 'on the whole, but they were a little too strong, too
violent against the Bill,' because Harrowby had declared that he
felt the same objection to the measure he had felt before. Sefton
was outrageous, talked a vast deal of amusing nonsense, 'that he
had never heard such twaddle,' 'but that the success was
complete, and he looked on Harrowby and Wharncliffe as the two
most enviable men in the kingdom.' I have no doubt that all the
ultras will be deeply mortified at the moderation of Lord Grey
and of the Duke of Wellington, and at the success _so far_ of
'the Waverers.'