1838
_Monday, 1st January._— ... The Duke of Sutherland told me the
other night, that Lord Melbourne’s mother (whom he knew) was a very
agreeable, sensible, clever woman, and that Lord Melbourne was very
like her as to features; Lady Melbourne was very large latterly. Lord
Melbourne’s father, on the contrary, the Duke said, was very far from
agreeable or clever; he was a short fat man and not like any of his
children. He died at the age of 80. The Duchess of Sutherland spoke to
me last night about Lady Caroline Lamb,[364] Lord Melbourne’s wife;
she was Lord Duncannon’s only sister, and the strangest person that
ever lived, really half crazy, and quite so when she died; she was not
good-looking, but very clever, and could be very amusing. She teazed
that excellent Lord Melbourne in every way, dreadfully, and quite
embittered his life, which it ought to have been her pride to study
to render a happy one; he was the kindest of husbands to her, and
bore it most admirably; any other man would have separated from such
a wife. He has now the greatest horror of any woman who is in any
way eccentric or extravagant, which shows how very much he must have
suffered from such a wife. The Duchess told me the strangest stories
about her....
_Tuesday, 2nd January._— ... I rode a new horse, a most _delightful_
creature, called Tartar; he is taller than Barbara, excessively pretty,
and of a very dark brown colour; he has a very springy charming canter
and action, is full of spirit, and yet as quiet as a lamb, never shies
and is the best-tempered creature possible; to crown all these valuable
qualities, Tartar is exceedingly sure-footed. It was a delightful ride
and we cantered a great deal coming home; the roads were so dirty that
my habit was quite heavy with mud. Changed my dress and walked out with
Lady Mulgrave and Lehzen and came home at ½ p. 3. Read Despatches from
Canada which are very interesting....
_Thursday, 4th January._— ... At ½ p. 5 came my excellent, kind friend,
Lord Melbourne, whom I was quite delighted to see again after such a
long absence, the longest that has taken place since I came to the
Throne. I thought him in very good spirits, and looking well, though
pale, and as kind, amiable and mild as ever; never do I find any
difference in this excellent man, may he be very tired, or not tired,
he is always equally kind and gentle, though he may at times be low.
I was agreeably surprised to find him in good spirits, for from his
letters and all the troubles and difficulties he has had of late, I
feared it might not be so. He spoke to me first a good deal about
Canada; said they were all agreed as to what was to be done, namely
to repeal a Statute (_which_, I cannot say), and _for_ the present,
govern as Canada had been governed before; but that Lord Howick was of
a different opinion and thought that these strong measures ought to be
accompanied by conciliatory measures, which Lord Melbourne said would
not answer the purpose and have a bad effect; Lord Howick, he said, was
excessively eager about this, for various reasons which Lord Melbourne
explained to me; “if Lord Howick was to resign,” he added, “I do not
think that would affect the Government; it would be a bad thing for
there is a good deal of strength in him.” The other question, about the
Army, he considered a more difficult one; the five Ministers who signed
the Report relative to the changes meditated in the office of the
Secretary of War, are, Lord John Russell, Lord Howick, Lord Palmerston,
Sir J. Hobhouse, and Mr. Spring Rice. Lord Howick and Lord John, he
said, are the only two who are eager about it; the others he believed
signed it reluctantly, particularly Mr. Rice. We spoke a good deal
about this difficult question; there is, in my opinion, a good deal for
and a good deal against it. It is, as Lord Melbourne says, creating
a new Minister with new powers, by giving the Secretary at War great
power over the Army. There have been, as Lord Melbourne says, great
abuses which it would be desirable to remedy. Spoke about the Troops
to be sent to Canada; about Mr. Rice’s wish to take the Chair; about
_his_ reasons for doing so; how to replace _him_; about the present
Speaker; about the quarrel in Belgium relative to the cutting of timber
in the Grünewald; about the King of Hanover’s foolish proceedings; how
they are viewed in Germany; about some despatches from Sir Frederick
Lamb,[365] saying that Metternich was much displeased at the expulsion
of the Archbishop of Cologne, at the manner of doing it, and at the
impolicy of the act. Lord Melbourne said he had dined once or twice at
Lord Holland’s[366] since I had seen him. I was quite happy to talk to
him again, as there were many subjects on which I wanted explanation
and he explains _so_ well and so clearly and agreeably.... My good
Lord Melbourne led me in and I sat between him and Lord Torrington. He
(Ld. M.) spoke to me about many things; about riding and horses; about
_bad ears_ for Music; said that everybody would suppose from Scott’s
writings that he was very fond of and understood music very well;
whereas Lord Melbourne said, _he_ said: “In music I don’t know _high_
from _low_!”...
_Tuesday, 9th January._— ... At 22 m. to 12 came my excellent Lord
Melbourne and stayed with me till 27 m. p. 12. He had informed me
by a note in the morning, that he should be obliged to go to London
which I am extremely sorry for; Lord Glenelg wrote to him wishing
to see him, and both he and Lord Glenelg were to see Lord Durham
at _four_ about this Canadian business. _I_ shall say more of this
hereafter. Lord Melbourne said: “It will be a long interview, I
dare say; probably last 2 hours, and there would be no time to be
back,”—meaning for dinner tonight, so he will only come back at 4
tomorrow; I am _very_ sorry to lose him _even_ for _one_ night. Spoke
a good while about this. Spoke about this army business, upon which
Lord Melbourne will see Lord Howick. He said, “It would be madness to
propose at this moment a complete change in the Administration of the
Army, when we have got all these affairs of Canada.” He spoke of this
a good deal; and seemed to hope Lord Howick would give it up; he said
the others would be ready to do so if he did.... Though I think Lord
Duncannon agreeable and amusing, I cannot find in him or in any of
the other Ministers, that kindness, mildness, and open frankness, and
_agreeability_ (to use a word of Lady Mary Stopford’s) which I find in
my kind friend Lord Melbourne; _he alone_ inspires me with that feeling
of great confidence and I may say _security_, for I feel _so safe_ when
he speaks to me and is with me; what he says is all so kind and good,
and he never says anything which could alarm or hurt me. But I should
not _wish_ to be on the same confidential footing with any of my other
Ministers as I am with this truly excellent friend....
_Wednesday, 10th January._— ... Lord Melbourne said that he had seen
Lord Durham who seemed very much inclined to accept the Proposition
of going to Canada; he (Ld. D.) was not quite satisfied with all the
plans proposed by Government, and particularly with a Council of 17,
which he said was too many; that he could not manage more than 4 or 5.
Lord Durham requires, Lord Melbourne added, a large outfit, as he would
not spend any of his private fortune; and he would not go till the
Navigation was open. Lord Melbourne then told me that he had seen Lord
Howick who seemed “disposed to reconsider” the question of the army,
and said he would not press parts of it, and would give way on some
points. This is a great satisfaction and I think Lord Melbourne seemed
quite happy about it....
_Wednesday, 17th January._— ... My excellent Lord Melbourne led me in,
and I sat between him and Lord Glenelg. Lord Melbourne _said_ he was,
and I was happy to see he _looked_, better. He said, as he led me in,
that the Majority in the House of Commons of the night before was very
favourable. He spoke to me about Greece; said he had heard from his
brother that they were very uneasy at Vienna about the state of Greece;
said that the only person who showed any sense or character there was
the Queen of Greece,[367] but that she was very young and was placed in
rather a rougher situation than suited her; that the Archduke John[368]
had told Sir Frederic (on his return from Greece) “that she was like
a Brazillian Paraquite in a wood of firs covered with snow,” meaning
that she was in a position not suited to her; I said to Lord Melbourne
that I had heard in the Summer that there were hopes of there being
an _heir_ in some time; he said, “I am afraid not.” He told me that
the Archduke John had likewise told his brother that the Emperor of
Russia[369] was beginning to sink under the immense weight and fatigue
of governing such an empire as Russia; we spoke about him some time;
and also a good deal about the Austrian Royal Family; Lord Melbourne
told me that the Emperor of Austria[370] was worse, and hardly able to
do anything; but, that as his _mental faculties decreased_, his _bodily
strength increased_. Spoke of Aunt Louise; of the Queen of Portugal;
of Clementine, Augustus, &c., of Feodore, her happiness, her not being
rich; he spoke of the poverty of the younger branches in high families
in England, and of their being often obliged to gain their livelihood
in inferior situations; he said that he thought his nephew Lord Cowper
was cleverer and had “a sounder understanding” than William Cowper....
Spoke about Shakespear’s plays; _Hamlet_, _Macbeth_, _Lear_, &c., &c.;
he thinks the 2 first named the finest; he said: “I think the German
critics understand Shakespear better than we do here”; mentioned
Goethe’s _Wilhelm Meister_, and Schlegel’s book upon Shakespear, which
he thinks very good; he knew, or at least saw, Schlegel here; he knew
Mme. de Staël; spoke of her, of her daughter, the Duchess de Broglie;
spoke of actresses; of their marrying out of their sphere; of its often
not answering; of Lady Harrington,[371] Lady Craven[372] (the Dowager),
Lady Derby (the late),[373] Mrs. Butler; of marriages in _general_,
and most cleverly and sensibly; of their often being broken off—the
reasons why. Lord Melbourne said, “Why, you see, a gentleman hardly
knows a girl till he has proposed, and then when he has an unrestrained
intercourse with her he sees something and says, ‘This I don’t quite
like....’”
_Friday, 19th January._— ... The cold increases, the snow is getting
deep, and I hear the Thames is frozen over very nearly, which has not
happened since 1814. At ½ p. 1 came my excellent friend Lord Melbourne
and stayed with me till 3. He looked well, I was very happy to see, and
said he was not at all tired. He said that they had got through this
Canada business very well; that Lord Brougham made a good though very
violent speech; that the Duke of Wellington’s was very fair; in fact
very friendly; that he (Lord Melbourne) thought the only difficult part
to defend was the not having sent more troops; “but,” he added, “there
the Duke of Wellington came to our assistance, and said there were
not too few troops.” Spoke about Canada for some time.... In speaking
of the Duke of Wellington he said: “He has no oratorical powers; he
attempts no ornament, but speaks generally very much to the point; he
cannot always express what he feels and understands.” He added that
people sometimes who were great in action could not express well in
words what they meant and conceived; spoke of all the Duke’s family,
and said he thought the Duke was the cleverest; asked me if I had ever
read the Duke’s Despatches, and said they were worth looking at, to see
the way he did them.... Lord Melbourne told me, in speaking of the Duke
of Wellington, “His people are very angry with him; they think he is
leaving them.” How wrong of these people! I told Lord Melbourne what
my Uncle Leopold had written to me about him (Ld M.), which seemed
to please him. Talked of other things. Talked for some time with him
and Lord Palmerston, about education, punishments, &c., Lord Melbourne
was amazingly funny and amusing about this. I said I thought solitary
confinement a good punishment: Lord Melbourne replied, “I think it’s
a very stupefying punishment.” I mentioned the system of _silence_ as
a very good one and quoted myself as a proof of its having answered,
which made them laugh very much. Lord Melbourne said, “It may do very
well with a lively child; but with one of a sulky, _grumpy_ disposition
it would not answer....” I said I thought it cruel to punish children
by depriving them of their meals and saying they should go without
their supper, &c. Lord Melbourne replied, “Why, when I was a child,
they had contrived to annoy me so, and had made me cry so much, that I
had lost all appetite.”
_Saturday, 20th January._— ... At ½ p. 12 Lord Glenelg presented Lord
Durham to me on his appointment; Lord Glenelg then left the room
and Lord Durham remained with me for about ½ an hour, I should say.
He spoke entirely about Canada which subject he seems to understand
thoroughly; said he considered the task he was about to undertake, a
most difficult one; and he _might_ not succeed; but that he would do
his utmost to restore tranquillity in Canada; said he wished to have my
authority, when the rebellion was quelled, to conciliate these deluded
people and to hold out mercy to them. He spoke at much length about
all this,—about what he intended to do,—the difficulty of the task,
&c., &c. At ½ p. 1 came Lord Melbourne and stayed with me till 20 m.
p. 2. He seemed well. He said, “I am sorry to say I received a letter
from Lord Howick this morning and that he makes a great demur about
this Army affair.” Lord Melbourne then added that as it was such a
difficult question and as it could be done “as it were by one blow,”
and as the Army disliked it so much and altogether it was such a bad
time for it, and he thought it such a difficult question, that he could
not give way to him upon it, and could not advise me to do it; he added
he would not mind it near so much if it were brought before Parliament
and there fairly discussed, for then if it passed, it would be done
by the authority of Parliament; but in this way, it was so entirely
to be done by me, as it were, that he really could not agree to it;
moreover that if even it were a very good thing in itself (which he
does not think it), this would not be the moment for doing it; none
of the other Ministers he thought were eager for it; but if it were
proposed in the Cabinet and carried by a majority against Lord Howick,
he (Ld. H.) might resign (which Lord M. says would be a bad thing, but
would not affect the Government), and Lord Melbourne did not know what
Lord John Russell might _then_ do, if Lord Howick held out on it; which
would then affect the Government. I told Lord Melbourne that if it
could be of any use, he might say that _I quite_ agreed with him (Lord
Melbourne) and that he might rely upon me; which assurance pleased him,
though I think he must long be aware of my firm resolution to support
this kind and true friend of mine, as he truly and really is, in every
way.... Got a few lines (when I went to my room) from Lord Melbourne (I
generally _hear from_ him and _write to him_ every day, and very often
_two_ or _three_ times a day), in which he said that great difference
had prevailed and did prevail in the Cabinet respecting the Details
about Canada. A Cabinet had been held immediately after he left me. I
am _very_ sorry to hear this.
_Sunday, 21st January._— ... After dinner before we sat down, I talked
to Lord Melbourne about some important things; I asked him the cause of
the differences in the Cabinet; he said that he wished, and also most
of the others, that the Legislative Council in Canada should be chosen
from those which composed the present Legislative Assembly,—whereas
Lord Howick and some others wished the Council should be chosen from
the Country at large, and not from the Assembly; Lord Melbourne was
against this and for this reason; we should probably lose by such an
Election many of the _English_ party, now in the Legislative Assembly,
and get a good many of the _French_ party who would be hostile to us;
and consequently diminish our influence; none of the other Ministers
were as obstinately for this as Lord Howick—but he at length gave
way.... He was very funny about a word which Lady Mary gave me to find
out; she gave me the ivory letters and I was to find out the word; she
gave me “thermometer,” and she spelt it with an “a” instead of an “e,”
and laughed very much at her bad spelling; upon which Lord Melbourne
said, “It is a very good way to spell it, but not _the_ way,” which
made us laugh. I said to him I was reading the first novel I had ever
read—_The Bride of Lammermoor_; he said it was a very melancholy—a
terrible story—but admires it; he mentioned _Old Mortality_, _Quentin
Durward_, _The Fair Maid of Perth_, and _Kenilworth_, as Scott’s best
novels; he said there was “a great deal of good” and “a great deal of
bad” in his novels; said he admired his poems very much, though most
people said his novels were greatly superior in their way to his poems;
spoke of Richard Cœur de Lion whom we both rather admire; of Henry IV.
and Sully; Lord Melbourne said that Sully was a clever and good man,
and greatly superior to those Ministers who followed him; Richelieu and
Mazarin; “They were shocking fellows,” he added....
_Tuesday, 23rd January._— ... He spoke of what had just taken place
in Canada; said Sir John Colborne[374] was an excellent officer. “A
good officer,” he added, “can generally effect with a small force,
what a bad officer with a large force would fail in.” Spoke about this
question of the Army. Said that Lord Francis Egerton[375] had said in
the House, “That the troops had done remarkably well and that he hoped
nothing would be done to tamper with the management of the Army,”
evidently alluding, Lord Melbourne observed, to the intended changes
in the Army. I told Lord Melbourne that Lord Adolphus Fitzclarence, on
being told that I would continue to him and his brothers and sisters
the same annual allowance they enjoyed from the late King, burst into
tears, and said it was unexpected, for they did not dare to hope for
anything....
_Wednesday, 24th January._— ... Lady Falkland,[376] whom I had not yet
seen, was of course presented to me by Lady Portman.[377] I (as usual
to all Peeresses and Ladies by courtesy) wished to kiss her, but she
insisted on kissing my hand first and then only received her kiss from
me.... I observed to Lord Melbourne that it must be a great trial for
poor Lady Falkland dining here.... Lady Falkland must have felt very
low, and it must have been a sad trial for her to see me for the 1st
time in the place of her poor father, but she behaved uncommonly well;
she is a very nice person. She looked pale and thin, but still very
pretty. I sat on the sofa with her; Lord Melbourne sitting near me
the whole evening; and all the other ladies sitting round the table.
Spoke with Lord Melbourne about Lady Falkland &c. Asked him what he
thought was the best History of the last 60 or 70 years. He said there
was no History of that time _only_, but that it must be got from
different books; that the _Annual Register_ was as good a book as any,
if I wanted to look for any particular event in any one year. That
the beginning was written by Burke, and followed up by Dr. Laurence
&c. Said that being written at the time, it was tinctured with party
spirit. He said Adolphus’s _History of George III._ was curious as he
had got a good deal of information, and that the anecdotes told in it
were true, though the _names_ of the people were sometimes wrong.
Said that Hume’s _History of England_ was undoubtedly the best, in
spite of his party prejudices, and that he thought I would like it much
better now than when I read it before. Spoke of Clarendon’s _History
of the Rebellion_ (which I told him I had read), which he thought
curious, but likes his (Clarendon’s) _Memoirs_ better. Spoke of Mrs.
Hutchinson’s book, said I had been reading it; he thinks that “a nice
book” and “very curious”; he knew the Editor of it; spoke of Charles
the First, whom I thought much to blame.... Spoke of Sismondi, whom he
thinks a dull writer; he recommends Barante’s _History of the House
of Burgundy_; and Daru’s _History of Venice_; spoke of Voltaire’s
Histories; of O’Driscol’s _Ireland_ which he likes and whom he knew; of
Scott’s _History of Scotland_ which he has not read, &c. &c....
_Thursday, 25th January._— ... At ½ p. 3 came my excellent Lord
Melbourne and stayed with me till ½ p. 4. He said, “I think we have
patched this up,” meaning the affair about the bill relating to Canada.
“We mean to stand by the bill,” he added, “and take our chance of a
division.” Lord John, he said, was very much for leaving the Preamble
out, and was not at all pleased at being obliged to stand by it; and
Lord Melbourne said it was a bad thing “to force a man to do what he
dislikes when he has a principal part to act in it,” which is very
true. He added something more about Canada and what was meant to be
done, if they were beat about this clause. He said that Lord Howick’s
great violence irritated the others on the other side (in the Cabinet);
Mr. Thomson was very eager against Lord Howick’s ideas about Canada.
I asked him if Mr. Poulett Thomson was eager; he replied that he was,
but that he could control himself, which Lord Howick could not, and
was excessively cross, and kept saying he would resign and would not
be party to this and that, which offended the others.... Spoke of Sir
Robert Peel, who I observed I thought was more eager than the Duke
of Wellington. Lord Melbourne replied he was not acquainted with Sir
Robert Peel’s character, could not judge of his feelings, did “not know
if he was desirous of office or not.” Said he believed that his (the
Duke’s) party were very angry with him for what he had said in the
House of Lords, and therefore that Sir Robert was obliged to be more
violent in order to keep his party together. “This I believe to be the
truth,” Lord Melbourne observed....
_Friday, 26th January._— ... He told me that they had settled the
matter about Canada. “We have settled to leave out the Preamble; Lord
Howick has given way, and owned he was in the wrong.” He added: “It
will be a triumph to the other party, but I don’t much mind that.” I
said that I was surprised Lord Howick had given way. Lord Melbourne
replied: “He is not devoid of candour,” but that his opinions were so
very strong that he did not feel able to “surrender them.” Said that
Sir Robert Peel had justly observed that: “what was the necessity of
asking Parliament about what they _were going_ to do”; “we don’t mean
to oppose you; we won’t fetter you.” “Why therefore ask our approbation
of what you are going to do?” “Act like any other Ministers and then
afterwards we will approve or disapprove what has been done.”[378]
“Now,” Lord Melbourne said, “this is almost unanswerable.” He is the
fairest person about his opponents I ever knew; _so_ frank, so noble!
so candid!... Spoke of the Combinations of the workmen in Scotland and
Ireland and England, which he says are quite frightful. This led him
to speak of servants, of their combinations with tradespeople, their
being bribed, &c. He observed how disagreeable it was to recommend
tradespeople or servants; he said that his coachmaker had come to him
this morning and begged him to write a letter to the Bishop of Ely to
recommend him to him. “Very well,” said Lord Melbourne, “I will write
a letter if you wish which I will show you.” “So I wrote to the Bishop
of Ely,” continued Lord Melbourne; “‘My dear Lord,—Mr. Robson has been
my coachmaker for many years, and I believe him to be a very good one,
but so he ought, for I must say he is a very dear one.’ ‘Now,’ I said
to the man, ‘here is the letter, you may read it if you like....’” At
7 I went to Drury Lane with the Duchess of Sutherland, Lady Portman,
Miss Cavendish, Lady Mary Stopford, Lord Conyngham, Lord Headfort, and
Col. Buckley (who this day replaced Col. Grey). It was Shakespear’s
tragedy of _Hamlet_, and we came in at the beginning of it. Mr.
Charles Kean (son of old Kean) acted the part of Hamlet and I must say
beautifully. His conception of this very difficult and I may almost
say incomprehensible character, is admirable; his delivery of all the
fine long speeches quite beautiful; he is excessively graceful and all
his actions and attitudes are good, though not at all good-looking
in face; the two finest scenes I thought were the _Play-scene_,
which he acts, they say, quite differently to any other actor who
has performed Hamlet; and the scene with his mother, the Queen; it
was quite beautiful when he rushed out after having killed Polonius,
exclaiming, “Is it the King?” He fights uncommonly well too. All the
other characters were very badly acted. I came away just as _Hamlet_
was over. They would recognise me between the 2nd and 3rd acts,—I was
compelled to come forward, curtsey, and hear “God save the Queen” sung.
The house was amazingly crowded and they received me admirably. Came
home at ½ p. 10.
_Saturday, 27th January._— ... Told Lord M. I had been much pleased
with _Hamlet_ last night; observed it was a very hard play to
understand, which he agreed in; he said he thought the end of it
“awkward” and horrid; said he thought Hamlet was supposed to be mad, of
a philosophical mind, and urged to do something which he did not like
to do. He added that Mr. Fox always said that _Hamlet_ possessed more
of Shakespear’s faults than almost any other play of Shakespear, &c.,
&c.—Saw Lord Palmerston who introduced Baron Munchausen, Minister from
the Court of Hanover.... I told Ld. M. of my last recollection of Baron
Munchausen,[379] namely, my giving him a commission to send me some
wax dolls from Berlin, which made Lord Melbourne laugh excessively.
He spoke of children’s love for dolls, and that they sometimes think
they are alive. Spoke of my former great love for dolls....[380]
After dinner, talked (before I sat down) with all the gentlemen, &c.
Spoke about Kean with Lord Melbourne; about Landseer and the sketches
which Lord Melbourne saw and none of which he “thought _like_,” he
said, though very clever.... Lord Melbourne said that _Richard III._
by Shakespear was a very fine play; I observed that Richard was a very
bad man; Lord Melbourne also thinks he was a horrid man; he believes
him to have been deformed (which some people deny), and thinks “there
is no doubt that he murdered those two young Princes.” I was delighted
to hear Lord Melbourne say he thought Henry 7th a very bad man, and
reckless of blood; spoke of the inhuman _murder_, I may call it, of the
young Earl of Warwick; he said that Ferdinand of Spain would not give
his daughter Catherine to _Arthur_ unless this poor Warwick was got
rid of; that Catherine felt this all along and observed that it dwelt
upon her and “that it did not go well with her in the world” for this
reason. He spoke of Henry VIII.; said he was not so bad at first and
had begun with good intentions; spoke of Catherine of Arragon, &c.,
&c.; that when Henry VIII. took a liking to somebody else, he only
sought to get rid of the other in the quickest way. Spoke of the wars
in Flanders.... He fell asleep for a little while in the evening, which
is always a proof that he is not quite well....
_Tuesday, 30th January._— ... I asked Lord M. what Lord Palmerston’s
Politics were at the time when he stood against Lord Lansdowne and Lord
Althorp. Lord Melbourne said that Lord Palmerston then belonged to
the _high Tory_ Party! Spoke of the change of opinions &c., &c. Spoke
of the salaries &c. of my people, and spoke of Names, Christian names,
for a long while; said that Lady Vivian’s[381] little girl was called
_Lalage_, from Horace; he thought the name rather pretty on account of
the lines which he repeated and which are, I _think_, “Dulce ridentem,
Lalagen amabo, Dulce loquentem.” Told him of the intention there once
was of changing my name, which he was surprised at, and could not think
how it could have been done.
_Thursday, 1st February._—The curious old form of pricking the Sheriffs
was gone through; and I had to prick them all, with a huge pin. This
was the first Council that I have yet held at which Lord Melbourne was
not present, and I must say I felt sad not to see him in his place as
I feel a peculiar satisfaction, nay I must own almost _security_, at
seeing him present at these formal proceedings, as I know and feel that
I have a _friend_ near me, when I am as it were alone among so many
strangers. This may sound almost childish, but it is not so. Saw Lord
John Russell....
_Saturday, 3rd February._—Received a communication from Lord Melbourne
which I shall transcribe: “Lord Melbourne presents his humble duty to
Your Majesty and acquaints Y.M. that the Canada Government Bill was
read a second time in the House of Lords, with the single dissentient
voice of Lord Brougham. Lord Melbourne sends the returns of the
attendance and the speeches. Lord Brougham made a long and able speech,
not over-violent for him. The Duke of Wellington made a moderate
speech and concluded with some very able views” (I think) “of the
subject. Lord Aberdeen and Lord Wharncliffe also spoke, both strongly
condemning the conduct of Government.” This note was dated from last
night. Heard also from Lord John Russell that they had proceeded in the
House of Commons with the Irish Corporation Bill and the Pluralities
Bill.... Lord M. said they sat till near 12 o’clock last night. Said
“it was a very good Debate.” “The Duke of Wellington,” he added, “again
made a very fair speech”; and that the Duke’s remarks were very good
about Canada, for that there was a great deal to say about it; and that
the Duke observed, “that each Mail brought the account of some new and
very important event.” He (Ld. Melbourne) said that Lord Aberdeen and
Lord Wharncliffe “were very severe.” I asked him if Lord Aberdeen was
not rather a dull and heavy speaker; he replied in the affirmative; and
said (in reply to my question as to whether he were a good speaker)
that Lord Wharncliffe was a good speaker and spoke “very clearly.” I
asked him about Lord Brougham’s speech which he said “was more bitter
than violent; very bitter, but a fine speech.” Lord Melbourne told me:
“We have not yet settled this Army Question; but I am more and more
convinced it would be madness to propose it; and after this affair of
Canada too.” He seemed, however, I thought, sanguine about its being
ultimately settled.
_Sunday, 4th February._—Lord Melbourne asked if I had seen _King Lear_
(which I had half intended to do last week); I said I had not. He
said (alluding to the manner in which it is being performed at Covent
Garden), “It is _King Lear_ as Shakespear wrote it; and which has not
been performed so, since the time of Queen Anne.” As it is generally
acted, Lord Melbourne told me, it is altered by Cibber, who “put in a
deal of stuff” of his own; that it was a much finer play as Shakespear
wrote it, but “most dreadfully tragic.” That Dr. Johnson had seen it
performed in that way, and that “it made such an impression on him that
he never forgot it.” I observed to him that I feared that, and did not
like all that madness on the stage. Lord Melbourne said, “I can’t bear
that, but still it is a very fine play, and many think Shakespear’s
best.” Spoke of the play of _Richard III._, which I said I was going
to see. Lord Melbourne said it was “a fine striking play.” He observed
that that scene where Richard makes love to Anne, at the funeral of
Henry VI., did not belong to the play, but was taken from _Henry VI._;
he said, “That is a very foolish scene; I always thought it a most
ridiculous scene; and there is not the slightest foundation in History
for it; he married her 8 years afterwards.” He added that Shakespear
constantly mixed up events, in his Historical plays, without minding
when they happened, and how far asunder.
_Monday, 5th February._—Lord M. showed me a letter he had got this
morning, from Lord Ebrington,[382] saying that Lord Tavistock (who,
Lord Melbourne tells me, has great influence over Lord John, and was
sent for) had prevailed on Lord John to put off the Army Question
till June or July; so that Lord Melbourne says they will get over
it this Session; and when a thing is put off, he added, it is often
forgotten or the moment not found suitable for it. “But,” continued
Lord Melbourne, “when one gets over one difficulty, there always comes
another; and there is now another question of great difficulty, which
is the Ballot.” He then explained to me, that not only several of their
supporters but even some of the Government had pledged themselves to
the Ballot, and consequently after Lord John made that very decided
declaration against the Ballot, these people said they must go against
this; amongst others Sir Hussey Vivian who has pledged himself to
it; and Lord Melbourne says if they should vote for it after Lord
John’s declaration, either they or perhaps Lord John will resign, and
this “would make such gaps in the Government as would make it very
difficult to fill up; and Sir Hussey Vivian has written to Lord John
this morning, and he to me, saying I shall have to choose whether I
will accept Sir Hussey’s or his resignation.” Lord Melbourne however
said he would see if he could manage it, which I fervently hope and
trust he will; but he is sadly teazed and plagued. He said, “There
is a succession of difficulties in a Government....” At 20 m. to 7 I
went with Lady Portman, Lady Tavistock, Miss Cavendish, Miss Pitt,
Lord Conyngham, Lord Headfort, and Col. Buckley to Drury Lane theatre.
We came in before the performance had commenced. It was Shakespear’s
tragedy of _Richard III._, and Charles Kean’s first appearance (in
London) as Richard. The house was crammed to the ceiling; and the
applause was tremendous when Kean came on; he was unable to make
himself heard for at least five minutes I should say. He was dressed
exactly like his father, and all those who were with me, and who
had seen his father, were struck with the great resemblance to his
father both in appearance and voice. It would be impossible for me to
attempt to describe the _admirable_ manner in which Kean delineated
the ferocious and fiend-like Richard. It was quite a _triumph_ and the
latter part particularly so; he was applauded throughout in the most
enthusiastic manner. He acted with such spirit too! One of the best
scenes was the one when the Lord Mayor urges him to accept the regal
Dignity, which Kean did uncommonly well. As also the disagreeable
and absurd scene with Lady Anne. The manner in which he gave: “So
much for Buckingham,” was truly _splendid_, and called down thunders
of applause, as also many other of the scenes where he gets very
much excited; he fought and died beautifully. He was uncommonly well
disguised, and looked very deformed and wicked. All the other parts
were very badly acted, and the three women were _quite detestable_. It
is a fine, heart-stirring play, and there are some beautiful passages
in it. I but just escaped being recognised, for as the curtain was
dropping and I left the box, they called out “the Queen.”
_Tuesday, 6th February._—At 17 m. p. 2 came my kind friend Lord
Melbourne who said he was better, and stayed with me till 20 m. p. 3.
He spoke to me about Mr. Roebuck’s[383] speech of last night; said “it
was a very bitter speech.” I told him what Lord John had written to me
of what took place in the House of Commons last night. He spoke to me
about this Parliamentary Elections Bill; said it would he thought not
pass the House of Lords. Gave me an explanation about it, and about
people’s being unable to vote unless they had paid the rates up to the
very day; and that many people wanted to get rid of this; but the Lords
did not like that as they thought it was “meddling with the Reform
Bill.” I asked him if he had done anything more about the Ballot. He
replied that he had heard from Lord John this morning, who said they
had best wait the decision; he added that Lord John thinks he must
resign if any of the others vote for the Ballot, as after his very
strong declaration against it, he would consider their voting for it
as “passing a censure upon him”; Lord Melbourne said he did not quite
think that, and that he thought Lord John took it rather too seriously;
but he added: “Lord John does.” Lord Melbourne said he thinks it better
not to take much notice of who vote for or against it; and he added “we
took no notice of it when Lord Charles Fitzroy voted for it (Ballot)
last year; he is a very foolish man, I think.” I said to him that I
believed the _Cabinet_ were all agreed upon this question; he replied
they were; “that is to say either to vote against its being made an
open question, or not to vote at all.” He added that Sir John Hobhouse
and Mr. Poulett Thomson did not vote at all, having he believed pledged
themselves before they came into the Ministry.... Lord Melbourne told
me he had dined at home the night before. Spoke to him about the play
of _Richard III._, and of Kean; spoke of Richard III. himself, who
he (Ld. M.) believes to have been crooked and deformed, and to have
murdered the two young Princes; though, he said, that great pains had
been taken to trace it all in the _Historical Doubts_ by Horace Walpole
and to prove the contrary. He also mentioned the well-known old story
of the old Countess of Desmond,[384] who “said she had danced with him”
(Richard) “the night of his Coronation and that he was a very handsome
man.” Spoke of the Duke of Wellington; he said “The Duke of Wellington
is amazingly sensible to attention; nothing pleases him so much as if
one asks him his opinion about anything.” He added that many people
were offended with the Duke’s abrupt manner of speaking; I observed
that I thought that was only a manner, and that he did not mean it
so. “No more do I,” replied Lord Melbourne. Spoke of Lord Ebrington,
who Lord Melbourne has known a long while and says is a clever man
and possesses a considerable influence over Lord John; Lord Tavistock
also he added, has influence over his brother John; “but,” said Lord
Melbourne, “Lord Tavistock has also got some strange notions; he lives
a great deal in the country; and people who live a great deal in the
country pick up strange ideas.” I asked him if he thought there would
be much opposition to the Irish Poor Laws in the House of Lords. “I
think there will be none,” he said. “I don’t think there will be any
difficulty about any of the _Questions_—it’s only this Ballot.” I asked
him if he had seen Lord John about it. He replied that others had, but
that “I don’t like to speak to him about it; I feel rather awkward
about speaking to him about it, as last year he wanted me to make it
an open question and I refused; and now that I want him to relax he
would say, ‘Why, what have you to say?’” He said Lord John was “very
unbendable” about it. Lord Melbourne wanted him not to be so very
particular about it, and let them vote for or against it (its being an
open question) and not take much notice of it; but Lord John said that
after _his_ declaration _that_ would _affect him_. I asked who were the
others who wanted to vote for it. “Why, Sir Hussey Vivian is the one of
the greatest consequence, and Parnell,”[385] he replied. “The fact is,
Vivian should not have pledged himself; he carried his election in a
way he should not have done.”
_Wednesday, 7th February._—Lord Melbourne said he had just been to see
Lord Durham “who wants more force.” He (Ld. D.) said that the Duke of
Wellington had told him he ought to have 75,000 men in Canada, to put
it down. Lord Melbourne further told me that the Duke of Wellington
had been to see Lord Durham on Friday, he thinks; stayed with him for
an hour and a half; had gone with him through the whole thing, had
told him how to manage the troops by sending them from one place to
another, and told him all his ideas of doing the thing. Lord Melbourne
seemed quite pleased about it.[386] I showed Lord Melbourne a letter I
had got from Stockmar, about which Lord Melbourne said he would write
to Stockmar. Spoke about my asking Sir Robert Peel &c. to dinner,
which led us to speak about Lady Ashley, who, Lord Melbourne says,
is decided in her politics, though not violent; she is a Tory; Lord
Melbourne says she does not talk about it much; but he thinks she has
at one time discussed it with her mother, who of course is a Whig; I
said I supposed Lady Fanny had no ideas of her own about Politics; he
replied, “Why I think she is a Tory.” I was surprised; said laughing I
thought it very wrong, and very odd, as all her brothers were Whigs.
Spoke to him at dinner about various things; he told me Mr. Roebuck
is a small man with “small finely cut features,” and that he speaks
well—“plainly, without ornament.”
_Thursday, 8th February._—He said he thought there would be some debate
in the H. of Lords about the third reading of the Canada bill tonight;
he thinks Lord Ellenborough[387] will speak. I asked him if he (Ld. E.)
was a clever man; he replied, “He is a disagreeable, conceited man,
but a clever man....” Lord Melbourne told me today that when he was as
young as Lord Canning is now, he “was very shy”; “I think I was about
as shy as anybody could be,” he said.
_Friday, 9th February._—Got the following communication from Lord
Melbourne. “The Canada Bill was read a third time yesterday evening
without division, but after a Debate which lasted until ten o’clock.
Lord Ashburton[388] made a speech generally upon the subject of
Colonies, Lord Mansfield[389] made an elaborate attack upon the
Government and in some measure complained of the Duke of Wellington
and Sir Robert Peel for not having taken more active measures in
opposition, and Lord Brougham repeated the observations which he had
before made, with no diminution of vehemence. The speakers were Lord
Ellenborough, Lord Glenelg, Lord Ashburton, Lord Mansfield, Lord
Lansdowne, Lord Brougham, Lord Melbourne, Lord Fitzwilliam,[390]
who spoke with great kindness of the Government, but declared his
disapprobation of the Bill.” I asked Lord Melbourne the other day how
many Peers could constitute a House of Lords and be considered able
to sit; he said _three_; and in the House of Commons 40 Members must
be present to make a House of Commons. I likewise asked him if there
was any particular form when a Peer takes his seat; he said _on his
creation_ there was a great deal of form; but on taking it in a new
Parliament or upon succeeding to the Title there was hardly any. “You
go up to the table,” he added, “take the oaths, pay the fees, and shake
hands with the Chancellor.” Lord Melbourne also told me that any Peer
may bring in any bill and lay it upon the table, and it is generally
read a first time; whereas “in the H. of Commons, they must always move
for leave to bring in a bill.” He said that Lord Ashburton had got that
“fashionable theory” that it was better to give up the Colonies at
once when they became at all unquiet; which Lord Melbourne observed
with great justice, would be just the way to encourage them to revolt;
for they would then say, “Why, we have nothing to do but to revolt to
get rid of our masters.” And “a very dangerous thing to declare,” Lord
Melbourne observed. Spoke a long time about all this; then about George
IV., who he said was not at all unhappy at Princess Charlotte’s death,
on the contrary, he was rather glad; spoke of her—of Uncle Leopold—her
happiness with him—her death—that she might have been saved if she had
not been so much weakened. I was delighted to see Lord Melbourne in
very good spirits, and very talkative, and _so_ agreeable! Spoke of
many things; of M. de Barante, the French Ambassador at St. Petersburg
who Lady Durham said she knew, as also his daughter who was separated
from her husband and excited pity as he was known or supposed to have
beat her. Upon this Lord Melbourne said: “Why, it is almost worth while
for a woman to be beat, considering the exceeding pity she excites,”
which made us laugh. Spoke of the dinner next day at the Lord Mayor’s,
which Lord Melbourne said was called a private dinner of about 50 or
60 persons, and which was generally very dull. He spoke of the Duke
of Wellington, and, with tears in his eyes at the Duke’s friendliness
to Lord Durham, about Canada. I asked him if it would do well if I
asked Lord and Lady Francis Egerton[391] the same day as the Duke of
Wellington dined here; he replied extremely well, and that it would
“be very agreeable to both.” I told him that I was very thankful to
him when he told me _who_ I should invite; he said, “I am afraid I
don’t attend enough to that; I am rather neglectful about it,” which
I would not allow. Spoke about the Emperor of Austria—the Duchess of
Sutherland—her family; Lord Melbourne said she was naturally very
proud; spoke about her house[392]; the lease of which she wishes to
buy, but which as it is Crown property Lord Melbourne said she could
not do; he dreaded the time when the Duchess should learn she could
not do so; that he was afraid of writing to her before she received
the formal answer from the Treasury; I told him, however, it would
be better if he did so, upon which he said: “Then it shall be done.”
Spoke of Lady Ashley—Lady Hardwicke[393]—Lady Fanny; I asked him how
she came to be a Tory—and who could have made her so. He said, “Why, I
think her Nurse; people generally get their ideas in that way.” He told
me he went to Eton when he was nine years old; he went there at Xmas
in the year 1788, and stayed there till Midsummer 1796. Lord Holland
left Eton about 3 months after Lord Melbourne went there. He spoke
most cleverly and sensibly about Public Schools; said “I am not at all
bigotted about a Public School”; said he was very happy at Eton; spoke
of the many disadvantages and dangers of a Public School; amongst which
he mentioned the great habit of telling falsehoods which boys get to
do with impunity in order to save themselves from punishment; and the
disagreeable, bad, blackguard boys you were obliged to meet at such
schools; and if a boy is weak, the liability of being led and governed
by such boys; Lady Durham likewise entered into the conversation, and
she and Lord Melbourne and I went on discussing the subject for some
time; Lady Durham observed that it was a constant _War_ between boy and
master at school, which however Lord Melbourne thought the same with
a Tutor; we all agreed that it was very bad that no French was taught
at the Public Schools, for that boys never learnt it afterwards. Lady
Durham said that Lord Durham had had a great mind that their boy should
learn no Latin at all, which however Lord Melbourne said he thought was
a bad thing, for that he thought a man could not get on well in the
world without Latin in the present state of society.[394] I told Lord
Melbourne that though Lehzen had often said that she had _never_ seen
such a passionate and naughty child as I was, still that I had never
told a falsehood, though I knew I would be punished; Lord Melbourne
said: “That is a fine character”; and I added that Lehzen entrusted
me with things which I knew she would not like me to tell again, and
that when I was ever so naughty, I never threatened to tell, or ever
did tell them. Lord Melbourne observed: “That is a fine trait.” I felt
quite ashamed, on hearing this praise, that I had said so much about
myself. I asked him if his sister’s children had not been passionate
when little. “Minny and Fanny were dreadfully passionate,” he said,
“and now they have both very sweet tempers and are very calm.” I
observed to him that I was sure _he_ had never been so; he answered,
“dreadfully passionate, and so I am now,” which I _would not_ and
_cannot_ believe....
_Tuesday, 13th February._—Lord M. spoke of the apparent cruelty,
when a person is dying and is suffering dreadfully, and anything
to hasten the end would be mercy and relief, that _that_ is not
allowed, and is considered unjustifiable by law. I mentioned to Lord
Melbourne a case in which it had been done; he told me an anecdote of
Napoleon respecting this; when his great favourite and friend Duroc
was so frightfully wounded, the lower part of his body being carried
away—Napoleon came to him, and Duroc implored him to give him laudanum
to alleviate his sufferings and hasten his end, but Napoleon would not
do it, and said he could not sanction such a thing. Lord Melbourne
observed, “If they get the habit of doing such a thing” (hastening the
end) “when a person is in a hopeless state, why, they _may_ do it when
a person is _not_ in a hopeless state.” Spoke of Lord Leveson[395]
who is such a very odd-looking young man; Lord Melbourne said that
Lady Granville “was always very ugly,” and that “she is _now_ better
looking than she used to be.” Spoke of large dogs, which Lord Melbourne
thinks dangerous pets, as you are always so completely at their mercy
if they choose to do you harm. Spoke of Lady Lilford,[396] Lord and
Lady Holland; the latter, Lord Melbourne says, always thinks _first_
of herself and then of Lord Holland, who quite obeys her. I asked Lord
Melbourne if Lord Glenelg was at all obstinate; he said not now, but
that he had been, and had given great trouble in ’30 or ’31, when he
alone opposed in the Cabinet £25,000 being proposed as an outfit for
the Queen Dowager; and that Lord Grey had been obliged to go and tell
the King that he could not propose it, as Lord Glenelg was so much
against it; Lord Melbourne said that neither the King or Queen ever
forgave this and that the King could not _bear_ Lord Glenelg; he could
neither bear Lord John Russell, who, Lord Melbourne said, he always
called “that young man”; he also disliked Sir John Hobhouse, and Mr.
Poulett Thomson, and latterly Lord Palmerston, though in the beginning
he liked him very much; Mr. S. Rice he liked pretty well; the Lord
Chancellor[397] very much, and always told Lord Melbourne that the
Lord Chancellor was “a kind good man”; Lord Dunraven[398] thought
the King liked him (Ld. D.), but Lord Melbourne said he thought the
King disliked him “at bottom,” though he was confidential with him. I
asked Lord Melbourne if he did not see the King often? Lord Melbourne
replied not often, and never at Windsor latterly; that he was always
very civil to him, though not very open, and always very short. He
said (that by the paper which Taylor wrote and gave me, and which Lord
Melbourne has read) that the King had intended, in case the Ministry
had resigned (which Lord Melbourne said they had declared they would,
about the Irish Corporation Bill) to send a paper round to the Duke of
Wellington, Sir Robert Peel and Lord Melbourne calling upon them to
form a Ministry. Lord Melbourne added: “He” (the late King) “was not at
all a clever man; he was a very timid man; very easily frightened; in
fact he was quite in Taylor’s hands; Taylor could turn him any way.”
This I observed was a wrong thing; Lord Melbourne said certainly it
was, “but considering the King’s character, and how difficult it was
for him to take a resolution, one cannot say it was an unfortunate
thing.” I observed that Taylor turned the King to the Tory side; Lord
Melbourne said: “The Tories don’t at all consider Taylor a friend.”
I spoke of the unfortunate day in August ’36, when the King came to
Windsor (after having prorogued Parliament) in a great passion. Lord
Melbourne said this was caused by the King having set his mind upon
having a Marine executed who was recommended to mercy; Lord Minto (whom
the King neither liked) came to Lord Melbourne in great distress and
said: “The King will have this man hanged.” The King hated the Speaker,
and told Lord Melbourne that all the time the Speaker was addressing
him in the House of Lords: “Shocking voice he has.”
_Wednesday, 14th February._—Lord M. told me that Lord John had written
to him that he would be unable to attend the House of Commons next
day, when this _anxious_ Ballot Question comes on. Lord Melbourne said
he did not think it quite a bad thing that Lord John would be away
when this Ballot Question came on, as he thinks there will be less
irritation if he is absent, and as Lord John is unwell and “worried
about the child,” Lord Melbourne observed he “might say something
imprudent.” I think this all very true. Lord Melbourne was very funny
about caps and bonnets; he looked round the table and said, “There
is an amazing cargo of bonnets and things come from Paris, I fancy,”
which made us laugh; and he observed Lady Caroline’s hat and said he
imagined that was something quite new. He spoke of Mdlle. Laure; we
(Lady Durham and I) laughed very much and asked him how he knew about
her; “They tell me of her,” he added, “and I fancy she has beautiful
things.” The Duke of Wellington was in very good spirits, but it
strikes me he is a good deal aged, particularly in appearance. Lady
Francis Egerton[399] is a clever, agreeable little person; and, though
much altered, is still very pretty. I sat on the sofa with Lady Francis
and Lady Durham[400]; Lord Melbourne sitting near me the whole evening;
and Lord Francis not far from him; the other ladies were seated round
the table. We (Lord Melbourne, Lord Francis and I) spoke about German
literature—the weather—fires, the fire at Paris, &c., &c. Lord Francis
is rather a silent person and it is not easy _de le mettre en train de
parler_. I asked Lord Melbourne what the Duke of Wellington had told
him that made him (Ld. M.) laugh so much; Lord Melbourne then told me
the following anecdote of George IV., which caused the laughter. When
George IV. returned from Ireland, he was very sick and suffered a good
deal; and he stopped and rested at Badminton; upon this the Judge, who
was sitting at the Assizes at Gloucester, imagined that he could not
have a man executed when the King was in the County without asking
him about it, came over to Badminton and wished the King to hear the
case, which put the King into the greatest passion and he exclaimed,
“What! am I to be followed all over the country with the Recorder’s
report?...” Spoke to Lord Melbourne about Lord John’s child, and the
anxiety of having one child only. I observed to him however that I did
not think having more than one child lessened the anxiety about them;
for if persons loved their children, they would be just as anxious if
_one_ of the many was ill, and would feel the loss of _one_ as much as
if he or she had but that one. Lord Melbourne said he thought quite so
too; but that somehow or other “if there are many, they have seldom
anything the matter with them.” He added “it is not the right affection
for a child, if they love them only as being their heir, or for keeping
up their name.” He said he was going home after he had left the Palace,
as he had a great deal to do. He thinks his sister had better go out of
town, as she is not well, and out of spirits since she is in London. I
spoke of sons-in-law and daughters-in-law and observed that I thought
daughters-in-law seldom got on well with their mothers-in-law, in which
Lord Melbourne quite agreed; whereas the sons-in-law they generally
were fond of. I asked him how his sister agreed with the young Lady
Cowper. “Pretty well,” he replied, “but I don’t think she forms any
exception to the rule.” Lady Ashley and Lady Fanny, he said, liked
their sister-in-law, but had also a certain feeling about it; “they
don’t like to see her in the same place where they used to see their
mother.” Spoke of the very strange custom in Russia that on Easter
Sunday _everybody_ who chooses is allowed to _kiss_ the Empress,
saying at the same time “Christ is risen.” Lord Melbourne told me an
anecdote of the Emperor of Russia. “He said to a sentinel, ‘Christ is
risen,’ and the man answered, ‘No, he is not’; the Emperor started and
repeated, ‘Christ is risen’; the man again said, ‘No, he is not, for
I am a Jew.’ The Emperor said, ‘You are quite right.’” I was quite
happy to see the very amicable and friendly terms on which the Duke and
my excellent friend were; it is impossible for Lord Melbourne to be
otherwise almost with anybody, and the Duke having behaved very well
lately, and being likewise an open, frank man, it renders it easy for
them to be so....
_Thursday, 15th February._—I sat on the sofa with the Duchess of
Sutherland, the Duke of Sutherland and Lord Durham sitting near us.
Lord Durham spoke of the King of Greece[401]; says he is _remarkably_
plain and mean-looking, very shy and awkward in society, and _en
fin_ unable to do _anything_. The Sultan,[402] whom he also saw, he
describes as a fine-looking but not “thorough-bred” looking man; short
and dark, with an expression of treachery in his eyes....
_Wednesday, 21st February._—At about a ¼ p. 2 I went into the Throne
room for the Levee with my Ladies &c., and all the Household and the
Ministers being in the room. The only person who I was very anxious
to see and whom I was much interested to have seen, was _O’Connell_,
who was presented, and of course, as everybody does when they are
presented, kissed hands. He was in a full wig as one of the Queen’s
Councillors in Ireland, and not in the brown Brutus wig he generally
wears. He is very tall, rather large, has a remarkably good-humoured
countenance, small features, small clever blue eyes, and very like
his caricatures; there were likewise two of his sons, Morgan and John
O’Connell; his son-in-law, Mr. Fitzsimon, and his nephew John Morgan
O’Connell. Lord Melbourne told me that one of my pensioners, a Sir John
Lade,[403] one of George IV.’s associates, was dead; spoke of him, of
another called George Lee; of old Mrs. Fox, who Lord Melbourne knew
formerly; he said of Mr. Fox, “he took great notice of me.” Mr. Fox
died on the 13th of September 1806. Spoke of Nelson, &c., &c. He spoke
of the Committee on the Pensions which was going on; that it was a
very fair Committee, and that there had only been a difficulty about
one case, which was a curious one, and which is a pension given to two
French ladies, Madame de Rohan and Madame de Longueville, daughters
of the Duc de Biron. Lord Melbourne told me how they came to get it,
which is as follows, and in telling which he became quite affected
and his eyes filled with tears. When Lord Rodney went to Paris just
before he obtained his great victory, he was arrested for debt, as
(Lord Melbourne said) he was always without a shilling in the world;
and the Duc de Biron said, “Though we are enemies, still it is too bad
that a great English officer should be arrested for debt here,” and he
paid his debts for him. Afterwards when the Duc de Biron’s daughters,
Mmes. de Rohan and Longueville, who are the first nobility in France,
got into distress, they sent a statement to George III. of what their
father had done for Lord Rodney, and George III. gave them a pension.
Spoke of O’Connell, and George IV., to whose Levee in Dublin he
(O’Connell) went; Lord Melbourne said that O’Connell declared he heard
George IV. distinctly say (when he passed) to some one, “God damn him.”
Lord Melbourne said that George IV. was in a very awkward position
when he was in Ireland, for that the whole country was in a ferment
of enthusiasm believing the King to be for the Catholic Emancipation,
whereas in his heart he was against it. I said to Lord Melbourne that
there was rather a disagreeable business about Lord Durham’s wishing
me to receive Lady —— at Court, which, if she had been refused at
the late Court, it would, I feared, be impossible for me to do. Lord
Melbourne said, “It will not do for you to reverse a sentence passed
by the late Court in the beginning of your reign; I quite agree with
you that you cannot do this.” He said that in general with respect
to receiving people it was better to go according to what had been
determined by a Court of Justice and if there was nothing against them
there, to receive them and not to inquire into what their early lives
had been[404]....
_Friday, 23rd February._—I lamented my being _so_ short, which Lord M.
smiled at and thought no misfortune. Spoke to him of the Levée, the
place where I stood which some people objected to, which led him to
speak of the old Court in the time of George III., when a Levee and
also a Drawing-room was like an Assembly; the King and Queen used to
come into the room where the people were already assembled, and to walk
round and speak to the people; they did not speak to everybody, and
it was considered no offence, he said, if they did not. He said Queen
Charlotte spoke English with a little accent, but that it was rather
pretty. I asked him when he first went to Court; he said in the year
1803, he thought; it was at the time when everybody volunteered their
services and when he was in a Volunteer Corps. Spoke of Lord Howe, his
remaining about the Queen[405]; and when he was made to resign. Lord
Melbourne said he (Ld. H.) seldom voted but that when he voted against
the Reform Bill, Lord Grey was urged by an outcry from “his people”
to press his (Ld. Howe’s) removal, which Lord Melbourne said was very
unwise; Lord Grey went down to Windsor, and told the King of it, which
alarmed the King a good deal; they (the King and Lord Grey) discussed
with Taylor how it should be done; Lord Grey proposed his seeing the
Queen upon it, which Taylor said never would do, and that the only way
was to send for Lord Howe and make him resign, which he (Ld. H.) said
he would do. Lord Melbourne said that the Queen had just come home from
riding and was half undressed when Lord Howe sent to say he must see
the Queen; she said she would see him when she was dressed; whereupon
Lord Howe sent again to her saying the affair was so urgent that he
must see her immediately; she buttoned up her habit again and saw him;
he gave her the key and said he must resign, which Lord Melbourne said
made the Queen very angry and rendered her still more hostile to Lord
Grey’s Government than she already was....
_Tuesday, 27th February._—I said to Lord Melbourne that Uncle Leopold
was amazingly frightened when the Prince of Orange came over with his
sons, as he always imagined that the late King had _some intentions_
about that; (meaning a marriage between me and one of the young
Princes.) “And so he had,” said Lord Melbourne decidedly. “He sounded
me about it,” and Lord Melbourne wrote to him (the late King) to say
that in a political point of view, he did not think it a desirable
thing; that the country would not like a connection with Holland; the
King was much disappointed at this, Lord Melbourne said; he (the King)
had always a fear about a marriage; he was afraid Mamma had intentions,
which I observed she certainly had; and that the King therefore thought
“he must _dévancer_ her”; that Lord Melbourne told him, if he wished
such a thing he had better be sure first if the _Parties_ themselves
liked it; for that he never could force such a thing; of which Lord
Melbourne said the King never seemed sensible; at which I laughed.
He said that the Prince of Orange also came to him (Ld. M.) from the
King, and asked him if he or the Government had any objection to such
a connection. “Personally,” Lord Melbourne said to him, “there could
be no objection; no more than to any other Prince in Europe”; but at
the same time he must tell him that his (the Prince’s) country was so
situated that it would be constantly involved in war if any war was
to break out; “I told him as much as that,” Lord Melbourne said, “and
that I could not say anything until we saw it in some sort of shape or
other.” This was all very curious and interesting for me to hear.
[Illustration: _H.R.H. The Duchess of Kent_
_from a portrait by Stone_]
INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO CHAPTER IX
The early months of the year 1838 found Lord Melbourne’s Government
in considerable difficulties. For legislative purposes the
Parliamentary majority was impotent. It was just able to keep the
Ministry afloat. “The Queen,” wrote Lord Palmerston, “is as steady
to us as ever, and was in the depth of despair when she thought we
were in danger of being turned out.”
This was a year of grave trouble in Canada, but, as it turned out,
a year full of promise for the subsequent welfare of that great
Dominion, and for her connection with the Mother-country. The Queen
was undoubtedly attracted by Lord Durham, the Governor-General,
who, although impulsive and impatient of restraint, possessed
charms of manner and appearance, together with intellectual gifts,
which rendered his personality agreeable to those with whom he was
brought in contact. The Queen showed great kindness to him and Lady
Durham before their departure for Canada. She regretted his return,
and was grieved by the quarrel between him and her Ministers.
Although during this year the Queen was in the habit of taking long
rides into the country, which were found to be very beneficial to
her health, she worked hard, and she laboriously read, under Lord
Melbourne’s guidance, masses of despatches and correspondence. At
no time during her reign was she more persistent in following the
course of public business.
She was now brought a good deal into contact with Lord Palmerston,
and was undoubtedly attracted by his great gifts, although at
a later period of her reign his administrative methods and
high-handed independence occasioned her much anxiety and led to
strong remonstrance.
In the month of April, King Leopold was engaged in suggesting to
the Queen the possibility of a union between her and Prince Albert
of Saxe-Coburg. He wrote constantly to her upon this topic, laying
stress upon the young Prince’s goodness and distinction, and upon
his great anxiety to see his intellectual and moral training
perfected under the auspices of Baron Stockmar.
In the course of the spring the preparations for the Queen’s
Coronation were commenced, and she took keen interest in the detail
of that ceremonial. It was a somewhat delicate matter to avoid
having to invite her Uncle King Leopold and Queen Louise, but a
hint having been dropped to the King of the Belgians, he speedily
realised that the custom of not including crowned heads in the
invitations to a Coronation was sound and worth preserving. “On
mature reflection,” he wrote, “I think that a King and Queen at
your dear Coronation might perhaps be a _hors d’œuvre_.” To this
view the Queen graciously assented.