1838
_Tuesday, 6th March._—It was Mr. Bulwer’s play of _The Lady of Lyons_;
and we came in very soon after the beginning. I think the play
acts well, and I like it. Macready acted well as Claude Melnotte,
Bartley[406] was very good as Damas; and Meadows[407] as Glavis. Mr.
Elton[408] acted fairly enough as the wicked Beauséant.
_Wednesday, 7th March._—Dressed for riding. At a few m. p. 12 I _rode_
out with Lord Conyngham, Lord Uxbridge, dear Lehzen, Miss Cavendish,
Col. Cavendish, and Sir G. Quentin and Mr. Fozard. I mounted in the
garden just under the terrace in order that nobody should know I was
going to ride out. I rode my dear favourite Tartar who went perfectly
and _most delightfully_, never shying, never starting through all the
_very_ noisy streets, rattling omnibuses—carts—carriages, &c., &c. I
quite _love_ him. We rode out through the garden, through the gate on
Constitution Hill; round the park by the water, out at the new gate, by
Lord Hill’s former villa, a good way on the Harrow Road, I should say
within 4 or 5 miles of Harrow—then down a pretty narrow lane where one
could fancy oneself 2 or 300 miles from London, out by Willesden Field
(where I had never been), and Kilburn, down the Edgware Road—Connaught
Place, through omnibuses, carts, &c., &c., in at Cumberland Gate,
galloped up to Hyde Park Corner—and in at the same garden gate at
Constitution Hill, and safely to the Palace at 10 m. to 3. It was a
lovely day, a beautiful and delicious ride, and I have come home quite
charmed and delighted. I rode between Lord Conyngham and Col. Cavendish
the whole way. Dearest Lehzen rode Rosa and felt all the better for
the ride. Wrote my journal. Signed. Walked about. At ½ p. 4 came my
kind and excellent Lord Melbourne and stayed with me till 20 m. p. 5.
He spoke to me about my ride; said he had just come from the Cabinet,
which was about these Canadian prisoners[409]; viz. what is to be done
with them; the revolt being put down they cannot be tried by Martial
Law, and there is great difficulty as to what is to be done with them.
I said to Lord Melbourne I hoped he was not tired from last night; he
said not at all. He said: “I am not quite so sure of to-night; I think
we shall carry it, but you must not be surprised if it should be the
other way.” I coloured very much at this honest, frank avowal of our
fears, from this best and kindest of friends; and tears were nearer
than words to me at that moment....
_Tuesday, 13th March._—I asked Lord Melbourne what was to take place
concerning Slavery to-night.[410] Lord Melbourne then pulled out of his
pocket the Bill or Act which is to be read to-night; he read to me the
principal Heads of it explaining to me each part in the _most clear and
agreeable_ manner possible. I shall not have time or space to explain
or name _each_ head here, but before I do any, I must just observe that
the necessity of this Act shows how shockingly cruel and cheating the
Masters of the Slaves are, attempting to evade in every possible way
what they are told to do, and what, as the Laws cannot be enforced on
the spot, must be done by an Act of Parliament here.
_Wednesday, 14th March._— ... I asked Lord Melbourne how he liked my
dress. He said he thought it “very pretty” and that “it did very well.”
He is so natural and funny and nice about _toilette_ and has a very
good taste I think....
_Saturday, 17th March._—Spoke of the Cabinet, which was just over; he
said that they had been speaking about the Coronation in the Cabinet;
and they all thought that it would be best to have it about the 25th
or 26th of June, as it would end the Parliament well and make a good
break; that it would be best to have it like William IV.’s, which would
be less long. I of course agreed to this....
_Wednesday, 21st March._—Heard from Lord Melbourne that “the House sat
till ½ past eleven last night. Lord Stanhope made a long declamatory
speech, very violent, but having in it nothing defined or specific, and
was answered by Lord Brougham in a most able and triumphant defence and
maintenance of the late Act for amending the laws for the relief of
the Poor. Lord Melbourne was very sorry to be prevented from waiting
upon Your Majesty. He is very grateful for Your Majesty’s enquiries and
feels very well this morning....” Spoke of Portugal; Lord Melbourne
was very much pleased with the good news, and with the Queen’s
conduct.[411] I then saw Lord Palmerston, who was in high spirits at
the good news from Portugal. The Levée was over at 3. I then went for a
moment to the dressing-room to ease my head, as my diadem (which Lord
Melbourne thought “very handsome”) hurt me so dreadfully. After this
I invested (in the Closet) the Marquis of Breadalbane[412] with the
Order of the Thistle; Sir Thomas Bradford[413] with the Grand Cross
of the Bath; and Lord Burghersh[414] and General Donald McLeod were
made Knights Commanders of the Order of the Bath. My Ladies, my whole
Household and all the Ministers were present at this ceremony.
_Thursday, 22nd March._—Lord Melbourne said he had been to see the
Duke of Wellington this morning about asking him to be at the head of
a Commission to be appointed to inquire into the promotions in the
Army and in the Marines, which were so very slow in the time of peace
and about which they were being attacked in the House of Commons. Lord
Melbourne said the Duke had consented to it; and that his being at the
head of it “will give it authority”; the Duke wished to know who was
to be in the Commission; Lord Melbourne named them to him and he was
very well satisfied with them. Lord Melbourne told me some of them,
which are: Lord Hill, Sir Hussey Vivian, Sir Alexander Dickson,[415]
Sir Thomas Hardy,[416] the First Lord of the Admiralty,[417] and the
Secretary at War.[418] Lord Melbourne said, with the tears in his eyes
(kind, excellent man), that the Duke was in very good humour, and “a
very pleasant man to do business with, I think; he is so plain and
speaks to the point.” The Duke had been reviewing the Battalions which
are going to Canada, and praised them very much, and said “particularly
my regiment.” The Duke said that Lord Brougham’s speech on the Poor
Laws was the best he ever heard him make. I told Lord Melbourne that
_Diet_ was the best physician for him; he said laughing, he drank
too much _champagne_, and I added, mixed too many wines; at which he
laughed a good deal. Spoke of the Queen Dowager who he is going to
see at ½ p. 1 on Saturday; spoke of my calling her Queen Adelaide and
not Queen Dowager, as it was painful to people to receive that name.
Spoke of all changes of that kind; of the Queen Dowager’s having signed
“_Subject_” to me the day after the King died.[419]
_Friday, 23rd March._—Lord Cowper is very shy and reserved and speaks
but little. He really is the image of his mother,[420] and has exactly
the same voice and manner of speaking. The cut of the features is so
exactly his mother’s—he looks delicate and is very thin; he has a
mild and pleasing countenance. Lord Melbourne spoke to me of these
Portuguese despatches which he had not yet seen. He said: “I am very
glad the Queen has shown courage; it gives confidence....”
_Sunday, 25th March._—I said I had heard from Uncle Leopold, who seems
a good deal vexed at this recommencement of this Belgian Question; we
spoke of this and Lord Melbourne said: “I don’t like it at all; I think
we shall get into a quarrel somehow or other, which is a bad thing.”
He said Uncle Leopold had written to Lord Palmerston about this and
about this Portuguese Affair; Lord Melbourne said that Uncle wrote that
people complained and with truth that Ferdinand did not show himself;
upon which Dietz[421] wrote that a King should not show himself when
his subjects are spilling their blood. Whereupon Uncle observed:
that was a very fine German sentiment, but that if Louis Philippe
had followed that principle, he would have lost his head like Louis
xvi.... Of the late hurricane in Ireland; Lord Melbourne said trees
never grew so well in Ireland and were all a little bent from the wind
blowing across the Atlantic. He dislikes trees near a house, and he is
very fond of thinning trees. Spoke of Claremont and the trees there.
We then spoke of _names_ (Xtian names) for a long while, about which
Lord Melbourne was very amusing and very funny. He said Lady Ashley
was always called _Minny_. He said: “I think Mary beautiful.” We spoke
of Molly; “Molly is beautiful; it’s such a soft word, there are more
liquids in it than in almost any word.” Then _Bess_ he thinks “quite
beautiful,” as also _Jane_, and _Kate_, and _Alice_; “Jane and Joan,”
he said, “are John.” “Louisa,” he says, “is a fastidious name....”
_Tuesday, 27th March._—At ½ p. 12 I rode out with Lord Conyngham, Lord
Uxbridge, Lord Byron,[422] Lady Mary, dearest Lehzen, Miss Cavendish,
Miss Quentin, Sir F. Stovin and Col. Cavendish, and came home at ½ p.
3, having ridden 22 MILES!!! We rode very hard and Tartar went MOST
delightfully, NEVER was there SUCH a dear horse. We rode to Richmond,
through part of the Richmond Park, out at Robin Hood Gate, and home
over Wimbledon Common and Vauxhall Bridge. It was as hot as summer, and
_going_ I thought I should have melted; coming over Wimbledon Common
there was some delicious air. It was a heavenly day. At 6 m. p. 4 came
Lord Melbourne and stayed with me till 20 m. to 5. He seemed well.
Spoke a good deal of my ride. The Debate lasted till 11 last night,
and he dined and stayed at home. Spoke of the Archbishop’s having made
a long speech last night about the Indian Worship; spoke of that.
Spoke of the Duke of Sussex and what he told me about the rank a Prime
Minister should have, viz. that of Lord High Treasurer; Lord Melbourne
said: “I think it had better remain as it is.”[423]
_Wednesday, 28th March._—Spoke of my ride; of Mr. Bulwer’s novels,
_none_ of which Lord Melbourne has read. Lady Durham said it was very
odd that so clever a man should be vain about his personal appearance.
Lord Melbourne replied: “I think clever people generally have more of
those weaknesses than others.” Lord Melbourne said: “I always predicted
he would be a genius when he was a boy; and I was sure he would make
a figure; he used to come over to Brocket when he was 17, and show me
his poetry.” I asked Lord Melbourne if he was fond of novels; he said
“very fond,” but that he had no time to read them now. Spoke of Lady
Wilhelmina, who Lord Melbourne says is certainly much grown since last
year. I said “Everybody grows but me.” He laughed and said, “I think
you are grown....”
_Thursday, 29th March._—I showed Lord Melbourne a bracelet with my
portrait by Ross in it, which I’m going to give Lady Durham, which he
thought very like.
_Friday, 30th March._—Got up at 10 m. to 10, and breakfasted at a
¼ to 11. Heard from Lord John before breakfast, that Sir George
Strickland[424] brought on this Motion for emancipating the Apprentices
this year, last night, and was seconded by Mr. Pease[425] (the Quaker).
Sir George Grey[426] made a speech of 2 hours and fifty minutes, and
completely exhausted the subject. The speech was a very able one and
Lord John thinks will change many Votes.
_Sunday, 1st April._—I told him of the Duke of Cambridge and what
he had said about his wish of going to the Emperor of Austria’s
Coronation; and also that he said he could not dine with me on
Tuesday, but _invited himself_ to dine with me another day _without_
the Duchess; Lord Melbourne laughed and said, “That’s very odd; Your
Majesty should have said ‘That’s not right.’” Spoke of Little Holland
House, which Lord Melbourne says is quite near Holland House and a
very nice place, with a very pretty garden; spoke of Miss Fox, Lord
Holland’s sister, who is such an amiable person; we were not sure of
her age; Lord Melbourne said she was grown up when he was a boy at
school; spoke of Lady Holland, who has been very handsome though he
always remembers her very large; and she has a vulgar mouth and used
always to say, “A vulgar ordinary mouth I have.” Spoke of her and Lady
Lilford, who, Lord Melbourne said laughing, “never had the use of her
legs.” Lady Holland is about 68, he thinks; she was married in 1786 to
her 1st husband, Sir Godfrey Webster, when she was only 16. Spoke of
Portugal &c....
_Monday, 2nd April._—I said to Lord Melbourne I was so stupid that I
must beg him to explain to me about Sir William Follett[427] again;
he answered very kindly, “It is not stupid, but I daresay you can’t
understand it,” and he explained it to me like a _kind_ father would
do to his child; he has something so fatherly, and so affectionate
and kind in him, that one must love him.... I rode Lord Uxbridge’s
little horse, which I have Christened _Uxbridge_, and which is the most
charming, delightful, quiet horse possible. It has a most beautiful
little head, is of a dark chestnut colour, if possible quieter than
Tartar, for it never takes notice of anything; full of spirit, and
very easy and pleasant in its canter which is faster than Tartar’s. It
is delightful to have two such horses as Tartar and Uxbridge. It was
a very warm, bright, clear, pleasant day. We rode to Hanwell through
Acton; home by Castle Hill, Acton again, and in at the Victoria Gate,
and home by the garden gate; we rode about 19 or 20 miles. When we were
near Notting Hill, or rather more at Brookgreen, I sent on a groom to
inform Lord Melbourne (who told me last night he would come to me at
_four_ today), that I should be at home in a few minutes; but when I
came home, they said Lord Melbourne had been at the gate a few minutes
before, and on hearing I was still out, said “Very well,” and walked
his horse away. I waited in my habit till 5, the hour for the House of
Lords, when I felt that my good Lord Melbourne could not come, and I
wrote to him. It is my own fault....
_Wednesday, 4th April._—Spoke of the Coronation, and the fuss the
Princesses were in about their robes; I told Lord Melbourne that the
Duchess of Gloucester had offered to hold the tip of my train when
I was being crowned, as the Duchess of Brunswick had done for Queen
Charlotte, and that I thought this very kind of the Duchess; which
quite touched my good friend. Spoke of Hanwell, and rail-roads; I said
I feared there were so many rail-roads that they could not all answer;
Lord Melbourne said he feared they would not, but that he was sorry for
it, as he was engaged in one. “I was fool enough to engage in one and
to take 50 shares; I have already paid £1,000, and have lately had a
call for £500 more,” he added. This rail-road is in Nottingham and he
engaged in it about 4 years ago. I asked him if he liked rail-roads in
general; he replied, “I don’t care about them,” which made me laugh;
and he added that they were bad for the country as they brought such a
shocking set of people “who commit every horror.” “They are picked men,
who mind neither Lord nor laws, and commit every species of violence;
nothing is safe,” he added; and “it’s more like a country in time of
war” than peace. He spoke of Dorsetshire to Lady Portman, and she said
it was so poor; he replied, “That’s because you don’t give enough
wages.”
_Thursday, 5th April._—Spoke of Lady Burghersh[428]; Lord Melbourne
said, “She is of a great deal of use to us, in a quiet way”; for if he
wished to communicate with the Duke of Wellington, he did it through
her; he, of course, does not wish me to mention this; but I hope I _am_
discreet and tell but little of what he tells to me. Lady Burghersh is
a sensible, clever woman, and has great influence over the Duke.
_Friday, 6th April._—Spoke of my ride; rail-roads; that the
Steam-Carriage could not be stopped under 150 yards’ distance of an
object; I observed that these Steam-Carriages are very dangerous; Lord
Melbourne said, “Oh! none of these modern inventions consider human
life.” Spoke of Col. Cavendish and Sir George Quentin; of horses;
Lord Melbourne said his mare would not be well enough to come down
to Windsor, but that he could get a horse from me there, to ride. I
observed that Mr. Cowper complained he (Ld. M.) never rode the horses
he should ride; “I don’t know, he never got me a horse I liked; I don’t
think he is a very good hand at horses.” Lord Melbourne said Mr. Fred
Byng[429] got him his present black mare; he hears a horse-dealer has
got a horse which he thinks will do for him; the price is 160 guineas,
which he says is nothing if the horse is a good one; but a good deal
if it is a bad one.... Spoke of Byron, who Lord Melbourne said would
not be 50 if he were alive[430]; he said he was extremely handsome;
had dark hair, was very lame and limped very much; I asked if the
expression of his countenance was agreeable; he said not; “he had a
sarcastic, sardonic expression; a contemptuous expression.” I asked if
he was not agreeable; he said “He could be excessively so”; “he had a
pretty smile”; “treacherous beyond conception; I believe he was fond of
treachery.” Lord Melbourne added, “he dazzled everybody,” and deceived
them; “for he could tell his story very well....” Lord Melbourne said,
“The old King (George III.) had that hurried manner; but he was a
shrewd, acute man, and most scrupulously civil.” He added that the
King was rather tall, red in the face, large though not a corpulent
man; prejudiced and obstinate beyond conception; spoke of the old Duke
of Gloucester who, he said, was not a clever man but a good-natured
man, though very proud; of the Duchess of Gloucester his wife; Lord
Melbourne said that Horace Walpole tells that one day _he_ (I think)
gave the Duke of Gloucester a fête at Strawberry Hill; and the Duchess
came over before to see that all was right; and when she came there
she saw that the host had put up her arms with the Duke’s; she said,
“God bless me! this will never do; you must take this down directly,
this will never do; the Duke would be extremely angry were he to see
this.” The Duchess was a Walpole by birth[431]; she was first married
to Lord Waldegrave; her children by that marriage were beautiful; they
were Elizabeth, Lady Waldegrave,[432] Lady Euston,[433] and Lady Hugh
Seymour, who was mother to Sir Horace Seymour.[434] “People were very
fond of her,” Lord Melbourne said....
_Sunday, 8th April._—Lord Melbourne looked over one of the Volumes
(the sixth) of a Work called “Lodge’s Portraits”; there are portraits
of all sorts of famous people in it, with short Memoirs of them
annexed to them. Lord Melbourne looked carefully over each, reading
the accounts of the people and admiring the prints. I wish I had
time to write down all the clever observations he made about _all_.
It is quite _a delight_ for me to hear him speak about all these
things; he has such _stores_ of knowledge; such a wonderful memory;
he knows about everybody and everything; _who_ they were, and _what_
they did; and he imparts all his knowledge in such a _kind_ and
agreeable manner; it does me a _world_ of good; and his conversations
always _improve_ one greatly. I shall just name a few of the people
he observed upon:—_Raleigh_, which he thought a very handsome head;
_Hobbes_, who was “an infidel philosopher”; he had been tutor to one of
the Earls of Devonshire,[435] he said; _Knox_—Lord Melbourne observed
that those Scotch Reformers were very violent people; but that Knox
denied having been so harsh to Mary of Scots as she said he had been;
_Lord Mansfield_, who, he said, “was great-uncle” to the present Lord;
_Melanchthon_, whose name means Black Earth in Greek, and whose head
he admired; _Pitt_, whose print Lord Melbourne said was very like;
“he died in 1806 when I came into Parliament.” He (Ld. M.) came in
for Leominster. _Wesley_; Lord Melbourne said the greatest number of
Dissenters were Wesleyans; he read from the book that there were (at
his death) 135,000 of his followers; _Porson_,—Lord Melbourne said,
“I knew him; he was a great Greek scholar,” and looking at the print,
“it’s very like him.” _Leibnitz_, a great German philosopher, and a
correspondent of Queen Caroline, wife to George II.; spoke of her being
so learned and her whole court too; “the Tories laughed at it very
much”; and Swift ridiculing the Maids of Honour wrote, “Since they talk
to Dr. Clark, They now venture in the Dark.” _Addison_; Lord Melbourne
admires his “Spectator,” his “Cato” he also admires, but says it’s
not like a Roman tragedy; “there is so much love in it.” Addison died
at Holland House; he disagreed very much with his wife, Lady Warwick.
Holland House was built, he said, by Rich, Lord Holland, in the reign
of Charles 1st.[436] _Madame de Staël_, whose print he thought very
like; “she had good eyes, she was very vain of her arms.” She was over
here in ’15, and died in ’17, aged 51; she disliked dying very much;
Lord Melbourne also knew her daughter the Duchesse de Broglie; he said,
“Louis Philippe dislikes _her_ as much as Napoleon did _her Mother_.”
Lord Melbourne saw Madame de Broglie for a moment when he was at Paris
for the last time in 1825. He read from the book, with great emphasis,
the following passage, what Napoleon said of Madame de Staël: “They
pretend that she neither talks politics nor mentions me; but I know
not how it happens that people seem to like me less after visiting
her.” _Queen Elizabeth_; spoke of her, and that her Mother must have
been very handsome. Lady Holland, he told me, has the greatest fear of
dying; spoke of pictures; Lord Melbourne does not admire Murillo much,
nor Rubens; he so greatly prefers the Italian Masters to any others;
spoke of subjects for painting; of the Holy Family being constantly
painted; “After all,” he said, “a woman and child is the most beautiful
subject one can have.” He is going down alone to Brocket; I told him
his sister thought Brocket so cold, and that she wanted him to put
up stoves, which he said would “burn down the house.” “I reduced the
grates,” he continued, “because I thought they gave heat enough; and
so they do, if they make large fires; but they don’t know how to make
fires.” He can’t bear Brocket in winter. He was going home and did not
feel tired any more. He spoke of my riding very kindly. Stayed up till
a ¼ p. 11. It was a most delightful evening.
_Monday, 9th April._—I showed him letters of thanks from Lords
Fitzwilliam and Dundas and Captain Sykes, relative to my having repaid
to the two first-named the debt incurred by my poor father and owing
to their late fathers; and to the latter the debt owing to himself,
accompanied by gifts. Lord Melbourne observed my sleeves (which were
very long) with astonishment, and said “Amazing sleeves!...”
_Monday, 16th April._—Lord Melbourne told me that there were very
strange accounts of Lord Brougham and all he was _saying_ and _doing_
at Paris; his having gone to see Louis Philippe at 11 o’clock at night,
when the Swiss Guard were (as they always are) asleep on the staircase;
they stopped him (Brougham), saying the King was gone to bed; upon
which Brougham observed that their King had “very rustic habits.” Spoke
of him, his visiting Lady Fitzharris[437]; Lord Melbourne spoke of
Brougham and his oddities; of this Review which he (B.) has written and
which Lord Melbourne thinks “well done.” He thinks Queen Charlotte and
George III. very harshly handled in it, and Queen Caroline amazingly
puffed up; the Duke of York’s character he thinks the best done; he
says there is a great deal which Brougham seems not to know; spoke of
George IV.’s character, not being understood; of Sir William Knighton’s
Memoirs which are just published, and which Lord Melbourne thinks it
very wrong in Lady Knighton[438] to have published; of George IV. being
so completely in the hands of Knighton, &c., &c. I felt very unhappy at
dinner, in spite of my being gay when I spoke, and I could have cried
almost at every moment; so much so, that when I got into bed, my nerves
(which had been more shaken by the loss of _dearest_ Louis,[439] than
I can express, and by the struggle when in company to overcome _grief_
which I felt so acutely) could resist no longer, and more than half an
hour elapsed, in tears, before I fell asleep. And before I was asleep
I saw her, in my imagination, before me, dressed in her neat white
morning gown, sitting at her breakfast in her room at Claremont; again,
standing in my room of an evening, dressed in her best, holding herself
so erect, as she always did, and making the low dignified curtsey so
peculiar to herself; and lastly on her death-bed, pale and emaciated,
but the expression the same, and the mind vigorous and firm as ever!
These were the images I beheld as I lay in bed! Yet, mingled with my
grief were feelings of thankfulness that her end was so peaceful—so
happy!...
_Saturday, 21st April._—I showed Lord Melbourne the plans for changing
the Slopes and making a new walk, and we looked over them for some time
together. We then spoke of what _might_ have happened when the Duke of
York married; for who could foretell, Lord Melbourne observed, that the
Duchess of York would have no children?—and that the late King should
lose the two he had? This led us to speak of the whole Royal Family,
their characters, of the Princesses marrying so late; of George III.’s
dislike to their marrying, which Lord Melbourne did not know; of their
beauty; he always thought Princess Sophia (when young) very pretty,
though very like a Gipsy; spoke of the singular instance of both George
III.’s and Queen Charlotte’s being very plain and all their children
very handsome; spoke of all the Princes and Princesses, of the two
little Princes, Octavius and Alfred, who died; Lord Melbourne said,
George III. said when he felt he was to be unwell (which he always
forefelt) he dreamt and thought of Octavius. Lord Melbourne said Queen
Charlotte had fine hands and feet, a good bust, and a pretty figure.
_Sunday, 22nd April._—I spoke to him of what I was to write to Uncle
relative to Soult’s nomination[440]; Soult, he told me, is a large,
tall man; looks more “like the Purser of a ship” than an officer; a
very distinguished officer risen from the ranks, and a man of great
abilities besides. Lord Melbourne knew him when he was in Paris. I
asked Lord Melbourne when he was first at Paris; in 1815 he said, which
was the first time he was ever on the Continent. “We went,” he said
(which “we” implies himself and Lady Caroline, his wife) “to Brussels
immediately after the Battle of Waterloo, to see Fred. Ponsonby[441]
who was desperately wounded.” This was in June 1815, and he went to
Paris in August, and stayed there September and October and came back
in November. He saw Uncle Leopold there then, and said he was extremely
handsome.
_Monday, 23rd April._—Lord Melbourne looked into the newspapers and
said there was nothing in them; he read (in the papers) a denial from
Lady Charlotte Bury[442] of her having written the book called _Diary
of the Reign_ (I think) _of George IV._; Lord Melbourne spoke of Lady
Hertford, though he of course could not remember her in her great
beauty; he said, “My nurse nursed Lord Hertford,[443] so that I used
to hear a great deal about her.” The present Lord Hertford’s wife, he
said, was a natural daughter of the Duke of Queensberry, called Mmé.
Fagniani[444]; she is still alive at Paris, but Lord Hertford has long
been separated from her; Lord Yarmouth, he said, is very clever, but
always lives abroad....[445]
_Wednesday, 25th April._—In speaking before of Mrs. Baring,[446] who, I
said, from having been the most affectionate of mothers, latterly never
asked after her children,—Lord Melbourne said with the tears in his
eyes, “That’s a sure sign that all is over; when people intermit what
they have been in the habit of doing.” He mentioned that when William
III. was dying they brought him some good news from abroad, but he took
no notice of it whatever, and said, “Je tire à ma fin....”
_Friday, 27th April._—I showed Lord Melbourne two pictures of Lord
Durham’s children; spoke of the beautiful boy Lord Durham lost, who
would now be 20. Lord Melbourne said, that boy’s death was the cause of
a dreadful scene between Durham and Lord Grey in one of the Cabinets.
Spoke of this Flahaut[447] business, and of the wish at Paris to throw
the blame of the whole on Uncle Leopold; spoke of Flahaut; Lord
Melbourne said he (Flahaut) was first noticed by Napoleon, in the
Russian Retreat, when in all that cold and misery he heard a young
officer singing, and appearing quite gay; that was Flahaut; Napoleon
said, “That is a fine young fellow,” and placed him on his Staff....
Spoke of Lady Campbell[448] (Pamela Fitzgerald) who Lord Melbourne has
not seen again, but from whom he has had a long letter....
_Saturday, 28th April._—Lord Melbourne continued, that those who were
about the Prince of Wales[449] were not liked at Court “and vice
versa.” And he said _his_ family quite belonged to Carlton House;
still, he added, the King and Queen were very civil to him. Speaking
of George IV. he said, “He expected those he was fond of to go quite
with him; to dislike those he disliked, and to like those he liked, and
to turn with him.” He then mentioned what he told me before, that his
(Ld. M.’s) father and mother got into disgrace, for I think 3 years,
when Mrs. Fitzherbert was banished, and they continued seeing her; and
when George IV. came back to Mrs. Fitzherbert he came to dine with them
(Lord Melbourne was there the first day he came) as if nothing had
happened, and as if he had been there the day before. Lord Melbourne
said, before all this, that “the only thing one learns at a public
school” is _punctuality_, and the value of time; that he never had a
clock in his room, and always called to somebody to tell him what
o’clock it was, which he owned was bad, as it put you in the power of
the man to make you late. He “never carried a watch about him” in his
life, and yet he thinks he generally knows what o’clock it is....
_Monday, 30th April._—I then showed him a little book relating to the
Coronations of various of my Ancestors, and amongst others Queen Anne;
he looked over parts of it, and glanced at one part which states that
Queen Anne said in her first speech to Parliament that “_her heart
was entirely_ English.” Upon which Lord Melbourne told me that when
she concluded the Peace of Utrecht, which was supposed to be rather
favourable to the French, a Sir Samuel Garth[450] wrote a poem in
which he said of Queen Anne: “The Queen this year has lost a part,
Of her entirely English heart,”—which is very funny; Lord Melbourne
did not remember what followed. Speaking of Prince George of Denmark,
who Lord Melbourne said “was a very stupid fellow,” he added that he
(G. of Denmark) was always saying, “Est-il possible?” to everything,
and was always saying so whenever he was told of another Lord having
left James II. So when James heard that George of Denmark had left
him, he said, “So _Est-il possible_ is gone at last!” I spoke of
the Duchess of Ancaster[451] having been Queen Charlotte’s first
Mistress of the Robes; the title of Duke of Ancaster became extinct,
Lord Melbourne told me, and the Dowager Lady Cholmondeley[452] and
Lord Willoughby’s mother[453] were her co-heiresses. I asked him
who was now Lord Fauconberg; he said the title was extinct[454]; he
was a descendant of Oliver Cromwell’s by Cromwell’s daughter Lady
Fauconberg; Lady Charlotte Bellasyse married a person called Thomas
Wynne, a Welshman.[455] Sir Ed. Desborow, Lord Melbourne told me, is
also a descendant of Cromwell’s by one of his daughters. I told Lord
Melbourne what the Duke of Sussex had told me, viz. that none of his
family “could hold their tongue,” which is very true; which made Lord
Melbourne laugh, and still more so when I told him that the Duke, in
speaking of the King of Hanover, called him “that other man.” After
dinner I sat on the sofa with Lady Isabella and Lady Augusta, Lord
Melbourne sitting near me the whole evening, and some of the other
ladies being seated round the table. Spoke of Lady Isabella; Henry
Fox,[456] of the Apartments at Hampton Court &c.; of this Review of
Brougham’s of Lady C. Bury’s book. Lord Melbourne said again, what he
told me the other day, that there was much which Brougham seemed to
know nothing about; he (B.) states that Mrs. Fitzherbert did not know
when she married the King that a marriage with a Catholic could not
be valid; Lord Melbourne says she must have known that, and that, by
what he has heard, she was against the marriage; he said Lord Holland
knows a good deal about it, and that it is known _where_ the marriage
took place and by whom it was celebrated. Lord Melbourne thinks it
took place in 1784 or 5[457]; the King left her in 1795, when Lady
Jersey got into favour, whom he put about the Princess of Wales; he
came back to Mrs. Fitzherbert in 1802, then left her for Lady Hertford,
quarrelled with her, and then Lady Conyngham followed; the last-named,
I observed, was very good-natured; Lord Melbourne said, “She was the
most good-natured, but the most rapacious; she got the most money from
him.” Spoke of Lady Augusta Fox; Lord Melbourne said her mother, Lady
Coventry, was Lady Mary Beauclerc, daughter of a Duke of St. Albans
(uncle to the present Duke). Her (Lady Coventry’s) mother was a Miss
Moses, a Jewess. Lady Holland, Lord Melbourne says, does not like
Lady Augusta Fox. Lord Melbourne told me that the Irish Poor Law Bill
would come up to the House of Lords next day, and that there would be
probably a good deal next week, in the Committee about it; a great deal
of difference of opinion; but he thinks they’ll pass it....
_Friday, 4th May._—Lord Melbourne told me on Wednesday evening that
Landseer said of McLise[458]: “He is beating us all; his imagination,
grouping, and drawing is wonderful; he must soften his colouring
perhaps a little.” Two very clever ones of Grant; a portrait of Lord
Cowper by Lucas which is excessively like; Lord Melbourne, by Hayter,
and my dogs by Landseer looked very well. The latter is too beautiful.
There were also two very clever pictures by Landseer’s brother; there
was also a very good picture by Sir Martin Shee of the late King; it is
the likest I’ve seen; it’s so like his figure.
_Saturday, 5th May._—We then spoke of my sitting one day to Sir Martin
Shee; of Lord Melbourne’s having seen an Academician this morning who
said the reason why Hayter was not elected one of their Members was
because his character was not good; Lord Melbourne asked me about
it; I said I did not know much about it, but that I believed he had
quarrelled with his wife and had separated from her. “And did he get
another?” said Lord M. I laughed and said I was not sure of that....
_Monday, 7th May._—We (that is Lord Melbourne, Lord Holland and I)
spoke about the Exhibition, Landseer’s picture of my dogs, the origin
of the dog in the Arms of the Seal of the Duchy of Lancaster, which
Lord Holland said came originally from John of Gaunt, was adopted by
Henry VII., abolished by James I., and restored by William IV.; spoke
of _Macaws_, and he offered me one which belongs to Lady Holland.
Spoke of Nightingales; Lord Melbourne said he could not distinguish
its song from that of another bird’s; that it could be mistaken for a
wood-lark’s, which Lord Holland denied, and they went on discussing
the different songs of birds; we then spoke of various birds; of
nightingales migrating; of how wonderful the migration of birds was;
Lord Melbourne did not think it so incredible; they first went to
France, he said, and “then they slide along the country....”
_Wednesday, 9th May._—Lord Melbourne said he was kept in the House of
Lords till 8, the night before; that Lord Shrewsbury[459] made rather
a good speech, but that his (Ld. M.’s) fear was that some of the Roman
Catholic Peers might refuse to take the Oath on account of all this;
and then “we should have all this question” (the Roman Catholic) “over
again.”
_Thursday, 10th May._—At ½ p. 10 the doors were opened and I went
through the Saloon into the other Ball-room next the Dining-room in
which was Strauss’s band. I felt a little shy in going in, but soon got
over it and went and talked to the people. The rooms I must say looked
beautiful, were so well lit up, and everything so well done; and all
done in one day. There was no crowd at all; indeed, there might have
been more people. The dining-room looked also very handsome as the
supper-room. The Throne-room was arranged for the tea-room. I danced (a
Quadrille of course, as I only dance quadrilles) first (in the large
ball-room) with George[460]; and 2ndly with Prince Nicholas Esterhazy;
there was a valse between each quadrille; I never heard anything so
_beautiful_ in my life as Strauss’s band. We then went into the other
ball-room where I danced two other quadrilles with Lord Jocelyn[461]
and Lord Fitzalan[462]; the first named is very merry and funny. When
I did not dance (which was only the case when valzing went on) I sat
with Mamma and my Aunts, on a seat raised one step above the floor.
Lady Fanny Cowper was my vis-à-vis when I danced with Lord Jocelyn. At
1 (after my quadrille with Lord Fitzalan) we went into the Supper-room.
After supper we went into the large Ball-room where we remained till
the last quadrille which I danced in Weippert’s room. I danced with
Lord Cowper (who was much less shy and very agreeable); Lord Uxbridge
(who dances remarkably well); Lord Douro; Lord Folkestone[463] (a great
ally of mine); Lord Suffield[464]; and lastly with Lord Morpeth. There
was a great deal of beauty there, amongst which were Lady Ashley,
Lady Fanny Cowper, Lady Wilhelmina Stanhope, Lady Seymour,[465] Lady
Clanricarde,[466] Lady Mary Vyner,[467] Lady Norreys,[468] Lady Emma
Herbert,[469] Lady Clanwilliam,[470] Lady Mary Grimston,[471] Lady
Powerscourt,[472] Miss Maude,[473] Miss Elphinstone.[474] Lady Fanny
was twice my vis-à-vis, as was also Lady Adelaide Paget.[475] I did
not leave the ball-room till 10 m. to _four_!! and was in bed by ½
p. 4,—the sun shining. It was a lovely ball, so gay, so nice,—and I
felt so happy and so merry; I had not danced for _so_ long and was so
glad to do so again! One _only_ regret I had,—and that was, that my
excellent, kind, good friend, Lord Melbourne was not there. I missed
him much at this my first ball; he would have been pleased I think!
_Friday, 11th May._—Got up at 20 m. p. 10 and breakfasted at ½ p. 11.
Heard from my good Lord Melbourne that he was “extremely concerned”
at not having been able to come to the Ball, but that “he felt so
unwell and so disturbed” that he was afraid to venture; which was
right of him, though I regret it _so_ much. Heard from Lord John that
“Sir Thomas Acland[476] gave notice yesterday that he should move on
Monday to rescind the resolution of 1835 respecting the Church of
Ireland. The Debate on this Question must lead to one of the most
severe struggles of the session both in discussion and in the Division.
Both parties have nearly all their strength in London. But a majority
for Ministers, though a small one, is tolerably certain.” This gave
me a pang which somewhat damped my very light and high spirits. We
spoke for a long time about my Ball—who I danced with, the beauties,
and the different persons there; I said to Lord Melbourne the moment
I saw him, how very sorry I was that he had not come last night. We
spoke of all this for some time, and he was so kind about it all, and
seemed to take quite an interest in it all. He then said, “They are
going to make another attack upon us on Monday; Sir Thomas Acland has
given notice that he means to make a motion to rescind the Resolutions
about the Irish Church passed in 1835, upon which we came in.” I then
added that Lord John seemed certain about a majority, though a small
one; Lord Melbourne said Sir Thomas Acland was a conscientious and
not very violent man, and consequently well chosen in that respect
to make a good effect. There is to be a Cabinet upon it tomorrow at
1; and Lord John is going to have a Meeting of the Members at 4. All
this distresses me much; would to God! none of these Motions, which
are so _useless_, were brought on. I fervently trust however that all
will do well. Spoke of my ball, and the different people, the rooms;
he asked if I was not tired; I said not the least, for though I had
danced a great deal I did not valze, as I did not think it would do
for me to valze. Lord Melbourne said eagerly, “I think you are quite
right; that’s quite right.” Lord Melbourne dines with me tonight, I’m
happy to say. I showed him the letter I meant to write to the King
of Hanover, which he quite approved of. Spoke of several people at
the Ball and several other things concerning it; of Lord Duncannon
who is rather better but still very poorly; Lord Melbourne does not
like his being so long ill, and suffering with so many different
things; there is a disease in the sockets of his teeth which become
quite loose, the teeth themselves being quite sound. Lord Melbourne
said the Ponsonbys were generally strong, and lived to a great age;
that the present Lord Bessborough’s father lived to a very great age;
Lord Melbourne said he was the man of whom the following anecdote is
told:—he (_that_ Lord Bessborough) was playing at cards, at Picquet,
Lord Melbourne thinks, when his partner dropped down dead; and he said
to the Waiter, “Remember, if the gentleman recovers, that I’ve got
such and such a thing in my hand....” Spoke to him of the Coronation,
and of the different people who were to bear the Swords (which he had
already spoken to me of, in the morning; for he showed me then a letter
from the Duke of Grafton declining to take any part in it, as he only
meant to attend as a Peer). He (Ld. Melbourne) will carry the Sword of
State; the Duke of Hamilton[477] he _thinks_ of proposing to carry the
Crown; the Duke of Somerset[478] the Orb; the Dukes of Devonshire and
Sutherland the other swords; and the Duke of Roxburgh,[479] something
else. But nothing is as yet settled with respect to all this. Spoke of
my reading the Despatches, of which there were so many.
_Saturday, 12th May._—At a ¼ p. 1 came Lord Melbourne and stayed with
me till 10 m. to 2. He said he was, and seemed, much better. He first
read me a Petition from the Society of British Artists, wishing me to
go to their Exhibition, which however he said was quite unnecessary.
He then said they were going to have a Cabinet upon this motion,[480]
which is to take place on Monday, and to see what can be done upon it.
Lord Melbourne then explained to me in the clearest manner possible
all about it. He told me that:—In 1835, Sir Robert Peel found himself
several times in minorities about various things which I forget; but
he said he would not resign until he was beat upon a Question relative
to the Irish Church; when he brought in his Bill for Irish Tithes,
the resolution, to appropriate the surplus for the benefit of Moral
Education, was carried against him by 37,—and he resigned; well,
the present Government came in, and Lord Melbourne said, found this
resolution an awkward one, and that there was less surplus than they
had imagined; they however brought forward several Acts, and also
awkward ones, Lord Melbourne said, which were each year rejected by
the House of Lords. Well, this year the following Bill was brought in
(which Lord Melbourne thinks a very good one, as do I, but which he
hears will meet with a great deal of opposition), which is, leaving
out the Appropriation Clause, and doing away with the surplus, but
proposing to pay the Irish Church out of the funds of the Empire,
which is separating the Irish Church from the Land, and keeping it
up, _not_ for the people, as they are almost all Catholics, but for
the Protestant feeling in the country. Now, Lord Melbourne says,
the _Church_ don’t like it, as they think it’s making the Church
Stipendiary and is separating it too much from the Land, and the
_violent democrats_ dislike it as they think it is giving the Church
too much support. Lord Melbourne observes that the opposition will be
so considerable from these two Parties that he thinks it will hardly be
possible for _us_ to carry this measure. _Now_, it is upon this measure
being proposed on Monday that this Motion or amendment is to be made:
“to rescind the resolution of ’35”; “that is,” as Lord Melbourne said,
“to do away with it, to scratch it out of the Journals.” Lord Melbourne
said that if this _should_ be carried against us, it will be almost
fatal to the Government; he added that it is one of those awkward sort
of questions in Politics, which it is very difficult to get over, and
at the same time hardly possible to resign upon; “it is not good ground
to resign upon,” he said, “it would not be understood by the people,
they would not sympathise with you.” He continued—but that _Lord John_
might consider his honour at stake, and might resign upon it, which
Lord Melbourne said he almost thought he would, but that he would
hear that at the Cabinet today. He added, “If we have a Majority, why
then it’s all well.” I observed that Lord John seemed to think that
likely. Lord Melbourne said he certainly thought we should; but from
the nature of the House it made it “ticklish” and “nervous”; which, God
knows! it does. He says the Irish Poor Law Bill will not meet with much
opposition in the House of Lords, except from the Irish Peers; Lord
Londonderry[481] means to oppose it very violently. Sir Robert Peel has
a great dinner today, given to him by his followers. Lord Melbourne
said he would let me know what took place at the Cabinet; and if
there was anything very particular he would come himself. He dines at
the Speaker’s tonight. I cannot say (though I feel _confident_ of OUR
_success_) HOW _low_, HOW _sad_ I feel, when I think of the POSSIBILITY
of this excellent and truly kind man (Lord Melbourne) not _remaining_
my Minister! Yet I trust fervently that _He_ who has so wonderfully
protected me through such manifold difficulties will not _now_ desert
me! I should have liked to have expressed to Lord Melbourne my anxiety,
but the tears were nearer than words throughout the time I saw him, and
I felt I should have choked, had I attempted to say anything.
_Sunday, 13th May._—In speaking of the singing of birds, which Lord
Melbourne said he never could make out one from another, he said, “I
never can admire the singing of birds; there’s no melody in it; it’s so
shrill; that’s all humbug; it’s mere Poetry; it is not pretty.” This
made us laugh; he likes the Blackbird’s singing best. He said that
people say there is no difference between the song of a ground-lark and
the nightingale. I observed that Lord Holland said there was. “Oh!”
he said, “I don’t think Lord Holland knows anything about it.” “It’s
very odd,” he continued, “Mr. Fox, and Lord Holland the same, like the
singing of birds, and can’t bear music, nor the Human Voice....”
_Tuesday, 15th May._— ... Heard from Lord John “that he yesterday
brought forward the question of Irish Tithes in a speech of two hours,
in which he endeavoured to review the whole subject. Sir Thomas Acland
then moved to rescind the resolution of 1835. He spoke temperately and
well. Lord Stanley made a short speech professing a desire to settle
the Question; Lord Morpeth finished the debate for the night with a
very vigorous and very effective speech. The division will probably
take place tonight, and may be rather early.” Lord Melbourne told me
yesterday that he thought Sir Robert Peel’s speech at the dinner on
Saturday very moderate; but that the whole thing seemed to have been
“rather flat....” Lord Melbourne said he did not know what the Council
(today) was to be about; I said neither did I know, but that it was
Lord Glenelg who wished for it. “They always run everything so very
late in that Colonial Office,” he said; that they never thought _when_
they would want a Council, and when they did, they said they wanted it
immediately, and always upon the most inconvenient days; that to-day
was a most inconvenient day for the Members of the House of Commons....
Lord Melbourne said that Lord Munster had been to see him this morning,
about their (the Fitzclarences’) Pensions, on the Civil List, which
there was some fear the Committee might make some difficulty about,
which Lord Melbourne said would be very hard; Lord Munster came to show
Lord Melbourne the letter he meant to write (to Mr. Rice, I think)
about it. This pension was granted them by George IV. Lord Munster
told Lord Melbourne that the late King always imagined that Lord
Egremont[482] would leave Lord Munster a great deal; and whenever he
gave Lord Munster anything, he used to write to Lord Egremont to tell
him he had done so, which Lord Egremont did not at all like and said,
“This is a scheme from the beginning,” meaning that the King promoted
the match on account of the money. Lord Melbourne said, “Lord Egremont
was a very good man but rather suspicious”; from always having had a
very large fortune he fancied people wanted to get it from him. He gave
Lord Munster £5,000 about a fortnight before he died. Spoke of this
new Election Committee Bill which Sir Robert Peel asked for leave to
bring in. He proposes that at the beginning of each session the Speaker
should name 6 or 4 Members who should then choose the Committees to try
the Elections. Formerly, as Lord Melbourne told me once before, the
Elections used to be tried by the whole House, and it was considered
such a mark of want of confidence in the Ministers if their Member
was unseated, that Sir Robert Walpole resigned when the Member for
Chippenham was unseated. When this became “too flagrant” Lord Melbourne
said, George Grenville, great-grandfather to the present Duke of
Buckingham, made what is called “the Grenville Act,” which is as they
are tried now; viz. the Speaker draws 40 names from glasses, with which
Lists the different parties retire and strike off names from each list
until they get it down to 15; and that’s the Committee. Now this, Lord
Melbourne said, is found to be partial,[483] and a new mode must be
devised.
[Illustration: _Don Fernando Prince of Portugal
from recollection
P.V. del. Ken. Palace. April, 1836._
H.S.H. PRINCE FERDINAND OF SAXE-COBURG,
AFTERWARDS KING CONSORT OF PORTUGAL.
From a sketch by Princess Victoria.]
Lord Melbourne said Lord Redesdale[484] brought him the Duke of
Wellington’s letter yesterday. Lord Melbourne had seen Lord John this
morning, who thinks we shall only have a majority of 11 to-night, and
that Mr. Hobhouse said we should have more in order to delude us into
security.
_Wednesday, 16th May._—Got up at 10 and heard from Lord John that on
a Division _we_ had a majority of 19, which he said was more than he
expected. How thankful I am and feel! Lord Melbourne said he heard
that Ferdinand was annoyed at our pressing the Portuguese Government
about the Slave Trade; and that it would be well, if I were to state to
Ferdinand that the feeling was so strong in this country about Slavery,
and we were so pressed about it, that it was impossible for us to do
otherwise. I spoke to Lord Melbourne of these Resolutions relative to
the Irish Tithe Bill, which I thought excellent, but which he said a
very great number of people were against. I observed that Lord John
had told me at Windsor that he thought we should not carry it, but
that it might be compromised. Lord Melbourne then again repeated that
the Established Church was _generally_ kept up for the Poor, as the
rich could afford that themselves; whereas in Ireland, 700,000 are
Roman Catholics, and the Established Church is _only_ kept up for the
Protestant feeling in the United Kingdom, and not for the Poor who
are almost all Roman Catholics. I then asked about who should stand
Sponsor in my place at the Christening of Col. and Lady Catharine
Buckley’s[485] little boy, who is to be christened down in the New
Forest where they lived. I said the child was to be called _Victor_,
which I thought an ugly name; he did not, and said laughing that “Sir
Victor Buckley” would sound very well....
_Friday, 18th May._—We spoke of various things; I asked him if he liked
my headdress which was done in plaits round my ears,[486] for I know
_in general_ he only likes the hair in front crêpé in 2 puffs. He said,
looking at me and making one of his funny faces, “It’s pretty; isn’t it
rather curious—something new?”
_Saturday, 19th May._—At a little after 2 I rode out with Mamma, Lord
Uxbridge, Lord Torrington, Lady Forbes, dearest Lehzen, Lord Alfred,
Miss Dillon, Mr. Murray, Lord Headfort, Lady Flora, Miss Quentin,
and Col. Cavendish, and came home at 6 m. to 5. I rode dear little
Uxbridge who went _perfectly_. We met Lord Melbourne in going out, who
was riding his pony. We rode out by the Harrow Road and home by the
Uxbridge Road and Park. Heard from Lord John that “he yesterday stated
to the House of Commons the course respecting the Irish Bills, which
he had the honour to explain to Your Majesty yesterday. Sir Robert
Peel asked for a delay till Friday, and appeared much agitated; but
what afterwards fell from him gives every reason to suppose that the
Municipal Corporations Bill will not be opposed. Nor is it probable
that the Irish Tithe Bill will meet with resistance from the Radical
party in the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a
very clear financial statement, and the deficiency of the Revenue being
before known, no disappointment was caused by the announcement. Should
matters proceed smoothly another fortnight will end the chief party
questions in the House of Commons.” This was _delightful_ news....
“Very nice party” (my Concert), Lord M. said, “and everybody very much
pleased.” I smiled and said I feared I had done it very ill; that I was
quite angry with myself and thought I had done it so ill; and was not
civil enough. He said most kindly, “Oh! no, quite the contrary, for I
should have told you if it had been otherwise.” I then said I had felt
so nervous and shy. “That wasn’t at all observed,” he said. I said
that I often stood before a person not knowing what to say; and Lord
Melbourne said that the longer one stood thinking the worse it was; and
he really thought the best thing to do was to say anything commonplace
and foolish, better than to say nothing.
_Sunday, 20th May._—Lord Melbourne was in delightful spirits and _so_
talkative and _so_ kind and so VERY AGREEABLE throughout the evening.
I almost fear therefore (in consequence of our having talked so much)
that I may have forgotten some of the things we talked about. I asked
him if he had dined at Lord Shrewsbury’s the night before; he said no,
that it was all a mistake; he went there, was shown upstairs, where he
found Lord Shrewsbury alone with his books and papers, who said that
all his family were gone to the Opera; Lord Melbourne said, “I came to
dine here”; upon which Lord S. told him that it was _next_ Saturday;
Lord Melbourne said it was very stupid of himself to forget it, as Lord
Shrewsbury had put off the dinner on account of him. He walked home,
found his people at home, got his dinner in ½ an hour, and went to
his sister’s. Spoke of the Preachers being so badly appointed at the
Chapel Royal, which Lord Melbourne said was a great pity, as it would
have been such “an instrument of good” if it had been the contrary. We
looked at some prints, and amongst others there was a very clever one
of Capt. Macheath with Polly and Lucy in _The Beggar’s Opera_; Lord
Melbourne said that _The Beggar’s Opera_ was written by Gay, and was
used by the Tory Party in order to show up Lord Townshend[487] and Sir
Robert Walpole; was very clever, and had an immense run; but is coarse
beyond conception; it was likewise performed with great success when
Lord Sandwich brought forward an indictment against Mr. Wilkes for
immorality. Of Lord Teynham[488] wanting to have a Private Audience of
me, which Lord Melbourne stopped; he said Peers are only allowed to
have these Private Audiences to speak on Public Affairs, and not on
Private concerns; that when the Regent wanted to prevent Lady Jersey
going so often to see Princess Charlotte, Lord Jersey asked for a
Private audience; and the Regent said to him, “Of course you come to
speak of Public matters, for if you come to speak about your wife, I
cannot speak to you,” and he spoke to him upon ordinary matters and
dismissed him. Talleyrand is dead—at last!
_Monday, 21st May._—Spoke of Talleyrand’s death, which Lord Melbourne
said he heard was quite like that of the former French Ministers—like
Mazarin—the house full of people to see him die. He (Ld. Melbourne)
said he had heard that Louis Philippe and Mme. Adelaide had been to
see Talleyrand. Spoke of his fear of dying, which Lord Melbourne said
people always said of persons whose feelings on religion were rather
loose. Lord Melbourne said he heard that Talleyrand had signed a sort
of recantation to the Pope, for something he had done, at the time
of the Revolution—for having performed Mass upon some occasion or
other....[489]
_Thursday, 24th May._—I this day enter my 20th year, which I think
_very_ old! In looking back on the past year, I feel more grateful
than I can express for ALL the VERY GREAT BLESSINGS I have received
since my last birthday. I have only ONE VERY dear affectionate friend
less—dearest Louis! Oh! if she could but be still with us!! Though I
have _lost_ a _dear_ friend, I can never be _thankful_ enough for the
_true, faithful, honest, kind_ one I’ve GAINED since last year, which
is my _excellent_ Lord Melbourne, who is so kind and good to me!!... At
25 m. p. 10 I went with the whole Royal Family into the other Ball-room
through the Saloon which was full of people; after speaking to a good
many I went to my seat (without sitting down) and then opened the Ball
in a Quadrille with George.[490] There were about the same number of
people there as at the 1st Ball, and a great number of Foreigners
there. My good Lord Melbourne came up to me after my 1st Quadrille,
but only stopped one minute, and though I saw him looking on at 3 of
the Quadrilles I danced afterwards, he never came near me again, which
I was very sorry for; and when I sent for him after supper, he was
gone.... After supper I danced 4 Quadrilles in Strauss’s room; he
was playing most beautifully. I danced with Lord George Paget,[491]
Lord Cantelupe,[492] Lord Milton,[493] and Lord Leveson. Count Eugene
Zichy (cousin to Countess Zichy’s husband) wore a most beautiful
uniform all covered with splendid turquoises; he is a handsome man,
with a very good-natured expression, as he is too, very unaffected and
good-humoured, and a beautiful valzer. We then went into the other
room, and danced a regular old English Country Dance of 72 couple,
which lasted 1 hour, from 3 till 4! I danced with Lord Uxbridge, Lord
Cantelupe and Lady Cowper being next, and the Duke of Devonshire
and Lady Lothian[494] on the other side. It was the merriest, most
delightful thing possible. I left the Ball room at 10 m. p. 4, and
was in bed at 5—broad daylight. It was a _delightful_ Ball, and the
pleasantest birthday I’ve spent for _many_ years!...
_Monday, 28th May._—Spoke of writing to George of Hanover,[495] which
he said I should do; and also to the King of Hanover for his birthday;
spoke of the report of poor George’s marrying a Russian Princess. He
then continued saying it would raise a curious question, “his marrying
a Greek” (of the Greek religion it is); for he believed that _only_
marrying _Roman Catholics_ was forbidden by _law_ here (George being
in the succession here). I said I thought it was said, _all_ who were
not of the _Reformed Religion_, without naming specifically (Greek, he
says, he supposes is included under Roman Catholics) _Roman Catholic_.
Lord Melbourne said I might be right, for that he had not looked at the
Act for some time. He said he believed also that George could not marry
without my leave.[496]
_Tuesday, 29th May._—I told him that Lord Glenelg had made me a present
of a Black Swan; Lord Melbourne said that a _Black Swan_ was _not_ a
Swan; “It’s a Goose.” Lady Mulgrave said the Ancients had Black Swans,
and to prove it began quoting the lines from the Latin Grammar, which
Lord Melbourne then repeated, and which I used to learn: “Rara avis in
terris, nigroque simillima cygno.” Lord Melbourne said, _that_ meant
to describe something very rare, and which _did not exist_. I said
to Lord Melbourne I was very glad to hear that he would come down to
Windsor for the Eton Montem. He said, “It’s quite right to go, but I
don’t think it’s a very pleasant thing, the Montem; rather foolish”;
and we spoke of the Regatta on the 4th of June, to which I’m not going.
“The Regatta as you call it,” he said to Lady Mulgrave; “The Boats” it
used always to be called. _That_ is in fact done _without_ the consent
of the Masters, and all the boys were generally flogged next day. Lord
Melbourne has not been to a Montem since 1809. In speaking of the head
Colleger who generally is made the Captain, he said he was usually
a big boy about 19; “More foolish than a boy,” Lord Melbourne said
laughing; and that the expenses were generally so great, and the boy so
extravagant for some time before, that he seldom _cleared_ anything.
I said the Montem generally ended in the boys’ being sick and drunk;
Lord Melbourne said in his funny manner, he thought in these days of
education, no boys ever got drunk or sick—which I fear is _not_ the
case. He said all this eating and drinking, “all the chocolate and tea
and coffee” for breakfast, had got up since his time; that when he was
at Eton, they used to cut a roll in half and put a pat of butter inside
it and give it to you, and that you then might drink a glass of milk
and water (for breakfast); “I never could take milk, and therefore I
always took water,” he said, “and we did very well”; much better he
thinks than they do now. He said that he remembered people always gave
children what they disliked most; he used (before he went to school)
to have _every_ day boiled mutton and rice pudding, which he hated;
“Children’s stomachs are rather squeamish,” he said; and boiled mutton
is particularly nauseous to a child, he observed; and he hated rice
pudding. “Somehow or other,” he said, “they found out you disliked
it, and there it was every day”; this, he thinks (and everybody else
almost, I think, ought to do so), a bad system. He added, “Children’s
stomachs are rather delicate and _queasy_”; which made us all laugh.
_Thursday, 31st May._—He said that Lord Mulgrave was very anxious about
being made a Marquis at the Coronation, and that he supposed it must
be done, but that it would offend other Earls; he added that there was
great difficulty about making these Peers,—but that he must soon lay
the list before me. “I shall advise Your Majesty to make as few as
possible,” he added. It would not do, he said, to make any Members of
the House of Commons Peers, on account of vacating their seats. Lord
Dundas wishes to be made an Earl, he says, which he supposes should be
granted; and Lord Barham wishes to be made Earl of Gainsborough.[497]
William IV. made 16 Peers and 24 Baronets at his Coronation; and George
IV. 15 Peers; “he was so clogged with promises,” Lord Melbourne said,
“he had made such heaps of promises.”
INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO CHAPTER X
The three summer months of 1838 were eventful in the life of the
young Queen. It is not only that she attended an Eton Montem (that
quaint ceremony so graphically described in _Coningsby_ by one who
was in future years to be her Prime Minister), and not only that
she held her first Review in Hyde Park (which was somewhat of a
disappointment to her owing to Lord Melbourne having dissuaded
her from riding on horseback), but on the 28th June she was
crowned in Westminster Abbey. There have been many accounts from
eye-witnesses of the Coronation of British Sovereigns. Volumes
have been written on the subject from the earliest times. Even the
immortal pen of Shakespeare has touched upon this great ceremonial.
Queen Victoria’s description, however, is unique in this, that the
writer is the Sovereign herself, and that the Coronation is painted
from the point of view of the central figure in the picture. Owing
to the extreme youth of the Queen, her childlike appearance, her
fairness and fragility, and the romance attaching to her sex, owing
also to her dignity, simplicity, and composure amid that vast
concourse in the setting of the great Abbey, surrounded as she was
by every circumstance of pomp and splendour, and overweighted, as
it seemed, by the tremendous and glittering responsibility of St.
Edward’s Crown, the ceremony appeared to onlookers extraordinarily
moving. The Queen noticed that Lord Melbourne was deeply stirred.
He was one of the many who were in tears.
To the thousands who saw her on this occasion for the first time
and to the millions who read the story of the Coronation, the 28th
June, 1838, appeared to be the opening day of Queen Victoria’s
reign. Who, among those present in the Abbey or in the streets of
the metropolis, could foresee what her reign was to bring forth,
and who could measure with any degree of accuracy the progress of
the country she was about to rule, or the growth of the Empire over
which she was destined to preside, between the day when the Crown
was placed upon her head, and the day when it was borne away by her
sorrowing servants from the Mausoleum at Frogmore sixty-three years
afterwards?
“The guns are just announcing,” wrote Queen Adelaide to her niece,
“your approach to the Abbey, and as I am not near you, and cannot
take part in the sacred ceremony of your Coronation, I must address
you in writing to assure you that my thoughts and my whole heart
are with you, and my prayers are offered up to heaven for your
happiness and the prosperity and glory of your reign.” The answer
to this prayer for the young Queen is to be found in the story of
her reign, and it is written large in golden letters across the
face of her Empire.