Visit to Broadlands--The American Treaty--Lord Palmerston on the
American Treaty--The Stade Dues--The Withdrawal from Cabul--The
Queen at Sea--Woburn--Baroness Lehzen--Lord Ponsonby--Turkey--The
Grove, Lord Clarendon--Public Scandals--Bishop Blomfield's
Charge--Puseyism--Mr. Thomas Grenville--Anecdote of Porson--Death
of Mr. Irby--Anecdote of Lord North--Lord Melbourne
ill--Macaulay's Lays of Rome--Canadian Affairs--A Council--Bad
State of the Country--Mr. Grenville's Conversation--A Happy
Family--The Reform Bill of 1832--End of the China War--Judge
and Jury Court--Lord Ellenborough's Proclamation--Lord John
Russell on the American Treaty--Madame d'Arblay's Journal--Lord
Ellenborough--Manuscript of Antonio Perez--Lord Palmerston and
the 'Morning Chronicle'--Moderate Whig Views--The Whigs and
O'Connell--The Bedchamber Dispute--Sir David Dundas--Summary of
the Year 1842.
_Broadlands: September 17th, 1842._--I came here on the 14th, to
meet Rogers and Baron Rolfe. Palmerston complains that our Foreign
affairs are all mismanaged from first to last, and that _we give up
everything_; universal concession the rule of action, and that there
can be no difficulty in settling questions if we yield all that is in
dispute. He is particularly dissatisfied with the Boundary Treaty, in
which he says we have been over-reached by the Americans; that Lord
Ashburton was a very unfit man to send there, having an American bias,
besides a want of firmness in his character. He thinks the territorial
concessions we have made very objectionable and quite unnecessary,
and that we had already _proved_ our right to the disputed land; that
since the King of Holland's award, evidence (which was then wanting)
has been adduced, which clearly establishes our rights. It is evident
that he means to fall foul of this arrangement upon the first suitable
occasion. He also complains of the treaty with the King of Hanover,
and says we have allowed him to levy duties twice as high, as he has
any right to.[41] Lady Palmerston talked to me for a long time about
the old disputes on the Syrian question, and lauded his wonderful
equanimity and good humour during those stormy and difficult times.
She said Lord Holland's death was in great measure attributable
to the vexation and excitement he underwent, and the recollection
of the opposition Palmerston met with still rankles deeply in her
mind. She declares that he is very happy out of office, and in no
want of occupation; on the contrary, has his hands full of business,
private and public. There is a very beautiful specimen of old Norman
architecture in the church at Romsey, in very good preservation and of
great antiquity.
[Footnote 41: [The Treaty between Great Britain and Hanover for the
settlement of the Stade tolls was not signed until July 22, 1844.
Lord Palmerston seems to have anticipated by nearly two years the
terms of this arrangement in his eagerness to attack it.]]
[Sidenote: THE AMERICAN TREATY.]
_September 24th._--From Broadlands I went to Canford[42] through the
New Forest, which I never saw before. There I stayed two nights,
having had some curiosity to see a place the creation of which has
caused violent family quarrels, which I have been engaged in making
up. On Monday I came to London, which contains a good sprinkling
of people for this time of year, who congregate generally at Lady
Holland's.
The 'Morning Chronicle' opened a fire upon the American Treaty in the
beginning of last week, which has been well sustained in a succession
of articles of very unequal merit. To these the 'Times' has responded,
and in my opinion successfully. It was amusing to me to read in the
columns of the 'Chronicle' all that I had been hearing Palmerston
say, _totidem verbis_; his articles were merely a repetition of his
talk, and that as exactly as if the latter had been taken down in
shorthand. As far as I can judge, he will, however, fail to carry
public opinion with him; he will not be entirely supported by the
writers on his own side, nor by his political adherents. Sir James
Kemp, an excellent authority, both civil and military, approves of the
Treaty and attaches no importance to the objections that are urged
against it. The 'Examiner' writes in its favour. The Ministers think
they stand on very strong grounds, and the fact is that Palmerston's
determination to find fault with everything that is done in the
Foreign Office, and the indiscriminate abuse which he heaps upon
every part of our foreign policy, deprives his opinion of the weight
which it would be entitled to, if he was only tolerably impartial. I
never saw so much political bitterness as that which rankles in the
hearts of himself and his wife. He abuses the acts of the Government,
but he always does so with an air of gaiety and good humour, and, to
do him justice, he never expresses himself with any coarseness or
asperity, never so as to make social intercourse impossible, or even
disagreeable, between him and his opponents, but under this gay and
gallant exterior there burns a fierce hostility, and a resolution to
attack them upon every point, and a more unscrupulous assailant never
took the field. She talks a great deal more than he does, and it is
easy to see, through her graceful, easy manner and habitual urbanity,
how impatient they are of exclusion from office, and how intolerant of
any dissent from or opposition to his policy and opinions. They have
never forgiven Lords Holland and Clarendon for having thwarted him
on the Syrian question. She alluded, at Broadlands, to the supposed
desire of the latter to supplant him at the Foreign Office, which she
said she did not believe, though she evidently does, and she said
that Clarendon had done himself an injury which he would never get
over. She talked of their opposition as if they had been the only
dissentients in the Cabinet, and then, forgetting this, she discussed
the conduct of others, particularly of Melbourne, and John Russell,
both of whom she described as alarmists, and the former as all along
disinclined to the bold course which Palmerston was pursuing.
[Sidenote: THE STADE DUES.]
Besides the American Treaty, Palmerston is venting his indignation
on the Stade Treaty with Hanover, and his conduct with reference to
that matter is very illustrative of the manner in which he carries
on the war. He told me at Broadlands that the King of Hanover had
not a shadow of right to the duties which he levied, though he had
to much smaller duties, the amount of which was regulated by an old
treaty with Denmark, and that, instead of formally conceding to him
what he had no right to require, we ought to resist his claim, and
compel him by force, if remonstrance failed, to abandon it. The case
is this. Hanover has no right to the tolls she takes, but she has
levied them for above 100 years, and has thus acquired a prescriptive
or _quasi_ right. Complaints were formerly made, but George III.
refused to give them up, so did George IV. William IV. was the first
king who was disposed to make any sacrifice. He died before anything
was settled, and King Ernest succeeded. Fresh discussions arose, and
the Whig Government were willing to purchase of him the abandonment
or modification of his claims, and Palmerston made a formal proposal
to Ompteda[43] to that effect. But when he found he was going out of
office, a very little while before their resignation, he put forth
a protest against the King of Hanover's claims, and this he did (as
I am told and as seems highly probable) for the express purpose of
embarrassing the question, and rendering its settlement more difficult
to his successor, besides providing himself with materials for
attacking such an arrangement as he foresaw would probably be made,
and which he would have made had he remained in office.
The other topic on which they are most eloquent and indignant is
Ellenborough's order to retreat from Cabul, of the real truth of which
very little is at present known. FitzGerald, however, told me the
other day, he did think Ellenborough had not acted _discreetly_ in
the outset of his administration. He avers, however, distinctly, that
it was Auckland's intention to withdraw the troops after the massacre
at Cabul, which was what Peel alluded to in his speech. Auckland
apparently does not admit this, and both parties are anxious to enlist
his opinions and intentions on their side.
We had a Council at Windsor yesterday, where I met Peel for the
first time since his return from Scotland. We now go to the Council
and return to town after it, instead of being invited to remain
there, which is a very great improvement. This custom has gradually
superseded the other without the appearance of anything offensive or
uncivil, and is no doubt much more agreeable to the Queen, who has no
mind to have more of the society of her present Ministers than she
can help. Peel described the Scotch tour as very nervous, inasmuch as
they went through all the disturbed districts, but that loyalty and
interest in seeing the Queen triumphed over every other feeling and
consideration, and all went off as well as possible.[44]
Adolphus FitzClarence told me nothing could be more agreeable
and amiable than she was, and the Prince too, on board the yacht,
conversing all the time with perfect ease and good humour, and on all
subjects, taking great interest and very curious about everything in
the ship, dining on deck in the midst of the sailors, making them
dance, talking to the boatswain, and, in short, doing everything that
was popular and ingratiating. Her chief fault, in little things and in
great, seems to be impatience; in sea phrase, she always wants to _go
ahead_; she can't bear contradiction nor to be thwarted. She was put
out because she could not get quicker to the end of her voyage, and
land so soon as she wished. She insisted on landing as soon as it was
possible, and would not wait till the authorities were ready and the
people assembled to receive her. An hour or two of delay would have
satisfied everybody, and though it might be unreasonable to expect
this, as Peel said it was, it would have been wise to have conceded
it. Adolphus says there was very alarming excitement in the town for a
little while, and much discontent among the crowds who had come from
distant parts, and who had paid large sums for seats and windows to
see her go by.
[Footnote 42: [Canford, near Wimborne, then belonged to Lord de
Mauley. It had come to the Ponsonbys from the Ashley family, and
was sold after Lord de Mauley's death, to Sir John Guest.]]
[Footnote 43: [The Hanoverian Minister in London.]]
[Footnote 44: [The Queen and Prince Albert made their first visit
to Scotland by sea, embarking at Woolwich on August 29, and landing
at Granton pier on September 1. Her Majesty was received by the
Duke of Buccleuch and accompanied by Sir Robert Peel. The Court
stayed in Scotland fourteen days. Lord Aberdeen was instructed to
write to the Lord Advocate in the following terms: 'The Queen will
leave Scotland with a feeling of regret that her visit on this
occasion could not be further prolonged. Her Majesty fully expected
to witness the loyalty and attachment of her Scottish subjects;
but the devotion and enthusiasm evinced in every quarter, and by
all ranks, have produced an impression on the mind of Her Majesty
which can never be effaced.' Seldom has an official assurance and
prediction been more amply justified than this by the experience of
forty years.]]
[Sidenote: THE QUEEN'S VOYAGE TO SCOTLAND.]
_October 4th._--There has been a continual discussion of the Boundary
Treaty, kept up by Palmerston's articles in the 'Morning Chronicle,'
which have been well replied to in the 'Times,' 'Standard,' and still
more the 'Spectator' and 'Examiner.' Palmerston has certainly not
acted wisely as one of the leaders of his party. He ought to have felt
the public pulse, and ascertained how his own friends would be likely
to view the question, before he plunged into such violent opposition
to it. It is now evident that he will not carry the public nor even
his own party with him. John Russell is satisfied; he thought at first
that we had conceded too much, but on further examination he changed
his opinion, and he now thinks the settlement on the whole a good one,
and this will in all probability be the general opinion. Everybody
was alive to the inconvenience of having this question left open, and
there was a universal desire to settle our various differences with
America upon such terms as would conduce to the restoration of good
humour and good will.
_October 5th._--There was a very clever letter in the 'Morning
Chronicle' yesterday from some Whig, attacking the paper for the
line it has taken, which produced a furious defence and retort. This
morning I have got a letter from the Duke of Bedford informing me
that his brother John has gone back to his original opinion about the
Treaty. First, he thought we had made too great concessions, then that
we had not, and now he thinks again that we have. It is probable that
Palmerston has been at him, and he thinks it better to sacrifice his
own opinion than to have a difference with his colleague.
I have been at Woburn for a couple of days. The Duke told me there
that all the people he had conversed or communicated with agreed in
rejoicing that the question was settled, and were not disposed to
cavil at the terms. The Duke is well and wisely administering his
estate and improving his magnificent place in every way. I never saw
such an abode of luxury and enjoyment, one so full of resources for
all tastes. The management of his estate is like the administration
of a little kingdom. He has 450 people in his employment on the
Bedfordshire property alone, not counting domestic servants. His
pensions amount to 2,000_l._ a year. There is order, economy,
grandeur, comfort, and general content.
The Baroness Lehzen has left Windsor Castle, and is gone abroad
for her health (as she says), to stay five or six months, but it
is supposed never to return. This lady, who is much beloved by the
women and much esteemed and liked by all who frequent the Court, who
is very intelligent, and has been a faithful and devoted servant
to the Queen from her birth, has for some time been supposed to be
obnoxious to the Prince, and as he is now all-powerful her retirement
was not unexpected. I do not know the reason of it, nor how it has
been brought about; Melbourne told me long ago that the Prince would
acquire unbounded influence.
I met yesterday Lord Ponsonby and sat next to him at dinner at
Palmerston's, for although I have always been so opposed to
Palmerston, and he knows it, and no doubt dislikes me, I live with
them as much as if we were the greatest friends. Lord Ponsonby is
a most remarkable-looking man for his age, which is seventy-two or
seventy-three. He exhibits no signs of old age, and is extremely
agreeable. His account of Turkey was very different from my ideas
about the state of the country, but I fancy all he says is _sujet à
caution_. He describes the Sultan to be intelligent, liberal, and
independent, that is, really master, and not in the hands of any
party; the Turkish public men as very able, the country improving in
its internal condition, especially its agriculture, and its revenue
flourishing--five millions a year regularly collected, not a farthing
of debt, and the whole military and civil service of the State
punctually paid.
[Sidenote: THE FAMILY AT THE GROVE.]
_October 12th._--The controversy about the American Treaty is
vigorously maintained. The letter in the 'Morning Chronicle' was
written by John Mill, and now Charles Buller has taken the field (in
the 'Globe'). John Russell says 'it is advantageous and honourable
to America, but not disadvantageous to us.' But he thinks it has
been clumsily managed and that we might have got better terms; that
Aberdeen and Everett might have settled it here more favourably for
us. This is mere conjecture and worth nothing. The truth is, he does
not disapprove, but finds Palmerston has taken such a violent part
that he must, out of deference to his colleague, find as much fault as
he possibly can. The account of the revenue came out yesterday, and a
very sorry account it is.
_October 18th._--On Wednesday last I went to the Grove; on Friday
to Gorhambury[45] to meet the Bishop of London, who came there in
the course of his visitation; yesterday back to London. It is always
refreshing, in the midst of the cold hearts and indifferent tempers
one sees in the world, to behold such a spectacle of intimate union
and warm affection as the Grove presents. A mother, with a tribe of
sons and daughters, and their respective husbands and wives, all knit
together in the closest union and community of affections, feelings
and interests--all, too, very intelligent people, lively, cheerful,
and striving to contribute to each other's social enjoyment as well as
to their material interests. I have always thought Clarendon the least
selfish, most generous, and amiable man with whom I am acquainted.
Edward Villiers, who is just come from Germany, told me nothing could
exceed the disgust excited all over that country by the publication of
Lord Hertford's trial,[46] and that there was a universal impression
there that the state of society in England and the character of its
aristocracy were to the last degree profligate and unprincipled.
We are mighty proud of our fine qualities, and plume ourselves on
our morality; but it must be owned that a German public, which can
know nothing of English society but from the specimens it sees of
Englishmen, or what it reads in the press of English doings, may well
entertain a less exalted idea of our perfections, and we need not
wonder at the impressions which we think so unfair, and which are not
in fact correct.
The Bishop of London was, and is still, going about his diocese,
delivering a very elaborate Charge, which has excited a good deal
of notice, and parts of which have been well enough quizzed in the
'Morning Chronicle.' To the surprise of many people, his Charge, like
those of the Bishops of Exeter and Oxford, contained some crumbs of
compliment to the Puseyites, and an endeavour to prescribe some formal
observances half-way in advance towards their opinions. There is an
evident desire on the part of these dignitaries to conciliate the
Tractarians, probably because they are aware of, and alarmed at, their
remarkable superiority in everything which relates to ecclesiastical
learning. It is curious, too, to see the 'Times,' which certainly
exercises no small or limited influence, become decidedly Puseyite.
Its Catholic tendencies are intermingled with its Poor Law crotchets,
and both are of a highly democratic character. The present object
of attack is the pew system, which certainly appears obnoxious to
censure. I asked the Bishop of London what the law was with regard
to pews, and he owned that the whole thing was an anomaly, in some
respects doubtful, but in many regulated by ancient usage, or by
local Acts of Parliament. The Bishop is an agreeable man in society,
good-humoured, lively, a little brusque in his manner. He sang a
duet with Lady Jane Grimston on Friday evening, when there was no
company. Though he is intemperate and imperious, he has always been
distinguished for great liberality and a munificent disposition, and
from an anecdote I heard of him at the Grove, he must be of a generous
mind, and capable of forgiving an enemy, and casting aside feelings
of resentment and wounded pride. William Capel, brother of the late
Lord Essex, a disreputable, good-for-nothing parson, and Rector of
Watford, neglected his clerical duties, and incurred the displeasure
of the Bishop, who insisted on Capel's appointing a curate, which he
refused to do, on which the Bishop, who became very angry, appointed
one himself, and sent him down there. Capel resisted stoutly, and on
one occasion the rector and the curate had a race for the reading-desk
in church. He refused to receive the curate or to pay him, and forbad
him at his peril to execute any clerical function. The end of it was
a trial at the Hertford Assizes, when the parson beat the Bishop, who
in his angry haste had failed to comply with all the forms which the
law requires. The trial cost the Bishop near a thousand pounds, and
Capel was triumphant. I don't know what happened in the interim, but
a few years afterwards they had become such good friends that the
Bishop came down to preach a charity sermon at Watford, when he was
the guest of William Capel, dining and sleeping at his house. Upon
that occasion such was his want of common decency, that, having the
Bishop for his guest, and under circumstances which demanded more
than ordinary respect and attention, he came down to breakfast in an
old grey dressing-gown and red slippers, much to the surprise and
something to the discomposure of his Diocesan. Nobody would believe
Capel when he told them that the Bishop was going to be his guest.
'The Bishop of London!' said Clarendon to him, when he told him, 'how
on earth did you contrive to get the Bishop of London to come to your
house?' 'How,' said the other, 'why I gave him a good licking and
that made him civil. We are very good friends now.' The only pity is,
that having the quality of generosity and forgiveness of wrongs--for
successful resistance is the same as a wrong--those virtues did not
find a more estimable subject for their exercise.
[Footnote 45: [The seat of the Earl of Verulam in Hertfordshire,
formerly the residence of Lord Bacon.]]
[Footnote 46: [Lord Hertford's will was disputed and the litigation
occasioned some scandalous disclosures of his past life.]]
[Sidenote: BISHOP BLOMFIELD AND WILLIAM CAPEL.]
_October 23rd._--To the Grove on Thursday; came back yesterday to
dine with Mr. Grenville; passed the whole morning of Saturday at the
British Museum, where I had not been for many years, but where I
propose to go henceforward very often. The number of readers is now
on an average three hundred a day; in the time of Gray, as may be
seen by his letters, it was not half a dozen. I had never dined with
Mr. Grenville before, though he has more than once asked me, and I
was glad to go there. He is a man whom I have always looked at with
respect and pleasure. It is a goodly sight, to see him thus placidly
and slowly going down the hill of life, with all his faculties of
mind and body, not unimpaired, but still fresh and strong. One would
rejoice to procure a new lease for such a man. He may well look round
him, as he sits in his unrivalled library and surrounded by his
friends, serene and full of enjoyment, and say, like Mazarin, 'Et il
faut quitter tout cela!' but no reflexions or anticipations seem to
overcast the mild sunshine of his existence. I certainly never saw
so graceful and enviable an old age; and though he is eighty-six,
and I am forty-eight, I would willingly change lives with him. I
would much rather be approaching the end of life as he is approaching
it, than live any number of years that I may yet chance to have in
store as I am likely to live them. Mr. Grenville is rather deaf,
and he complains of loss of memory, but he hears well enough for
social purposes, and he is full of recollections of former times and
remarkable people. He only laments his own infirmities on account of
the trouble or inconvenience they may cause to others; not that he
does not hear all that is said, but he pities those who are obliged to
exert their voices to make him hear. No old man was ever less selfish
and querulous. He told a story of Porson, which I will put in his own
words: 'When I was a young man, which is now about seventy years
ago, I used to live with Cracherode and other literary men of that
day, who were good enough to allow me to come among them, and listen
to their conversation, which I used to take great delight in doing,
and I remember one day going into the room, and finding Cracherode
and another person disputing about language, and whether a certain
English word had ever been used by any good authority. In the middle
of the dispute, one of them said, "But why do we go on talking here,
when that little fellow in the corner can tell us in a moment which
of us is in the right?" The little fellow was Porson, who was on his
knees poring over a book. They called him up, told him what they
were disputing about, and asked if he knew of the word having been
used, and by whom. He at once replied, "I only know of one instance,
and that is in Fisher's funeral sermon on the death of Margaret of
Richmond, the mother of Henry VII., and you will find it about the
third or fourth page on the right-hand side;" and there accordingly
they did find it.'
[Sidenote: MR. THOMAS GRENVILLE.]
_October 26th._--Poor Irby died on Monday last at Newmarket, the place
where he had passed all the pleasantest hours of his life. He was an
honourable, inoffensive man, who never made an enemy, and with whom
I have passed my _racing_ life. That was a sort of man who devoted
himself to the turf without any misgivings of shame and regret, and he
was, accordingly, happy. He strolled through life, without ambition or
vanity, was what he seemed, and did not aspire to be thought better or
wiser than he was. He had friends to whom he was attached, one sister
whom he loved, and few or no other relations to annoy or trouble
him. He was affluent in circumstances, respected in character, and
contented in disposition: and such a man is to be envied, living or
dying.
Yesterday morning I called on Mr. Grenville, and sat with him for an
hour, while he told me many old stories of bygone times, and showed me
some of his books, particularly his 'Julio Clovio,' which was what I
went on purpose to see. He is a remarkable man, with his mind so fresh
and firm, and teeming with recollections, a sort of link between the
living and the dead, having been forward enough in his youth to mix
with the most distinguished characters, literary and political, more
than half a century ago, and still vigorous enough to play his part
with those of the present time. He had often dined with Horace Walpole
at his grandmother's in Grosvenor Square (before it was planted), and
he describes him as effeminate in person, trifling in conversation,
and much less amusing and _piquant_ than might be expected from his
letters. He talked much of Lord North, whose speaking he thinks would
not be admired now. It was of a sing-song, monotonous character.
His private secretary used to sit behind him, and take notes of the
debate, writing down every point that it was necessary for him to
answer, with the name of the speaker from whom it proceeded. When he
got up he held this paper in his hand, and spoke from it, sometimes
blundering over the sheets in a way Mr. Grenville imitated, and
which would certainly be thought very strange now, but he had great
good humour and much drollery. He told me a story of Lord North and
his son Frank, afterwards Lord Guildford, of whom he was very fond,
though he was always in scrapes and in want of money. One day, Frank
seemed very much out of spirits, and his father asked him what was
the matter. With some hesitation, real or pretended, he at last said,
'Why, father, the truth is, I have no money, and I am so distressed
that I have even been obliged to sell that little mare you gave me the
other day.' To which Lord North replied, 'Oh, Frank, you should never
have done that; you ought to have recollected the precept of Horace,
"_Æquam_ memento rebus in arduis servare mentem."' Mr. Grenville
talked of the elder Pitt, whom he did not admire, but had never heard
him except as Lord Chatham. Rigby was a very agreeable speaker, in
style not unlike Tierney.
_October 29th._--Lord Melbourne has had an attack of palsy, very
slight, and he is recovering, but it is of course alarming. He is
not himself aware of the nature of the seizure, and asks if it was
lumbago. This shows how slight it was. Macaulay's book, which he calls
'Lays of Ancient Rome,' came out yesterday, and admirable his ballads
are. They were composed in India and on the voyage home. He showed
them to Dr. Arnold, who advised him to publish them, but probably
while he was in office he had not time to think about them, and the
publication is the result of his leisure. He has long been addicted to
ballad-writing, for there is one in the American edition of his works,
and there is a much longer one written when he was at Cambridge (or
soon after), upon the League, and one of Henry IV.'s battles, which
is very good indeed. He is a wonderful fellow altogether.
[Sidenote: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.]
Canadian affairs and Bagot's proceedings have lately occupied the
world for want of something better.[47] The Whigs are pleased that
he has so fully admitted and acted on the principle of Parliamentary
control, and carried out practically the theory of the Constitution
which they gave the provinces, while the Tories are indignant that he
should have been dictated to by men whom they consider disaffected to
this country, and who were looked upon as quasi-traitors till a very
short time ago, and as they have no taste for the independence and
supremacy of a Canadian Parliament, there is no triumph of a principle
to console them for what they consider dangerous in practice. But
both parties, and everybody without exception, blame the manner in
which Bagot has acted, which was indiscreet, undignified, and gives
a poor idea of his qualifications for government. He is certainly
not a strong man, and he has succeeded one who undoubtedly was.
Sydenham turns out to have been a man of first-rate capacity, with
great ability, discrimination, judgement, firmness, and dexterity.
His whole administration in Canada fully justified the choice which
Lord John Russell made of him, and the confidence he reposed in him.
It is to the credit of Lord John Russell that he discovered and
appreciated the talents of a man who was underrated here; but occasion
and circumstance draw out the latent resources of vigorous minds. He
was always known to be a man of extraordinary industry, but nobody
knew that he had such a knowledge of human nature and such a power of
acquiring influence over others as he evinced when he went to Canada.
Murdoch, who was his secretary, and himself a very clever man, gave me
a remarkable account of him. He was in the habit of talking over the
most inveterate opponents of his Government, so much so, that at last
it became a matter of joking, and the most obstinate of his enemies
used to be told that if they set foot in Government House they would
be mollified and enthralled whether they would or no, and so it almost
always was. Though of a weak and slender frame, and his constitution
wretched, he made journeys which would have appeared hard work to the
most robust men. On one occasion he travelled, without stopping, an
immense distance, and the moment he got out of his carriage he called
for his papers, and went at his business as if he had only returned
from a drive. This is something very like greatness; these are the
materials of which greatness is made--indefatigable industry, great
penetration, powers of persuasion, confidence in himself, decision,
boldness, firmness, and all these jumbled up with a finikin manner,
and a dangling after an old London harridan; but, as Taylor says so
well, 'The world knows nothing of its greatest men,' and half mankind
know nothing of their own capacity for greatness. The mistakes made
by ourselves and by each other with respect to moral qualities are
incessant and innumerable.
[Footnote 47: [The Right Hon. Poulett Thomson, Lord Sydenham,
died on September 19, 1841, from lockjaw, caused by a fall from
his horse. He was then Governor of Canada, and was temporarily
succeeded by Sir Charles Bagot but Sir Charles Metcalfe was
appointed to that post in January 1843.]]
[Sidenote: DISTRESS IN THE COUNTRY.]
_November 2nd._--At Windsor yesterday for a Council; almost all the
Cabinet went together in a special train. A Whig engineer might have
produced an instantaneous and complete change of Government. The Royal
consent was given to the marriage of the Princess Augusta with the
Prince of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. The Chancellor was there, looking
very ill and broken, but evidently wishing to be thought strong and
capable.[48] He not only affected to be very merry, but very active,
and actually began a sort of dancing movement in the drawing-room,
which reminded me of Queen Elizabeth and the Scotch ambassador;
seventy years of age, ten years of idleness, and a young wife will
not do for the labour of the Great Seal. The Ministers are all come
to hold Cabinets, and lay their heads together with, God knows,
plenty to occupy them. Lord Wharncliffe and Kay Shuttleworth, who
are both come from the north, have given me an account of the state
of the country and of the people which is perfectly appalling. There
is an immense and continually increasing population, deep distress
and privation, no adequate demand for labour, no demand for anything,
no confidence, but a universal alarm, disquietude, and discontent.
Nobody can sell anything. Somebody said, speaking of some part of
Yorkshire, 'This is certainly the happiest country in the world, for
_nobody wants anything_.' Kay says that nobody can conceive the state
of demoralisation of the people, of the masses, and that the only
thing which restrains them from acts of violence against property is a
sort of instinctive consciousness that, bad as things are, their own
existence depends upon the security of property _in the long run_.
It is in these parts that the worst symptoms are apparent, but there
are indications of the same kind more or less all over the country,
and certainly I have never seen, in the course of my life, so serious
a state of things as that which now stares us in the face; and this,
after thirty years of uninterrupted peace, and the most ample scope
afforded for the development of all our resources, when we have been
altering, amending, and improving, wherever we could find anything to
work upon, and being, according to our own ideas, not only the most
free and powerful, but the most moral and the wisest people in the
world. One remarkable feature in the present condition of affairs is
that nobody can account for it, and nobody pretends to be able to
point out any remedy; for those who clamour for the repeal of the
Corn Laws, at least those who know anything of the matter, do not
really believe that repeal would supply a cure for our distempers.
It is certainly a very dismal matter for reflexion, and well worthy
the consideration of the profoundest political philosophers, that
the possession of such a Constitution, all our wealth, industry,
ingenuity, peace, and that superiority in wisdom and virtue which we
so confidently claim, are not sufficient to prevent the existence of
a huge mountain of human misery, of one stratum in society in the
most deplorable state, both moral and physical, to which mankind can
be reduced, and that all our advantages do not secure us against the
occurrence of evils and mischiefs so great as to threaten a mighty
social and political convulsion.
[Footnote 48: [Lord Lyndhurst survived, however, more than twenty
years. He died in 1863.]]
_November 17th._--Went to Cromer on Monday week, and returned on
Monday last. I am fond of that wild and bleak coast with its 'hills
that encircle the sea,' the fine old tower of the church and the
lighthouse, whose revolving light it is impossible not to watch
with interest. I went one day to Felbrigg,[49] and looked into the
library--a fine old-fashioned room containing Mr. Windham's books,
all full of notes and comments in his own hand, but library and books
equally neglected now that they have fallen into the hands of a rough,
unlettered squire.
[Footnote 49: [Felbrigg-Hall, near Cromer, was the residence of the
Windham family, and was then occupied by Mr. William Windham, the
brother of Mrs. Henry Baring, one of Mr. Greville's most intimate
friends.]]
_November 18th._--Called on Mr. Grenville yesterday morning. He told
me he was eighty-eight, and had never been ill in all his life; had
colds, but never been ill enough to keep his bed a whole day since
he was born. His memory, he said, failed as to dates and names. He
told me a curious anecdote of Wolfe. In Pitt's (Lord Chatham's)
administration, when Wolfe was going out to take the command of the
army in America, at that time a post of the greatest importance, Mr.
Pitt had him to dinner with no other person present but Lord Temple
(Mr. Grenville's uncle). After dinner Wolfe got greatly excited, drew
his sword, flourished it about, and boasted of the great things he
would do with it in a wonderfully braggart style. Lord Temple and Mr.
Pitt were horror-struck, and when the General was gone, they lifted
up their hands and eyes, and said what an awful thing it was to think
that they were about to trust interests so vital to the discretion of
a man who could talk and bluster in such a way. Mr. Grenville said he
had never liked to repeat this anecdote, and had never done so till
very lately, for he had been reluctant to say anything which might,
by possibility, throw a slur on the reputation of Wolfe. But I told
him it was too curious to be suppressed; curious as a peculiar trait
of character, and that the heights of Abraham had secured the fame of
Wolfe beyond the possibility of being injured by anything that could
now be said.
[Sidenote: THE REFORM BILL OF 1831.]
_November 22nd._--At Hillingdon from Saturday till Monday. I never
go to that place without looking with envy and admiration at a scene
of so much happiness. There is certainly nothing to admire but the
result. There are none of the qualities which are generally desirable;
but if happiness is the aim and object of life, by which I mean
something active, sentient and intelligent, not the happiness of an
oyster or an opium-eater, then these people have attained it, subject
only to its disturbance from the ordinary and unavoidable accidents
and vicissitudes of existence. I suppose that happiness depends on,
as wit has been described by, negatives. They are happy because they
are without avarice, or ambition, or vanity, or envy. They have
no extravagant or unreasonable pretensions, and therefore are not
subject to perpetual mortifications and disappointments. They lead an
easy, placid, semi-sensual but not vicious life, with a full flow of
affection for each other, and a natural ever-springing cheerfulness
and content.
Dined yesterday with Lady Holland, John Russell, Charles Austin, and
Lady Charlotte Lindsay. Lord John told us some things about the Reform
Bill, interesting enough. The first he heard of it was by a letter
from Althorp, who told him Lord Grey and he wished him (Lord John) to
bring in the Bill although he was not in the Cabinet. He wrote back
that he could not agree to bring in the Bill without having a share in
its concoction, which they agreed he was entitled to. He came to town
and Lord Grey begged him to put himself in communication with Durham.
He went to Durham and had a long conversation with him, and they
agreed that a Committee should be formed which should meet constantly
and settle the terms of the Bill. The first person suggested was the
Duke of Richmond, but Lord John objected to him, and then they settled
to have Graham and Duncannon. They used to meet at Durham's every day
and discuss the details of the Bill. Among these was the question of
Ballot, Graham and Durham being strongly for it, John Russell against,
and Duncannon neuter. The point was, however, referred to the Cabinet,
and immediately negatived. Lord John said that the only chance they
had of carrying such a Bill was the preservation of impenetrable
secrecy. If once the plan got out, their own friends would be alarmed,
and their success infallibly compromised. Accordingly they contrived
to keep their plan secret till the last moment. So little did their
opponents expect anything of the kind, that Peel, in a speech about a
fortnight before, taunted them in these terms: 'You came into power
avowedly to promote peace, retrenchment, and reform. Your peace
is in the greatest danger of being broken; your estimates are not
less than ours were; and as to your reform, I predict that it will
be some miserable measure, with all the appearance of a change in
the Constitution, without the reality of any improvement.' When the
measure came out, many of the friends of Government were exceedingly
frightened, and thought it would not fail to be their ruin. Hardinge
told Graham in the lobby that 'Of course they had made up their minds
to resign.' Allen said that there had always existed a strong opinion
that Peel might have crushed it at first, if he had refused leave
to bring in the Bill, but Lord John denied that this was feasible.
He said, let Peel do what he would, they would have got a debate of
several nights, and he had always told his timorous and desponding
friends, that when the plan went forth to the country it would be
responded to by such great and enthusiastic approval and so supported
that it would be impossible for the Opposition to resist it. And this
was what happened. The debate of eight nights gave time for the press
to act, and the country to declare itself. Allen then said they had
done wrong in giving way as they had on some points, particularly as
to the freemen; they had gained nothing by that, and had injured the
Bill. But Lord John said that they had got all they expected. This
sacrifice was made to Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe, who had in
consequence of it carried the second reading in the House of Lords,
which could not have been done without them; and this had prevented
the creation of Peers. Lord Grey was so determined to make Peers,
if the second reading was not carried, that Lord John had himself
given notice to some of his Tory friends, that if they wished to
prevent this evil, they had better vote for it. We then discussed
the communications which afterwards took place between Lord Grey
and Palmerston and Harrowby and Wharncliffe, and Lyndhurst's famous
motion, which produced such momentous results. I said that Harrowby
and his friends had always accused Lord Grey of acting unfairly, but
that I had always said that no man could act a more straightforward
and consistent part than he did. I told Lord John he ought to write a
history of the Reform Bill, which would be a very curious narrative.
[Sidenote: SUCCESSES IN THE EAST.]
_November 23rd._--A torrent of Indian news and successes arrived
almost all at once,[50] an important and agreeable budget of
intelligence, though without much glory in it. It is a delightful
thing to finish the Chinese war anyhow. We were ashamed of our
successes, and the reports of victories gained and towns taken never
gave any satisfaction, or excited a particle of pride or triumph. We
now see our way out of two difficult quarrels which we never ought to
have got into. The only good we shall have gained will have been a
very imposing exhibition of our power and resources, and it will have
cost us many millions of money, and many thousand lives to make it.
[Footnote 50: [The same mail brought the news (November 22) of the
Treaty of Peace with China, the recapture of Ghuznee and Cabul,
and the release of the prisoners taken in the Afghan War. Lord
Ellenborough, then Governor-General of India, issued a ridiculous
proclamation, in which he said that the insult of 800 years was
avenged by the carrying off the gates of the Temple of Somnauth as
a trophy.]]
_November 25th._--I went last night to a place called 'The Judge and
Jury Court'--Bingham Baring, Charles Buller, Frederic Leveson, and
myself--and there we found several others of our acquaintance who had
been attracted to the same place. It is difficult to imagine anything
more low and blackguard than this imitation of and parody on a court
of justice, and if the proceedings of last night are to be taken as
a fair example of the whole it is not very amusing. There is a long
low room opposite Covent Garden Theatre, in Bow Street, lit with
tallow candles and furnished along its length with benches; opposite
these benches is a railed-off space for the Bar and the Jury, and an
elevated desk for the Judge. You pay one shilling entrance, which
entitles you to a cigar and a glass of rum or gin and water or beer,
a privilege of which almost every man availed himself. The room was
pretty well filled and in a cloud of smoke, and there was a constant
circulation of these large glasses of liquid; smoking and drinking
were, indeed, the order of the day. The judge, the counsel, and the
jury, all had their cigars and gin-and-water, and the latter, as a
recompense for their public services, were entitled to call for what
they pleased gratis. Here they try such notorious cases as have been
brought in any shape, complete or incomplete, under public notice,
and last night we had 'Chesterfield v. Batthyany,' the names being
slightly changed, but rendered sufficiently significant to leave no
doubt of who and what is meant. _Maidstone_, for example, was examined
as a witness under the title of Lord _Virgin Rock_, and twenty of the
others which, however, I don't remember. The Chief Baron is a big
burly fellow, editor of a paper which I never heard of before, called
the 'Town,' and the jury are sworn upon _The Town_. I don't know who
the counsel were, but there was one fellow who was a caricature of
Brougham, certainly like him, and he attempted an imitation of him
in manner, gesture, and voice, which was not very bad, and therefore
rather amusing. But though the man had some humour, there was not
enough or of sufficiently good quality to support the length of his
speech. He opened the case for the plaintiff; the counsel for the
defendant seemed very dull, and we would stay no longer. They say the
charge of the judge is generally the best part of it. They deal in
very gross indecencies, and this seems to amuse the audience, which
is one of the most blackguard-looking I ever saw congregated, and
they just restrain their ribaldry within such limits as exclude _les
gros mots_. Everything short of that is allowed, and evidently the
more the better. On the whole it was a poor performance. It bore, in
point of character and decency, about the same relation to a court of
justice that Musard's balls do to Almack's.
[Sidenote: LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S PROCLAMATION.]
_November 27th._--The Palmerstons came through town the other day in
their way to Brocket, and I met them at dinner at Lady Holland's.
They are both very much provoked at the Indian and Chinese successes,
as their remarks showed; _she_ complained that it was Elliot's
fault that all this was not done two years ago, as he had the same
instructions and the same means of executing them that Pottinger had,
and _he_ harped again upon the old tune of Ellenborough's orders and
counter-orders, and tried to make out that it was his fault that
the reoccupation of Cabul had been delayed so many months; and the
'Morning Chronicle' has been labouring to make out that all the glory
of these successes is due to Palmerston alone.
_November 30th._--Ellenborough's Proclamation, which has just
appeared, is fiercely attacked by the Whig Palmerstonian press, but
the purport of it seems to be pretty generally approved. Ellenborough
is certainly not happy in his measures, his manners, or his phrases.
He began by his much-abused orders for retreat, he lost no time in
quarrelling with his Council and making himself personally obnoxious,
and his present Proclamation is very objectionable in many respects,
though it appears to me perfectly clear half the world thinks he meant
to censure the policy of his predecessor, and though he certainly
meant no such thing, he ought not to have left room for any doubt on
that point. He enters into reasons for his measures, which is never
advisable in such a document as this, and especially in India. In
the midst of all our successes, however, the simple truth is that
Akbar Khan and the Afghans have gained their object completely. We
had placed a puppet king on the throne, and we kept him there and
held military possession of the country by a body of our troops.
They resolved to get rid of our king and our troops and to resume
their barbarous independence; they massacred all our people civil
and military, and they afterwards put to death the king. We lost all
hold over the country except the fortresses we continued to occupy.
Our recent expedition was, in fact, undertaken merely to get back the
prisoners who had escaped with their lives from the general slaughter,
and having got them we have once for all abandoned the country,
leaving to the Afghans the unmolested possession of the liberty they
had acquired, and not attempting to replace upon their necks the yoke
they so roughly shook off. There is, after all, no great cause for
rejoicing and triumph in all this.
[Sidenote: MADAME D'ARBLAY'S JOURNAL.]
On Sunday morning I called on Lord John Russell, and we had an
argument about Lord Ashburton and his Treaty, which he abused very
roundly, saying all that I had before heard of his writing to his
brother against it, but still owning that it was not very injurious.
I have a great respect for Lord John, who is very honest and clever,
but in this matter he talks great nonsense. Palmerston is much more
consistent and takes a clear and broad view of it. He says, 'We are
all in the right, and the Americans all in the wrong. Never give up
anything, insist on having the thing settled in your own way, and if
they won't consent, let it remain unsettled.' But Lord John merely
says you might have got better terms if you had held out for them,
that _he thinks_ Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Everett would have arranged
it here more favourably for us than Lord Ashburton did there; that
if Lord Aberdeen had proposed such and such terms to Everett they
would have been agreed to in America, and that Lord Ashburton gave up
certain things for which he did not obtain a just equivalent--all of
which is mere gratuitous assumption, and may be true or maybe false.
However, he owned that the public was disposed to be satisfied with
the Treaty, and he did not deny any assertion that Palmerston had
committed a blunder in attacking it with such violence.
The fifth volume of Madame d'Arblay's journal or memoirs is just
come out. I have read the first three volumes, and then could read
no more, it was so tiresome; but I returned to the fifth because
I found everybody was amused by it. It is certainly readable,
for there are scattered through it notices of people and things
sufficiently interesting, but they are overlaid by an enormous
quantity of trash and twaddle, and there is a continuous stream of
mawkish sentimentality, loyalty, devotion, sensibility, and a display
of feelings and virtues which are very provoking. The cleverest
part of it is the remarkable memory with which she narrates long
conversations and minute details of facts and circumstances. It is
true she generally makes her people converse in a very ordinary
commonplace style, and she hardly ever tells any anecdote or any event
of importance or of remarkable interest. Nevertheless her rambling
records are read with pleasure, for there is and ever will be an
insatiable thirst for familiar details of the great world and the
people who have figured in it. Anecdotes of kings, princes, ministers,
or any _celebrities_ are always acceptable. I have often thought that
my journal would have been much more entertaining if I had scribbled
down all I heard and saw in society, all I could remember of passing
conversations, jokes, stories, and such like, instead of recording
and commenting on public events, as I have often, though irregularly,
done. To have done this, however, and done it well, required a better
memory and more diligence than I possess, to be more _Boswellian_ than
I am. I believe, however, there is and can be no general rule for
journalising. Everybody who addicts him- or her-self to this practice
must follow the dictates of his taste and fancy or caprice. It is a
matter in which character operates and shows itself, for people are
open and confidential or reserved with their blank page, in the same
way as with their living friends. Some, indeed, will pour forth upon
paper, and for the edification or amusement of posterity, what they
never would have revealed to living ear; but the majority of those
who indulge in this occupation probably only tell what they desire to
have known. Few write for themselves only as a sort of moral exercise,
or for the refreshment of their own memories, or because they feel a
longing to give utterance to, and record the feelings and thoughts
that are rising and working and fighting in their minds. It is
curious that so many great men, as well as so many small ones, have
written journals, and an essay on the subject would be interesting
enough if well done. Johnson, Walter Scott, Wilberforce, Windham,
Byron, Heber, Gibbon, all kept journals, and many others, no doubt,
whom I don't recollect at this moment. I omit Pepys and Evelyn, as men
of a different sort.
_December 6th._--The general and impartial opinion of Lord
Ellenborough's Proclamation is, that he is quite right to have
withdrawn the army from Afghanistan, and to have announced a pacific
policy for the future, but that he is much to blame in having adopted
such a tone as the paper is couched in, to have cast an indirect
slur on the policy of Auckland, and condemned in such unqualified
terms the errors of men who are not alive to defend themselves, or
of the survivors who are going to be tried by a court of enquiry. On
the whole Ellenborough has not given satisfaction to any party or
set of men. Conservatives complain of him as well as Whigs. He has
given personal offence in India, and political offence here, and the
appointment, from which such great things were expected, has turned
out ill. The Duke of Wellington, however, is perfectly satisfied with
what he has done, and as the Government meant to support him before
all these successes, much more will they do so now.
_December 8th._--I saw Emily Eden[51] yesterday, and found they were
full of bitterness against Ellenborough, and no wonder. In the first
place, he and Auckland had always been friends. When Ellenborough came
into office, he wrote to Auckland a friendly letter, in which he said
what was tantamount to an invitation to him to stay in India. On his
arrival at Calcutta, he was Auckland's guest for the first three days,
till he was sworn in, and then Auckland was his, and when Auckland's
sisters wanted to leave Government House and go and pay a visit to a
friend of theirs, Ellenborough would not hear of it, and made such a
point of their remaining there till their departure that they did so.
He lived with them morning, noon, and night, on terms of the greatest
cordiality, and repeatedly expressed his regret that they were going
away. This renders his Proclamation particularly odious, and the more
so because she told me that during the last months of his Government,
Auckland had done everything he could not to compromise or embarrass
his successor, and had taken great pains to provide for any future
military operations on which he might determine, which was a matter
of considerable financial difficulty. All this makes them feel very
sore, and they are besides of opinion that it is a grievous fault for
a Governor to proclaim to the world that errors have been committed,
and that the policy of the Indian Government is going to be altered. I
am not so surprised at Ellenborough's _animus_, knowing that when he
was at the Board of Control he never lost an opportunity of letting
the Queen know his opinion as to the errors and blunders of his
predecessor and his colleagues.
[Footnote 51: [Lord Auckland's sister, an old friend of Mr.
Greville's. She had been with Lord Auckland in India.]]
[Sidenote: A MANUSCRIPT OF ANTONIO PEREZ.]
_December 9th._--Francis Baring told me yesterday a curious anecdote
relating to a Spanish MS. which would be interesting to bibliomaniacs.
Sampayo, a half Portuguese, half Englishman, at Paris, was a great
book-collector, particularly of Spanish and Portuguese, both books and
MSS. He was aware of a MS. of Antonio Perez, relating to the wars of
Granada, in the public library at Seville, and he desired Cuthbert,
who has been living at Seville for some time, to ask leave to have
it copied, and if he could get leave to find somebody to copy it. He
got leave, and it was copied in a fair round hand for some sixteen
dollars. After the copy was made, the librarian said to Cuthbert, 'You
may take away which you please, the copy or the original.' He jumped
at the offer, and sent the original MS. to Sampayo. His library was
sold the other day, and Francis Baring said he believed this MS. was
bought by the Royal Library of France, and it probably fetched a great
deal of money.[52]
[Footnote 52: [This MS. has lately been discovered in Paris
(1880).]]
_December 14th._--At Windsor for a Council on Saturday. Sir Robert
Peel is staying there, but nobody else was invited. Ellenborough's
Proclamation is still occupying general attention. My brother writes
me word from Paris that it is generally blamed there, for the same
reasons that it is here; and the Duke of Bedford tells me that Lord
Spencer's political apathy has been excited very highly, and that he
is so full of indignation that he talks of coming down to the House
of Lords to attack it. They speak of it as a document deserving
impeachment, which is going to very absurd lengths. The Palmerstonians
are still screaming themselves hoarse in their endeavours to get the
credit of the success. Lady Palmerston wrote to Madame de Lieven (dear
friends who hate one another cordially) in a rage, because the latter
said to her that she was sure, setting all party feelings aside, as
a good Englishwoman, she must rejoice at the successes in the East.
The other lady replied, that she did not know what she meant, and
that all the merit of the success was due to Palmerston and the late
Government. To this Madame de Lieven responded as follows: 'Je vous
demande bien pardon de ma légèreté, mais je vous assure que moi et
toutes les personnes que je vois, ont été assez niaises pour croire
que les grands succès de l'Orient étaient dus à Sir Robert Peel et à
son gouvernement. Apparemment nous nous sommes trompés, et je vous
demande mille excuses de notre légèreté.'
[Sidenote: LORD PALMERSTON AND THE PRESS.]
_December 20th._--Went to the Grove on Friday, and came back
yesterday. Nobody there but Charles Buller and Charles Villiers.
Clarendon told me that when he was at Bowood there was a sort of
consultation between him, Lord Lansdowne, and John Russell, about the
'Morning Chronicle' and Palmerston, Lord John having been already
stimulated by the report (which his brother, the Duke, had made him)
of the opinions of himself, Lord Spencer, and other Whigs, who had
met or communicated together on the same subject. The consequence was
that John Russell wrote a remonstrance to Palmerston, in which he told
him what these various persons thought with regard to the tone that
had been taken on foreign questions, especially the American, and
pointed out to him the great embarrassment that must ensue as well as
prejudice to the party, if their dissatisfaction was manifested in
some public manner when Parliament met. To this Palmerston replied in
a very angry letter, in which he said that it was useless to talk to
him about the Duke of Bedford, Lord Spencer, and others, as he knew
very well that Edward Ellice was the real author of this movement
against him. He then contrasted his own services in the cause with
that of Ellice, and ended, as I understood, with a tirade against
him, and a bluster about what he would do. Lord John wrote again,
temperately, remonstrating against the tone he had adopted, and
telling him that the persons whose sentiments he had expressed were
very competent to form opinions for themselves, without the influence
or aid of Ellice. This letter elicited one much more temperate from
Palmerston, in which he expressed his readiness to co-operate with
the party, and to consult for the common advantage, but that he must
in the course of the session take an opportunity of expressing his
own opinions upon the questions of foreign policy which would arise.
He and Ellice, it seems, hate each other with a great intensity, and
have done for many years past, since Palmerston suspected Ellice of
intriguing against him; and latterly Ellice has taken an active and a
noisy part against Palmerston's foreign policy generally, so that he
is, and has been for some time, Palmerston's _bête noire_.
_December 28th._--Went to Woburn on Saturday morning to breakfast,
with Dundas, and returned yesterday. Lord John Russell was there, in
very good spirits, more occupied with his children than with thoughts
of politics and place. The Duke and he discussed the prospects of
their party, when the former advised him to take a moderate course,
considering what was right and nothing else, and adhere to that,
whether it led him to support or oppose the measures of Government.
We were talking about the false statements which history hands
down, and how useful letters and memoirs are in elucidating obscure
points and correcting false impressions. The Duke said that it
was generally believed, and would be to the end of time, that the
influence exercised by O'Connell over the late Government had been
very great, and it never would be believed that the three great
Irish measures which they adopted were opposed vehemently, instead
of being dictated, by O'Connell, and yet this was the case. One of
these measures everybody knows he opposed--the Poor Law--but the
other two, the Appropriation Clause, and the Irish Municipal Bill,
have always been supposed by the world at large to have been his own
measures. I have, I think, somewhere else noticed his opposition to
the first of these, and his vain attempts to induce John Russell
(who was the author of this very indiscreet measure) to give it up.
The truth of the matter, as regards the Corporation Bill, is rather
more complicated and curious. The Lords made amendments in this
Bill, and the question arose whether Government should take them
or reject them. O'Connell strenuously urged their acceptance, and
asked if it was not a good thing to get rid of the old corporations
on any terms; but the Government, after much discussion, resolved
to reject them, not, however, making their determination known to
O'Connell or to anybody else. While matters were in this state,
O'Connell had some communication with Normanby, from which he inferred
that Government had resolved not to take the Bill, upon which he
immediately determined to anticipate this decision, and to proclaim
his own hostility to the amended Bill, in order that its rejection
might appear to be attributable to him; and accordingly he published
a violent letter in the newspapers, in which he said that the Bill
ought to be indignantly kicked off the table, or some such words. The
Duke of Bedford, who read his letter, and was aware of his previous
opinion, was exceedingly disgusted at what he thought a flagrant
instance of duplicity and hypocrisy, and, happening to meet him one
day alone at Brooks's, he asked him how he reconciled this letter
with the opinions he had previously expressed on the subject, to
which appeal he had no satisfactory reply to make, but only some very
lame excuses in his usual civil and fawning manner. The fact is, that
it suited his purpose to have it supposed that his influence over
the Government was very great, and that he could make them do what
he pleased; and as he gave every colour, by his conduct, to the
accusation of the Tories, it is no wonder that the representation of
his power was much greater than the reality. It was the interest of
the Tories to make this out, as it was O'Connell's own, and it was
vain for the Whigs to deny what facts appeared to prove, and which he
himself tacitly admitted.
[Sidenote: SIR DAVID DUNDAS.]
The Duke also gave us an account (which was not new to me) of his
interview with the Duke of Wellington at the time of the Bedchamber
quarrel. The day on which the Cabinet was held at which they resolved
to stand by the Queen and stay in office, the Duke of Bedford had
been with the Duke of Wellington on other business, after concluding
which, the Duke of Wellington began on that. He said there appeared
to be a difference, which he regretted to find was not likely to be
adjusted; that he gave no opinion upon the matter itself, and merely
gave it upon the principle involved; that Lord Melbourne was now
Minister, and it was for him to advise the Queen; and then he stood
up, and with great energy said, 'and if he will take upon himself
the responsibility, he may rely upon me, and I will put myself in
the breach.' The Duke of Bedford asked him if he might go to Lord
Melbourne and tell him this. He said he might. The Duke of Bedford
went to the Palace, but Melbourne was in Downing Street, the Cabinet
sitting. He wrote what had passed, and sent it in to him. The letter
was read and a long discussion ensued on it, but they finally resolved
to return to office, and a more fatal resolution for themselves never
was taken.
David Dundas was very agreeable at Woburn. I think I have seldom
seen any man more agreeable in society. He is a great talker, but
his manner and voice, and general style of conversation are all
attractive; he knows a great deal, his reading has been extensive and
various, and his memory appears retentive of such things as contribute
to the amusement and instruction of society; remarkable passages,
curious anecdotes, quaint sayings, and a general familiarity with
things worth hearing, and people worth knowing, render his talk very
pungent and attractive.
_January 16th, 1843._--It was my intention at the end of last year to
draw up a sort of general summary of the principal events by which
it was marked in its course, both public and private; but I never
executed this purpose, partly, I fear, from inveterate laziness, and
partly on account of certain objections which occurred to me on both
heads. With regard to the history of the world for the last year,
I bethought me that my private information has been too scanty to
enable me to throw much light upon those things which are doubtful
or obscure, and that it was very little worth my while to write an
abridgement of those notorious events which have been already detailed
in all the newspapers, and will be more compendiously recorded
hereafter in the 'Annual Register;' in short, that I abstained from
saying anything, simply because I had nothing in my head that it was
worth while to say. So much for the public. As to my own particular
matters, so deeply interesting to myself, but which never can be very
interesting to anybody else, except inasmuch as they may be mixed up
with the concerns of worthier persons, or serve to illustrate objects
of general and permanent interest, I can only say that I shrank from
the task of recording _here_ all that I must say if I spoke the plain
truth, and I am quite resolved either here or elsewhere, now or at any
other time, not to say anything which I do not believe to be true; and
after this exordium, and thus setting forth my reasons for not saying
more, I shall subjoin the few remarks upon the year that has just
expired which I feel disposed to make.
[Sidenote: REVIEW OF THE YEAR.]
Politically it has gone off with a tolerably equal mixture of good
and evil, difficult foreign questions, and awkward _quasi_ wars have
been settled and concluded. Great discontent and great distress
have prevailed at home, and we have the uncomfortable spectacle of
this distress neither diminished nor diminishing, and of its most
lamentable and alarming manifestation in the shape of our unproductive
revenue. As to the Ministry, if ever they had any popularity, they
have none now left, but their power as a Government, and their means
of retaining office, don't seem to be at all diminished. People are
aware we must have a Government, and though they feel no great
affection for Sir Robert Peel and Co., they cannot look round and
descry anybody else whom they would prefer to him, and on the whole I
believe there is a pretty general opinion that he is more capable of
managing public affairs than any other man. The popularity which the
Tory Government has lost has not by any means been transferred to the
account of the Whig Opposition, who seem to be in a very prostrate
and paralytic state as far as their prospects of recovering power
are concerned. The public has not returned to them, and the Queen,
their great supporter, has certainly fallen away from them. She has
found, after a year's experience, that she can go on very happily and
comfortably with the objects of her former detestation. She never
cared a farthing for any of the late Cabinet but Melbourne, and
besides having apparently ceased to care very much about him, now that
his recent attack has made his restoration to office impossible, she
will have no motive whatever for desiring all the trouble and risk
attending a change of Government, and I have no sort of doubt she
would infinitely prefer that matters should remain as they are.
Without going into any of the events which have occurred in the
course of this year, I cannot help noticing the state of public
opinion and feeling which appears at its close. Questions which not
long ago interested and agitated the world have been laid upon the
shelf; the thoughts of mankind seem to be turned into other channels.
It is curious to look at the sort of subjects which now nearly
monopolise general interest and attention. First and foremost there
is the Corn Law and the League; the Corn Law, which Charles Villiers
(I must do him the justice to say) long ago predicted to me would
supersede every other topic of interest, and so it undoubtedly has.
Then the condition of the people, moral and physical, is uppermost
in everybody's mind, the state and management of workhouses and
prisons, and the great question of education. The newspapers are full
of letters and complaints on these subjects, and people think, talk,
and care about them very much. And last, but not least, come the
Church questions--the Church of Scotland, the Church of England, the
Dissenters, the Puseyites. Great and increasing is the interest felt
in all the multifarious grievances or pretensions put forth by any
and all of the above denominations, and much are men's minds turned
to religious subjects. One proof of this may be found in the avidity
with which the most remarkable charges of several of the Bishops
have been read, the prodigious number of copies of them which have
been sold. Of these, the principal are the charges of the Bishops of
London (Blomfield), Exeter (Phillpotts), and St. David's (Thirlwall),
especially the second. This charge, which is very able, contains
_inter alia_ an attack upon Newman for Tract No. 90, and a most
elaborate argument, very powerful, in reply to a judgement delivered
by Brougham at the Privy Council in the case of Escott v. Mastyn on
Lay Baptism.
The circumstances attending the termination of the war in Afghanistan
have elicited a deep and general feeling of indignation and disgust.
Ellenborough's ridiculous and bombastic proclamations, and the
massacres and havoc perpetrated by his armies, are regarded with
universal contempt and abhorrence. An evil fate seems to have attended
this operation from first to last. Every individual who has been
concerned in it, almost without exception, has rendered himself
obnoxious to censure or reproach of some sort. Civil and military
authorities appear to have alike lost all their sense and judgement,
and our greatest successes have been attended with nearly as much
discredit as our most deplorable reverses. Auckland and Ellenborough,
Burnes and M'Naghten, Keane, Elphinstone, Pollock, and Nott, are all
put on their defence on one account or another. On the whole, it is
the most painful and disgraceful chapter in our history for many a
long day.
[Sidenote: DUKE OF WELLINGTON ON THE AFGHAN WAR.]