Sir Robert Peel returns to Office--Death of Lord Wharncliffe--Tory
View of the Whig Failure--Views of Sir Robert Peel and his
Colleagues--Favourable Position of the Cabinet--Lord Howick's
Statement--Lord John defended by his Friends--The Letters
of Junius--True Causes of the Whig Failure--The Corn Law
Measure under Consideration--A Vindication of Peel--Irritation
of the Duke of Wellington and the Tories--Lord Melbourne's
Vehemence--Lord Granville--Lord Bessborough in favour of
Coercive Measures in Ireland--Consequences of Lord John's
Letter on Corn Law Repeal--The Peelite Party--Sir Robert Peel's
Speech--Disclosure of Sir Robert Peel's Measure--Lord John's
View of it--Sir James Graham's View--The Movement for immediate
Repeal--The League press for immediate Repeal--Lord John's
Engagement--Hesitation on the subject of immediate Repeal--Lord
Stanley's growing Opposition--Mr. Sidney Herbert's Views and
Conduct--More moderate Counsels--Approaching Fate of the Peel
Ministry--No Dissolution--Inconsistency of Ministers--The
Westminster Election--Lord Stanley heads the Protectionist
Opposition--Lord John Russell's Inconsistency--Mr. Disraeli
leads the Protectionists in the Commons--The Conquest of the
Punjaub--Division on the Corn Bill--Lord George Bentinck's
Speech--Lord Hardinge blamed.
_London, Monday, December 22nd, 1845._--Yesterday there was an
interval of repose, and the world is now looking with great curiosity
for Peel's proceedings, and what changes, if any, will be made in
the Cabinet. I met Monteagle at dinner at Palmerston's last night,
when we talked over the rise and fall of Lord John's attempt, and he
expressed a strong opinion that they ought to have gone on; that Lord
John ought not to have argued with Howick at all, but have said at
once, 'I am sorry to lose you, but since this is your resolution, I am
afraid we must be deprived of your aid, but I trust you will support
us.' He says he knows the man, and if Lord John had taken this course
Howick would have given way. It is now said that he desired Edward
Ellice to impart to Lord John his objections to Palmerston, and that
Ellice never did it; but, be this as it may, he ought not to have left
the matter in doubt, but have had a clear explanation with Lord John
at first. Sidney Herbert told me they came back with great regret,
but could not do otherwise, situated as the Queen was by Lord John's
retiring. At this moment all speculation and all conjecture about
what will happen, what Peel will propose, and what will be the event,
must be so wild and uncertain, that though these questions are in
everybody's mouth and occupy everybody's thoughts incessantly, I shall
not now say anything on the subject.
[Sidenote: DEATH OF LORD WHARNCLIFFE.]
I have been so engaged in the narration of passing events that I
have not said a word on the sudden death of Lord Wharncliffe, who,
after an illness of ten days, was struck on Thursday last by a stroke
of apoplexy, and died on Friday morning, none of his family having
supposed him to be in any danger. He was not a popular man in general
society; his manners were ungracious, and to those who knew little
of him, or who had occasional relations with him, he generally gave
offence; but he was deservedly loved and esteemed by his family and
his friends. He was kind-hearted, affectionate, hospitable, and
obliging, an excellent, well-meaning man, and those who disliked him
at first, on a more intimate acquaintance grew to regard and respect
him. He was very far from being a man of first-rate capacity, but he
had good strong sense, liberal opinions, honesty, straightforwardness,
and courage--rather more perhaps of physical than of moral courage,
for a braver man never existed; but in political action he was checked
by a consciousness of his insignificance in comparison with his
compeers, and he did not assert his independence and put forth his
opinions with the confidence which an abler and more indispensable
man would have done. He gave unquestionable proofs of his physical
courage by braving a mob in a very dauntless manner upon I forget now
what occasion, but I think in Yorkshire during some of the Reform
riots; and he showed a want of moral courage in submitting so meekly
to join the Tories in their mad attempt upon the Reform Bill, after
the second reading had been carried, when Lyndhurst proposed to
postpone Schedule A, one of the greatest political blunders that ever
was made. Wharncliffe's place in the political scale was that of the
most conspicuous and important of the country gentlemen, with a large
property, considerable local influence, fair talents, a respectable
education, active, resolute, and honest. Upon two occasions he
played a prominent part: first, when he moved the resolution which
overturned the Ministry after Perceval's death, though that Ministry
speedily recovered and had a long reign; and, secondly (by far the
most important), when he, in conjunction with Lord Harrowby, collected
that small band, in derision termed Waverers, whose junction with
Lord Grey enabled him to carry the second reading of the Reform Bill
in the House of Lords. In that Lord Wharncliffe did good service,
but unhappily he had not resolution enough to persevere to the end,
and was in such a hurry to reconcile himself to the Tories (who
never forgave him) that he undid the merit of his first exploit, and
contrived to render himself odious to both parties. The pages of this
Journal are, however, full of the details of that transaction.[115]
On Peel's Government being formed in '35, he came into office; and
again in 1841 Peel invited him to join, but he was disappointed in
not having a more important office. He grew, however, to like the
Council Office well enough, and he addressed himself to the Education
Department with great zeal and ardour. He conducted it very fairly and
liberally, too liberally for the High Churchmen, who regarded him with
distrust and dislike, and who were deeply offended at the plainspoken
way in which he rebuked them for their obstinate and illiberal
counteraction of the beneficent intentions of the Government. He had
not weight enough, however, in the Cabinet to obtain as great an
extension of the system as he would have desired. During the last
struggle in Peel's Cabinet he took the Protectionist side, and was one
of the sturdiest opponents of Repeal. He would, however, probably have
returned with the Duke of Buccleuch and others, and Peel counted upon
his disposition to have done so, and expressed his regret, in a letter
to his son, that he had lost the aid of his courage and honesty at
this trying time. Perhaps the moment of his life when he appeared to
the greatest advantage was when he stood up in the House of Lords and
prevented the Tory Peers from swamping the decision of the Law Lords
in O'Connell's case. He was for above twenty years Chairman of the
Quarter Sessions, and for four years Lord-Lieutenant of his county,
and in both capacities acted with credit and approbation. In public
life thus playing a secondary, but an honourable and useful part; in
private life he was irreproachable, amiable, and respected. He had a
warmth of affection and steadiness of friendship, and a simplicity
both of manners and character, which endeared him to his family and
his friends, and no man ever died with fewer enemies, with more
general goodwill, and more sincerely regretted by every one belonging
to or intimate with him.[116]
[Footnote 115: [These details will be found in the first part of
these Journals, vol. ii. pp. 211-220.]]
[Footnote 116: [On the death of Lord Wharncliffe the Duke of
Buccleuch took the office of Lord President of the Council.
Lord Stanley resigned office, and Mr. Gladstone became Colonial
Secretary.]]
[Sidenote: CAUSES OF THE FAILURE.]
_December 23rd._--Yesterday morning Lord Aberdeen stated that they
did not mean to make many changes; hinted that the measure they
contemplated would not be a decisive one; said the Queen had been much
astonished at John Russell's conduct of the recent affair--first, at
his taking so much time to consider, and secondly, throwing it up so
soon after he had decided to take office, and on such grounds; and
that she had contrasted the alacrity with which Sir Robert Peel retook
it, with the hesitation of his opponents. In the afternoon Graham
sent for me. He began to talk over the Whig failure, expressed his
amazement at the want of firmness and resolution of John Russell,
qualities for which he had always given him unlimited credit, and in
which he seemed to have been strangely wanting on this occasion. He
expatiated on this at great length, and said pretty much what all
the Whigs are themselves saying; he said he regretted it on Lord
John's account, for whom he felt regard and admiration; that he was
sensible of the great advantage it had given to them; that if John
Russell had resigned on the public grounds he might have alleged, they
should have been placed in great difficulty, and have incurred great
odium and suspicion; but that as it was, the Whigs would appear to
have failed discreditably, their leader to have evinced weakness and
vacillation, and they were only doing what, under the circumstances,
they could not avoid, and accepting a task that was forced upon them.
He evidently considered that the Lord had delivered his opponents
into the hands of himself and friends. I told him what the real cause
of the failure was, the fears and scruples of the Whig Peers, and
how this last difficulty revived and strengthened the objections and
doubts before felt and expressed, and that John Russell would not
attempt to drag on to the battle a Cabinet half of which was reluctant
and frightened. Graham did not think these reasons at all sufficient,
and still more that as they were such as could not be put forth, the
case must appear a very bad one to the world in general--a lame and
unaccountable conclusion. He then remarked upon the want of resource
as well as of firmness of John Russell, said the remedy was obvious,
that he should have let Howick go at once, and have called Palmerston
up to the House of Peers; that Palmerston would then have had a fine
position; that he could not have declined, as John Russell, after
having stood by him, would have had a right to require him to lend his
aid to the Government in whatever manner it could be rendered most
efficient; that if it was not enough to call up Palmerston, he would
have called up Morpeth, Macaulay, or any member that might have been
necessary--anything rather than recede, after having advanced so far.
He said that such infirmity of purpose was so unlike John Russell
that he could not help thinking something had in some degree unnerved
him. He said the Whigs could have carried this question better than
they could, and that his and Peel's support would have enabled them
to do so; gave me to understand that this support might have been
counted upon; alluded to the extraordinary and unprecedented course
of applying to them (without touching on particulars), but admitted
that the circumstances of the case were extraordinary, and excused a
deviation from ordinary practice. He told me nothing of the plans of
his own Government; expressed in the outset of the conversation some
apprehension lest there might be some hidden and unexplained motive
for the extraordinary break-up, and some ingredient of distrust or
suspicion of them. I told him that there was no reason but that which
had appeared, and certainly no distrust of them. After I left him, he
saw George Lewis, and went over pretty much the same ground with him
also. At night I met Morpeth at Miss Berry's, who talked it all over,
and acknowledged his disgust and disappointment. He said he could
not help thinking that some domestic anxiety had had a considerable
effect on Lord John's mind, and unstrung his nerves; that when he had
seen him after the _finale_ he (Morpeth) had expressed himself rather
strongly, and the next day he called on Lord John and said he was
afraid he had done so. Lord John said he had felt a little hurt, and
then pulled out of his pocket a letter, and desired him to read it. He
burst into tears, and said he rejoiced for himself to be out of it.
This corresponded with Graham's impression. So far as I have seen, all
the strong men of the party are of Morpeth's opinion. Le Marchant,
wishing to extract sweet from bitter, said, 'Well, after all, it
may do us good. It will show that the Whigs are not so greedy after
office, and it will wipe out the recollection of those two years when
we stayed in too long.' Macaulay replied, 'I don't know that at all,
it may only increase the blame. We stayed in when we ought to have
gone out, and now we stay out when we ought to have gone in.'
[Sidenote: SMART SAYING OF MACAULAY.]
_London, December 24th._--Yesterday I attended a Council at Windsor;
Stanley out, and Gladstone in. There I had a great deal of talk with
Graham, Aberdeen, and Peel; nothing fresh with the former. Aberdeen
expressed, like everybody else, his astonishment at the conduct of the
Whigs; said they would have carried their measure, and that Peel would
have unquestionably given them every support. They could not doubt
that, after what he had said. I told him they were not satisfied with
what he had said, that they had indeed resolved to go on and to trust
to him, but that there was a strong minority who thought his reply
not explicit enough, and that it was not expedient to make the attempt
upon so vague a promise of support. He expressed the greatest surprise
at this, and that they, knowing the character of Peel, should expect
anything more explicit from him, and that they should not see in the
answer, such as it was, an unmistakeable indication of his resolution
to support them. We then talked a little of _his_ measure and
_their_ measure, and he said that, desirable as it was to settle the
question once for all and put an end to the League, it might be very
difficult for Peel to propose, what the Whigs might very properly and
consistently do, and that he might have supported out of office, and
under present circumstances, a measure which he could not himself have
proposed as Minister. He hinted, however, that the change in the state
of affairs enabled him now to do _more_ (at least so I understood him)
than he had contemplated doing before the break-up of his Cabinet. He
talked very fairly of Palmerston, and said that he and Peel too had
done all they could to reconcile the Foreign Ministers and others to
Palmerston's return to the Foreign Office, and assured them that they
had nothing to apprehend from it. He then talked of Oregon, treated
the President's message with great indifference, and said he was
quite certain to settle the question in the course of the year, and
confident there was no disposition to go to war in America.
Peel afterwards talked about Lord John's failure, and expressed his
astonishment and (with what sincerity is best known to himself) his
regret, inasmuch as it lowered John Russell, for whom he felt great
consideration and esteem; that he ought, when sent for, at once to
have taken or at once to have refused office; that when the Queen told
him (Peel) how she was situated, he at once said he would resume the
Government; from that moment he was her Minister. He was evidently
elated at the advantage that had been thrown into his hands, and
chuckling mightily at the pitiful figure which the Whigs cut, and
at the contrast so favourable to himself which the whole case will
exhibit.
[Sidenote: REUNION OF THE CABINET.]
Coming back, Graham said to me, 'You see we have only one resignation.
The whole Cabinet remains except Stanley.' The Duke of Wellington
said that it was no longer a question of Corn Laws, but a question
of Government: whether the Queen should be without a Government, or
be placed in the alternative of a Government of Lord Grey and Mr.
Cobden and a Government of Sir Robert Peel; and the Duke of Buccleuch
also said that in such circumstances he would not desert the Queen's
service. Upon this fresh ground Peel has put the question, and the
paramount necessity of providing the Queen and the country with a
Government has silenced all objections, composed all differences, and
reunited the Cabinet. Thus Peel is placed in a far more advantageous
situation than he would have been in if he had never resigned.
Whether there was a good case originally for what he did, between the
blunders of the other party and his own good fortune, the way has been
marvellously cleared for him and a vast load of difficulty removed;
and though plenty of difficulty remains behind, and the framing of his
measures is a nice and delicate matter, and embraces many and various
considerations, I am inclined to think that he will work them out
successfully, and that his power will be strengthened and confirmed.
At night I met Howick at the Travellers', who said he wanted very
much to talk to me, that he heard I had abused him violently. I told
him I had not done that, because I never condemned anybody without
knowing first what they had to say; but that, like most others, I
had certainly been unfavourably impressed with what I had reason to
believe were the facts in respect to his conduct. He begged me to
tell him what I supposed the facts to be, and I did so. He then said
that he wished me to be acquainted with the true state of the case,
the substance of which was as follows. He came up to town with Edward
Ellice, and he then told him his insuperable objection to Palmerston's
being at the Foreign Office. He did not, indeed, desire Ellice to tell
John Russell, but knowing that he would be confidentially consulted
by John Russell, he made sure he would tell him, as he intended that
he should. He did not himself in the first instance say anything to
Lord John on the subject, nor Lord John to him. It was on a Monday
they first met, and entered on discussion. There was then a difference
of opinion about the measure to be proposed, which John Russell
wanted to be less decisive than was afterwards settled, an intention
which Howick opposed, and in which he prevailed. There were other
discussions on various matters, but none on the composition of the
Cabinet; but on Wednesday Howick wrote a long letter to John Russell,
in which he expressed his sentiments and his wishes in respect to the
Irish Church and one other matter, which I have forgotten, and then
went at large into the question of the Cabinet. He said that he would
much rather not take office at all, and that if he could do without
him he would engage to give him every support out of office; but if he
considered him indispensable, he must tell him upon what understanding
he would consent to serve; that he considered that they should be
very weak, do what they would, and that it was therefore of paramount
importance that the Cabinet should be framed in such a manner as to
command the confidence of the country; that the different offices
should be filled by the men who were the best fitted for them, and
that no considerations of interest or favour, but especially that no
claims upon the ground of former possession, should be listened to.
He dwelt upon the importance of this, and desired that the rule he
proposed to lay down should be applied to everybody without exception.
He said that it was impossible John Russell could have any doubt
about his meaning, that he had indeed purposely abstained from naming
Palmerston, because it was an invidious thing to do, and because he
wished to put it on general rather than personal grounds; that to
have named Palmerston would have greatly embarrassed Lord John; and,
moreover, he knew that the objection he felt, and which he meant thus
to convey, was felt by him in common with many other members of the
new Government, and especially by John Russell himself. He said that
he knew Palmerston's appointment would be regarded with the greatest
alarm by the great interests and the public generally here, and with
dismay all over the Continent, and that he considered it of vital
importance not to begin their difficult task by an appointment which
all the world would consider so unwise and so dangerous. Having thus
discharged his mind, he said no more. John Russell wrote him an answer
in which he replied to the other topics, but did not say a word upon
this. Then came the Thursday, the day John Russell resolved to accept;
and he came to this resolution without any explanation with Howick. On
Friday came the explosion. Howick said that the objection he raised
was only what he had already intimated in his letter on Wednesday;
but while he felt so strongly upon it that he could not give way, he
offered to make every concession in his power to adjust the matter.
Having been offered the Colonial Office, and the lead in the House of
Lords, he offered to resign both to Palmerston if he would take them;
to act under him if he would go to the Lords, and to take any other
office which John Russell thought him fit for. He said he thought
these were great concessions, that he had been extremely dissatisfied
with other arrangements, particularly Hobhouse going back to the
Board of Control, and Charles Wood having a sinecure, and not in the
Cabinet; but these he had submitted to, and had given way on certain
other matters which had not satisfied him; but that to Palmerston's
being at the Foreign Office he could not and would not consent. This
was the substance of his explanation to me, interlarded with many
comments and much miscellaneous matter. I told him that this certainly
altered the case very much, and put it in a very different light;
but I would not conceal from him that in so important a matter he
ought not to have left anything to chance, or have suffered an hour
to elapse without coming to a clear understanding with John Russell;
that he should not have trusted to Edward Ellice telling him, and that
since he regarded it as a matter of such consequence that his consent
or refusal to join depended on it, he ought to have cleared everything
up at once; on the other hand, that I must own his letter ought to
have been intelligible, and that after receiving it Lord John was
also much to blame in not bringing on an explanation. In fact, both
were to blame; but I think John Russell was most to blame, because it
was his business to see his way clearly before him, to reconcile and
adjust rival pretensions and incompatible opinions; and most assuredly
he had had warning enough on Wednesday not to pass the Rubicon on
Thursday without settling so important a matter. Howick knows that
Lord John tried to get Palmerston to take the Colonies, and he knows
how many of the Whig leaders in their hearts thought as he did. He
means to make his own defence in the House of Lords, and it is evident
that he counts upon general sympathy with himself as to the cause of
the dispute, whatever may be thought of the manner of conducting it.
But whatever may be thought of Howick or Palmerston, it will add to
the discredit which already attaches to Lord John as a statesman and
leader of a great party; it will afford fresh evidence of a deficiency
of the qualities requisite for his post and the task he undertook.
There were no resource and adroitness, none of those arts of
conciliation and persuasion, none of that commanding and insinuating
influence which are so necessary in the conduct of transactions of
such a difficult and delicate nature.
[Sidenote: LORD GREY'S EXPLANATION.]
_December 26th._--I receive daily letters from the Duke of Bedford, to
whom all sorts of people write upon the subject of the late affair.
He is exceedingly anxious to make out that Lord John and his friends
acted well and wisely, but he evidently labours all the time under a
consciousness that their case is not defensible, and that in public
opinion they cut a very poor figure. He endeavours to comfort himself
with the approbation which is expressed by many who may be sincere,
but who may also only say to him what they think it would be agreeable
to him to hear. Meanwhile the news of the return of Peel has been
received abroad with transports of joy, and here the funds and all
securities have risen with extraordinary rapidity. My letters have
been read at Paris by Guizot and Madame de Lieven with the greatest
avidity, and by the former taken to the King, under a promise that
he would say nothing about them in his own correspondence with
Windsor.[117]
[Sidenote: THE FRENCH VIEW OF LORD PALMERSTON.]
The other day Mr. Woodfall, grandson of the original publisher of
'Junius' Letters,' came to me to ask me if I would edit a new edition
of 'Junius.' He said he had nothing new to furnish, and the only scrap
that never has been published is one which never could be, a copy of
very indecent verses upon the Duke of Grafton and Nancy Parsons in
Junius' handwriting, and sent to Woodfall. He told me that his father
never had an idea who Junius was, but never would believe that Francis
was the man.
[Footnote 117: [I was myself in Paris during this crisis in the
British Government, and I received from Mr. Greville day by day
the narrative of the singular vicissitudes occurring in London,
related by him in almost the same words in which he recorded them
in his journal. This information was of great value at the time,
because the future relations of France and England were supposed to
be affected (and were in fact affected) by the possible transfer of
the Foreign Office from the hands of Lord Aberdeen to those of Lord
Palmerston. This event, therefore, excited the liveliest interest
in Paris, and was even of a nature to shake the stability of M.
Guizot's administration and to encourage the opposition, of M.
Thiers. I therefore communicated the information I received to M.
Guizot and Lord Cowley (the first Lord Cowley, who was afterwards
succeeded in the Embassy by his son). Some of the letters were
also shown to the King, who was pleased to say that they were
'du Saint-Simon tout pur.' To complete the picture of the effect
produced abroad by the anticipated return of Lord Palmerston to
the Foreign Office, I shall here venture to insert a few extracts
from the letters addressed by me to Mr. Greville in answer to his
communications.
24 Rue de la Paix, Paris: December 20th, 1845.
I think the apprehension with which the possibility of Lord
Palmerston's return to office was at first viewed here is somewhat
allayed among the leading politicians, but it prevails in its
fullest extent at the Bourse and in the country. Rothschild says:
'Lord Palmerston est un ami de la maison. Il dîne chez nous à
Francfort. Mais il a l'inconvénient de faire baisser les fonds de
toute l'Europe sans nous en avertir.'
The King's repugnance to Lord Palmerston is however insurmountable.
He has spoken of him within the last few days as 'l'ennemi de ma
maison,' upon which I took the liberty of replying to the person
who told it me, that such a speech indicated a gross forgetfulness
of the services rendered by Lord Palmerston in the time of Lord
Grey to his house. But the Spanish affair still rankles, and for
this reason Lord Clarendon would perhaps be less fit for this
Embassy than Lord Beauvale or one or two other persons. Lord
Clarendon, on the contrary, would be the best possible ambassador
if Thiers returned to office. That event, however, is by no means
probable. The Opposition is powerless and divided; the Conservative
body rather alarmed, and therefore compact. The Ministers are in
good spirits.
When Lord Palmerston meant to come here, he employed the Cowleys
through Madame de Lieven to enquire of the King how he would be
received at the Tuileries. The King coldly replied that he would
give him a dinner.
Thiers and his friends, who derive all they know about English
affairs from Edward Ellice, are still in high spirits, and affect
to believe that Lord Palmerston's first object will be to restore
them to power. I am going to see Thiers to-morrow (having purposely
deferred my visit), and I shall certainly endeavour to undeceive
him. I do not think Guizot has any fear of treachery or hostility
on the part of the Whig Government, for he entertains the highest
respect for its members, and the common interest and object of the
two Cabinets is too obvious to be doubted....
Paris, December 20th, 3 o'clock.
Since I despatched my other letters, yours of Thursday have
arrived, and I have communicated their contents to M. Guizot and
Lord Cowley.
My conversation with the former was highly satisfactory as regards
the maintenance of the most amicable relations with the new
Government. He said again and again, 'Je serai exactement de même
pour Lord Palmerston que je l'ai été pour Lord Aberdeen,' and that
he confidently relied on Lord John's good disposition towards
France and himself.
The alarm occasioned by the change all over the Continent, and
especially in this country, is far greater than it is in the French
Cabinet; but this alarm strengthens M. Guizot's administration,
because the Conservative party rely on his prudence and temper as
their chief safeguard, and the Opposition would not allow their
leaders to be more conciliatory to England than M. Guizot has been.
For many reasons Lord Beauvale is the best Ambassador who can be
sent here. In all the highest quarters that opinion prevails,
and Lord Cowley also entertains it most strongly. The presence
of Lord Beauvale here would give strength to M. Guizot; and if
circumstances of difficulty should arise, there is no one in whom
the King would have so much confidence.
At this moment, with the Deputies arriving in a state of alarm, it
certainly is desirable for Guizot to have as much as possible the
appearance of a good understanding with the English Government, and
the sooner an effectual and official representative arrives the
better.
Ever yours faithfully, H. REEVE.
C.C. Greville, Esq. Paris, December 22nd, 1845.
I was sitting last night alone with Princess Lieven in her
boudoir before her usual reception began, when the doors were
thrown open and M. Guizot entered. His manner was more rapid and
emphatic than I had seen it since I have been here. He turned
to me and began: 'Vous avez vu combien j'étais raisonnable à
l'endroit de Lord Palmerston quand vous êtes arrivé. Je le suis
encore, et je vous disais bien en vous parlant de son caractère
que j'en concevais moins d'alarme que les autres. Mais vous ne
vous faites pas d'idée de l'effet de ce nom-là sur ce pays et sur
mon parti. Je sors d'un dîner avec la grosse Banque--des gens
dont le plus mince avait certainement cinq millions--je les ai
trouvés dans la consternation. On est venu vers moi me prendre la
main en me disant: "Mais, Monsieur le Ministre, que ferez-vous
de cet homme-là? En six mois nous sommes en lutte ouverte avec
l'Angleterre. Il vous fera des difficultés partout--en Espagne,
en Orient, à Tahiti--c'est terrible." J'ai voulu les rassurer,'
continued Guizot, 'mais c'est frappant--c'est frappant. Tenez,
Princesse, vous ne m'avez pas vu ces jours-ci aussi ému que je le
suis à cette heure.' He was really agitated.
I replied that if the Whig Cabinet were not resolved to conduct its
foreign policy with moderation, it would obviously augment tenfold
its internal difficulties; that the Exchange of London would be
as much frightened by the prospect of war as that of Paris; that,
in short, I firmly believed Lord John was resolved to restrain
Palmerston, and would do it. I said I knew that a strong effort had
been made to prevent him from returning to the Foreign Office, and
that he himself was perfectly aware of the difficulty, which must
lead to his ultimate secession from the Cabinet if he was disposed
to thwart Lord John's views on foreign policy. In short, that he
and the French must look to the policy of _the Cabinet_, not to the
character of the Minister. He was pacified, but the scene was a
curious one.
The Deputies are coming to town, and I have seen several leaders of
the Opposition. Their opinion is that the change in England will
be followed by the fall of Guizot, not as an immediate, but an
ultimate consequence. I assured them, as I do the Conservatives,
that the Whigs can entertain no desire to bring about a change of
Ministry here, which they think quite natural. Their candidate for
the Presidency of the Chamber is Dufaure, but Sauzet will beat him
by 30 or 35 votes.
Yours, &c. H. REEVE.
It will be seen in the next volume of these Journals how far these
apprehensions and speculations were or were not realised. Lord
Palmerston returned to the Foreign Office, not in December, but
in the following July, when Lord John Russell's administration
was formed. Lord Normanby, and not Lord Beauvale, was sent to
Paris as British Ambassador in the place of Lord Cowley, with
the most deplorable results, for he threw himself into the arms
of the Opposition and quarrelled with the Ministers. The fatal
question of the Spanish marriages immediately arose to embroil the
two Cabinets, and Lord Normanby remained long enough in Paris to
witness the fall, not only of the Ministry, but of the dynasty in
1848. These great events are foreshadowed by the incidents I have
attempted to describe.--H.R.]]
[Sidenote: AUTHORSHIP OF 'JUNIUS.']
_January 1st, 1846._--I went to the Grove last Saturday; nothing
new, but the agitation of the famous ten days still leaves a ruffled
surface, and the world is full of talk about the past and speculation
about the future. John Russell, who was much disquieted at the effect
produced by the sudden explosion of his concern, has got into good
spirits again from the encouragement and approbation with which he
has been comforted from his own adherents and friends. I have had a
controversy with his brother about it, who, partly from conviction
and partly from affection, highly approves of the resignation, while
regretting it did not take place before, or rather that he ever
accepted. He has satisfied me, now that I see even more than I did
before of the extreme reluctance of some of his leading men, not
merely to take office, but to the measure for which it was to be
taken, that it ought to have been given up at once. Lord John was
right to make the attempt for the Queen's sake, but he might and
ought at once to have told her after the first meeting he could not
undertake it. Instead of putting the matter upon the issue of Peel's
answer, he ought not to have applied to Peel at all, but have given
it up on the ground of difference among his own friends. If they had
been united and cordial, then he might have communicated with Peel,
and under the extraordinary circumstances he would have been justified
in doing so. When I told the Duke of Bedford what Graham said about
Palmerston's going to the House of Lords, he said, and repeated
afterwards that it was impossible. I asked him why. In a letter to-day
he tells me. He says that Palmerston was so much against the measure
(the repeal of the Corn Laws), and so disapproved of Lord John's
letter, that he made a great sacrifice in joining the Government at
all, wished not to have done so, and that the most that could be
expected from him was his vote; that to require him to go to the
Lords, for the purpose of taking the lead in introducing and arguing
for a measure of which in his heart he disapproved, would have been
disgraceful to all parties, and he expressed the strongest feelings
upon such a hypothetical case. His letter is a very good one, and
his sentiments are just and honourable and do him credit. I entirely
agree in this view of the case; but though I was aware of Palmerston's
opinions, I did not know they were so strong and decided as he tells
me that they are. Melbourne's are the same.[118] It is pretty clear
that if Lord John had not so publicly and so irrevocably pronounced
himself in his famous letter, there would have been disputes in his
Cabinet on the measure they should propose which would have made the
formation of any Government impossible. As it was, the different
members had only to make up their minds whether they would subscribe
to his declaration or not. Lord Aberdeen states that Peel had received
many assurances of support from Conservatives, and many from quarters
where he had reckoned upon opposition; that the plan for the Repeal of
the Corn Laws is not yet matured, but that it was to be something of
this sort--an immediate reduction of duty to the amount of two-thirds,
a total abolition in three years.
[Footnote 118: [Both Lord Melbourne and Lord Palmerston were
strongly opposed to the Repeal of the Corn Laws, and never
comprehended or embraced the entire theory of Free Trade.]]
[Sidenote: COBDEN ADVERSE TO PEEL.]
_January 7th._--I have had some communication with Clarendon and
Charles Villiers about the supposed plan of the Government. Both
are very reasonable and moderate, and disposed to support it if it
so turns out, and to prevail on others to do so. Charles Villiers
wrote to Cobden; but his answer was evasive and unsatisfactory,
disinclined to say what he would do, and hinting at uniting with
the Protectionists to throw out Peel and his measure. Against this
Charles Villiers is resolved to contend, and, if necessary, openly
and publicly. I believe his disposition to be good, and without doubt
he has no love for Cobden, who has taken the wind out of his sails,
and got all the glory of a case of which Charles Villiers worked the
beginning.
Yesterday I went to Graham, to talk to him about the state of
affairs, and to tell him what might interest him. I told him what
the two brothers said, and about Cobden. He said, 'What I should
like to know is, what John Russell says, and how he is disposed. I
have the greatest confidence in his capacity and his honour; he is
by far the ablest man, and I consider that everything now depends
upon him. We made a tender of the Government to those who we thought
had a better right than we had to settle this question. I believe
he is not dissatisfied with our conduct to him. It remains for us to
propose a measure, the best we can devise, and such as we think ought
to be accepted. We shall, as soon as Parliament meets, declare what
we propose. We think it better that there should be no concert or
communication between us and anybody; but when we have announced our
plan, it will be for John Russell to consider it, and if he thinks,
all things considered, that it is such a plan as we can and ought to
propose, and as it would be expedient to accept, if it is a plan to
which he thinks he can conscientiously give his assent (and if he does
think so, I know his support will be given with effect), then I have
no doubt we shall succeed. I consider everything depends upon this. I
have never given myself the trouble of counting noses, nor should I,
for I hold it quite impossible that any measure concurrently supported
by Peel and John Russell can fail.' He said that as far as they could
see at present the agriculturists would present 'an unbroken phalanx'
in the House of Commons. I asked him about adhesions, and he shook his
head and gave me to understand there were none of any consequence.
They have asked Francis Egerton to move the address.
_January 13th._--I wrote the Duke of Bedford word what Graham had
said, and he sent my letter to Lord John. I have occupied myself for
the last week in writing a pamphlet, which I call 'Sir Robert Peel
and the Corn Law Crisis,' and the title describes the subject. I have
attempted a vindication of Peel's _general policy_, and have done so
because I sincerely believe he has been acting a disinterested and
public-spirited part.
[Sidenote: DUKE OF WELLINGTON ON THE CORN LAWS.]
Clarendon received Henry Pierrepoint at the Grove a few days ago,
who came from Strathfieldsaye, and his account of the Duke, and of
what he said, is not without interest, so I transcribe it from his
letter. 'Henry Pierrepoint has been very willing to communicate all
he knew, which did not amount to much. It is clear that the Duke of
Wellington resents the whole of Peel's conduct, that he dislikes him,
feels he has never had his whole confidence, and has foreseen for the
last six months that he was preparing to overthrow the Corn Laws.
Pierrepoint considers this to be the cause of the unapproachable
state of irritation in which he has been during the autumn. The Duke
says, "rotten potatoes have done it all; they put Peel in his d--d
fright;" and both for the cause and the effect he seems to feel equal
contempt. When he found that Peel was determined to meddle with the
Corn Laws, he wrote a long paper against it, but said that he should
defer to Peel, and certainly not leave the Government, if the majority
of the Cabinet were in favour of the measure. He was not, however,
sorry to be released by the majority being dissentient. When they
all shuffled back to their places by the Queen's command, he looked
on himself as one of the rank and file, ordered to _fall in_, and he
set about doing his duty, and preparing for battle. He has written
a great many letters to Tory Lords, such as Rutland, Beaufort,
Salisbury, Exeter, and has received some very stiff and unsatisfactory
answers, particularly from Beaufort, who tells him that when they all
sacrificed their opinions on the Catholic question, they had at the
head of the Government a leader on whose honour they relied and whose
conscientious motives they could not but respect; but that the case
was very different now, when they had for their leader a man who had
violated every principle and pledge, and in whom no party could put
any trust.' I have little doubt that Alvanley, who has long been laid
up at Badminton, dictated this letter, for he is very violent, and
says 'Peel ought not to die a natural death.'
There has been a curious scene with Melbourne at Windsor, which was
told me by Jocelyn, who was present. It was at dinner, when Melbourne
was sitting next to the Queen. Some allusion was made to passing
events and to the expected measure, when Melbourne suddenly broke out,
'Ma'am, it is a damned dishonest act.' The Queen laughed, and tried
to quiet him, but he repeated, 'I say again it is a very dishonest
act,' and then he continued a tirade against abolition of Corn Laws,
the people not knowing how to look, and the Queen only laughing. The
Court is very strong in favour of Free Trade, and not less in favour
of Peel. Jocelyn told me that he went one day to covert with the
Prince, when he asked him if he did not think John Russell had lowered
himself very much by his conduct in the crisis, by taking so many
days to consider whether he should take the Government, and then so
suddenly giving it up for such a cause. Jocelyn said he did not think
so, and added what occurred to him about the difficulties of the case,
when the Prince said 'he acted very differently from Sir Robert Peel
in 1835, and again the other day. _He_ took no time to consider, but
at once undertook it without any hesitation or delay.'
Leveson has asked me to write something about his father, and I am
going to attempt to do so. He was a very amiable man, and a good
friend to me always; his life was long and prosperous beyond that of
most men; he never made an enemy, and had the art of making more and
warmer friends than any man I have known, which, as he was reserved in
his manners, is a proof of the excellence and the attractive qualities
of his character. This is really the amount of what is to be said
of him, for he was not concerned in any great events, or even took
an active part in party politics, although he was engaged in many
diplomatic missions of importance. But a just tribute may be paid to
those high and honourable qualities which secured to him so much real
regard and consideration from all who became intimately acquainted
with him, not less in France than in this country, and a devoted
affection from his nearest and dearest relations which nothing could
surpass.[119]
[Footnote 119: [Earl Granville, the youngest son of the first
Marquis of Stafford, died on January 6th, 1846, at the age of
seventy-one. He had filled for many years with great ability the
post of British Ambassador at the Court of France.]]
[Sidenote: LORD BESSBOROUGH'S OPINION.]
_January 14th._--I saw Lord Bessborough[120] last night, just
come from Ireland, talked over present affairs, respecting which
he is, like most other people, in a state of great uneasiness and
uncertainty; he regrets that he was not here while Lord John's
Government was forming, and does not doubt that if he had been he
should have prevented what has occurred; for Howick would have told
him _at first_ his intentions, when he should have gone at once to
John Russell and got everything cleared up before they proceeded
further. His impression seems rather to be, that he should have
prevented the acceptance; but he is clear that first taking it without
seeing their way, and then giving it up, was all wrong. He says that
he is sure Howick would have been reasonable and have given way. He
has had a great deal of communication with him now, and he told me
a part of Howick's case which I had not heard before. It seems that
after his interview with Lord John on Friday, he went home and wrote
him a letter, setting forth his reasons for objecting to Palmerston.
This letter Lord John put into Ellice's hands, who went to Howick and
asked him if it was final. Howick said it was, and asked him if he
thought he was wrong. Ellice replied, 'I don't say I think you are
wrong; but I tell you, if you persist, you will break up the attempt
to form a Government,' and then he left him. Howick says that he
did not believe the Government would have been thus thrown up, and
that if an opportunity had been given him he would have referred the
question to his colleagues, and if they had been of opinion that
Palmerston ought to be at the Foreign Office, he would have deferred
to that opinion and waived his own objection. This, however, is very
well to say now; he should have said so at once, as he might have
done. Bessborough says Howick cannot be excused for not speaking out
to John Russell at once the first moment he saw him. I told him what
I believed the Corn Law measure was to be, and he said that this
would carry the support of the Liberal party, but not without some
exceptions; he doubts if the Irish will come over. He says there
will be no deficiency of consequence in the potato crop, none of the
potatoes are _entirely_ spoiled; but the state of Ireland is very bad
in parts, and requires coercive measures. He wants the Proclamation
Act to be renewed; the Conciliation Hall has its agents everywhere,
and governs Ireland more than the Government does. If he had been
Lord Lieutenant he would not have consented to divide authority with
that body, but would have insisted on curbing it in some way, and he
thinks the Proclamation Act would be the most effectual.
I forgot to say that at the Grove we were talking over John Russell's
letter _inter alia_, when Clarendon said that Lord John, in the first
instance, thought of proposing a measure like that of '92 (it must
have been '91 or '93), but that it was found this would not square
with his letter, and they were obliged to spread it out on the table
before them during their consultation, in order to see whether the
plans that appeared eligible would be consistent with it! So that he
had so fettered himself and his colleagues, that they were no longer
free to consider what was the best and most desirable measure, but
what this letter would allow them to do.
[Footnote 120: [John William, fourth Earl of Bessborough, born in
1781; died May 16th, 1847--an active and able member of the Whig
party.]]
_January 22nd._--Parliament meets to-day, and the truth will soon
be out. My pamphlet has been generally read and bitterly attacked.
It displeases the Whigs for its defence of Peel, and the Tories for
its hostility to the Corn Laws; but Peel and his friends are highly
delighted with it, and Graham sent me a note which Peel had written
him (evidently to be shown to me), in which he said that 'he had
rarely seen so much truth told with so much ability in the compass of
the same number of pages.' His friends like it, but as they are in a
miserable minority it may be considered to be generally unpopular.[121]
[Sidenote: OPENING OF THE SESSION.]
During these last days the Whig and Peelite (for now there are
Peelites, as contradistinguished from Tories) whippers-in have been
making lists, and they concur in giving Peel a large majority. They
reckon Protectionists 200, Peelites 180, and then there are the Whigs
and Liberals 200 or 300; but Bessborough, who is very experienced,
says these lists are very loose and not to be depended on at all.
Francis Egerton tells me Peel is in very good spirits--better than his
colleagues--and thinks he has a very good case to make for himself.
He tells me that he wrote to Peel to tell him he had changed his
own opinion on the Corn Laws, and that the time was arrived when
protective duties must be abolished. He wrote this letter knowing
nothing of what was going on, and he sent it the very day before the
famous article in the 'Times' appeared. He did not get an answer till
after the resignations. He also told me that they would have made him
Earl of Bridgewater and President of the Council, which he declined.
I met John Russell at dinner on Tuesday night. No particular talk; but
Young, the Secretary of the Treasury, had been with him, which looked
well enough for concert. Clarendon told me after dinner that Lord
John was bitter against Peel, more so than when he left town; this
is very unfortunate. He is very clever, but his mind is little. It
is difficult not to think that he is jealous of Peel. He is probably
provoked that a man of whom he has so bad an opinion should have
outstripped him in popularity and public consideration; for, without
doubt, if the country were to be polled whether he or Peel should be
Minister, there would be a great majority for Peel.
[Footnote 121: [It is a striking proof of Mr. Greville's love of
truth and justice, that although he had no personal regard for
Sir Robert Peel, or intimacy with him, and sometimes judged his
actions and his motives with severity, yet at this crisis he took
the trouble to write a pamphlet in defence of the Minister, whom
he conceived to be unfairly traduced and assailed, not only by his
political opponents, but by some of his former friends.]]
_January 23rd._--Went to the House of Commons last night. Francis
Egerton moved the Address very well, and his speech was admired.
Immediately after the seconder, Peel rose and spoke for about two
hours. A very fine speech in a very high tone. He owned to a change
of opinion which had been going on for two years; was confirmed by
the statistical result of his Free Trade experiment, and urged on
to action by the potato failure in November, when he wanted to call
Parliament together and open the ports, but was overruled in the
Cabinet, where he had only three others with him. His statistical
results were very curious. He declared himself indifferent to office,
which was too much for him bodily and intellectually, but while he
could be of use to the Queen and the country he would stay there. His
peroration was fine, in a tone of great excitement, very determined,
and full of defiance. He did not get a solitary cheer from the people
behind him, except when he said that Stanley had always been against
him and never admitted either the danger or the necessity, and then
the whole of those benches rang with cheers. He made two mistakes.
He went on too long upon his Conservative measures, in a strain
calculated to offend those in conjunction with whom he must now fight
this battle; and he talked of 'a proud aristocracy,' which was an
unlucky phrase, though clear from the context that he did not mean
anything offensive in it. It certainly was not a speech calculated
to lead to a reconciliation between him and the Tories; and it is
difficult to see how he will be able to go on after this session,
supposing him to settle the Corn Bill. Lord John rose after him, and
spoke very well; gave his explanation (Peel had explained everything
up to Lord John's being sent for), and read all the correspondence
that had passed. It was very full and open; very moderate about
Howick, for whom he expressed strong feelings of regard; very civil
to Peel, and altogether proper and well done. Then came an hour of
gibes and bitterness, all against Peel personally, from Disraeli,
with some good hits, but much of it tiresome; vehemently cheered by
the Tories, but not once by the Whigs, who last year used to cheer
similar exhibitions lustily. I never heard him before; his fluency is
wonderful, his cleverness great, and his mode of speaking certainly
effective, though there is something monotonous in it. In the Lords
the Duke of Wellington absurdly enough said he had not got the Queen's
leave to enter into any explanations, and this prevented the others
from doing so. In the end Howick will be sure to explain, but they
have moved heaven and earth to get him to hold his tongue. Bessborough
has passed hours and written volumes in this attempt.
[Sidenote: SIR ROBERT PEEL'S MEASURE.]
_January 28th._--Last night Peel brought forward his plan, amidst the
greatest curiosity and excitement: the House was crammed, and Prince
Albert there to mark the confidence of the Court. On Sunday I had seen
Charles Villiers and Bessborough, who both told me that there was a
bad disposition among the Whigs, many indisposed to attend, and many
only anxious to embarrass the Government, and they both thought the
difficulties were increasing. Charles Villiers told me, moreover, that
John Russell had asked him whether he meant to propose the _immediate
abolition_, supposing Peel did not make it part of his plan, adding
that if he would not, he himself should; and Charles Villiers thought
Peel ought to be made aware of this. I accordingly went to Graham
and told it him. He seemed struck by it, and then talked of the
measure; that at all events they would not 'die in a ditch,' but
would put before the world a great scheme such as no Minister ever
before brought forward; that it was an attempt to do by legislation
what Mr. Pitt had attempted to do by commercial treaties, and a great
deal more in the same strain expressive of his opinion that the plan
ought to be taken by the country, and his confidence that, however it
might be received now, hereafter it would be regarded with admiration
and applause, and that its principles could not fail in the end to
be adopted. I waited at the Travellers' for the result, and between
eight and nine the people came flocking in from the House of Commons,
full of very different sentiments and opinions. The Protectionists
were generally angry and discontented, none reconciled, and some who
had cherished hopes of better things very indignant. The Liberals
generally approved, though with some qualifications, and there was
less of admiration than I had expected from Graham's magnificent
description of the measure.[122]
[Footnote 122: [Sir Robert Peel's proposal was to effect the total
repeal of the Corn Laws in three years. During that interval the
duties on corn were to be governed by a sliding scale, beginning
at 10_s._ when the price of corn was below 48_s._, and falling to
a minimum of 4_s._ as the price rose. The Anti-Corn Law League and
the Free Traders at once pronounced themselves strongly in favour
of immediate and total repeal. As the price of wheat was at that
moment 55_s._ to 57_s._ a quarter, the minimum of the duty would
have come into immediate operation.]]
_January 29th._--Went to Clarendon's yesterday morning, and in a few
minutes John Russell came in; he was going to Lord Lansdowne, so I
walked away with him. He praised Peel's measure, though very coldly,
and finding many faults; not, however, that any enthusiasm was to be
expected from him. I told him that it appeared to have given great
satisfaction as far as I could see, except among the Tories, who
were furious, and would now be irreconcileable; that the Government,
therefore, could not last, and he would inevitably be sent for and
in office in a very short time. (I ought to have said that he began
by intimating that they would very likely still give way about
immediate repeal.) Without, therefore, any allusion to what he had
said to Charles Villiers, I said that I hoped he would so shape his
opposition, or (if it were not to be called opposition) his course, as
not to indispose Peel towards him; that if he came into office he must
be intrinsically weak, and that it would be of vital importance to him
to have Peel's support, which I had no doubt under the circumstances
he would receive. He said very little in reply, but something about
Peel's having very few people with him. I said possibly his support,
his numerical support, might not be very considerable, but that his
hostility would be very dangerous; and I again earnestly entreated him
not to do anything that would offend or estrange him now. He did not
controvert what I said, but I got nothing from him in reply to it, and
at the end of the Park we parted.
As I proceeded I fell in with other people--Charles Buller, Hawes, Sir
Charles Lemon, Fonblanque, and of the other faction, Lord Carnarvon.
The Liberals were full of praise, and Fonblanque said, 'I don't
hesitate to say it is the grandest scheme any Minister ever propounded
to Parliament. I look upon it as greater than the Reform Bill.' He
said, however, they must (the Liberals) propose immediate abolition;
Hawes said the same; Lord Carnarvon, one of the cleverest of the
Protectionists, seemed softened, and not indisposed (as I thought,
though he did not say so) to lay down his arms.
[Sidenote: HESITATION OF THE WHIGS.]
I saw Graham afterwards, and told him what the impression was, with
which he was excessively pleased. He had heard the same thing from
Warburton. He then talked of John Russell and the possibility of his
moving immediate repeal, said it would very likely drive them out if
he did; but 'what,' he said, 'can he want? He might have taken the
Government the other day, and carried his own measure, and Peel and
I should have given him all the support we could. He knew that; he
could not doubt it; and he knew what we meant to propose. When he
asked me to tell him officially what the Cabinet measure was to have
been, I could not tell him; but I did the same thing, for I told him
what I was myself prepared to do; therefore he knew perfectly well our
intentions. We could not do otherwise than we are doing; we must in
some degree defer to the wishes and opinions of those members of the
aristocracy in our Cabinet, like the Duke of Wellington and the Duke
of Buccleuch, whose aid and co-operation is of such importance to us.'
And then he talked of Lord John's letter to the Queen, which he (very
justly) thinks inconsistent with any such course as he supposes him to
meditate. I told him I thought the general opinion would be against
attacking their measure.
In the evening we all dined at the Duke of Buccleuch's for the
Sheriffs, and then I told him there had been a meeting at Lord John's
in the morning, where they had come to a resolution (twenty people
being present) to determine on nothing for the present; they are, in
fact, waiting to see how public opinion pronounces itself. Charles
Villiers wanted to get up in the House of Commons on Tuesday night and
declare his approbation of the plan, but Cobden would not let him.
Not, however, that this was unfair, for Peel begged people not to
express any opinion till they had had time to reflect upon it. I met
Peel at dinner yesterday, but he did not say one word to me about my
pamphlet, nor on any other subject. But Aberdeen came to me, and said
he had long wanted to see me to thank me for it, and then praised it
with a warmth and strength of expression that I was not prepared for.
_January 30th._--Yesterday morning Charles Villiers called on me to
say that there had been a meeting the night before at Ricardo's,
where Cobden, Wilson (Chairman of the London League), himself, and
some others dined; and Lord Grey came in the evening. Cobden was very
bitter against Peel, and Lord Grey, urgent for proposing immediate
repeal. This Cobden decided upon also, and Wilson went down to
Manchester yesterday morning to stir up public opinion there the same
way. Charles Villiers said it certainly would be proposed, and that
John Russell would as certainly support it. He asked whether there was
not a possibility of the Government giving way; and if, as appeared
lately, the Protectionists themselves were content to take it, whether
immediate repeal could not be substituted for the sliding scale. I
told him it was impossible; he said Lord Grey was going 'to break
ground' in the House of Lords last night. I went out soon after and
met Charles Wood, with whom I walked for half an hour. He was also
full of proposing immediate repeal, and talked in the same strain of
the preference of the Tories for it, rather than for the plan as it
is. I told him as strongly as I could what the risk and difficulty
would be of taking this course, implored him to accept the compromise
that was offered, and at all events that he would well weigh the
probable consequences of doing otherwise, and give my representations
some consideration. He seemed somewhat struck by what I said. I
then went to Graham, and told him of the meeting at Ricardo's, and
Wilson's journey, and Grey's intention, and that it was now clear
immediate repeal would be proposed, and that probably, though nothing
was settled, Lord John and the Whigs would support it. He said that
Ashley had just thrown in his Ten Hours Bill, availing himself of the
weakness and distracted state of the Government, and they were at
that moment (he and Peel) considering how they should deal with that
question; he then talked of the meditated assault upon them, and of
John Russell's conduct. I said that, looking at his last letter to the
Queen, I thought she would resent such an attack if he made it, and
consider it inconsistent with his engagement to her.[123] He said,
'I'll tell you what. You know I have a weakness for John Russell,
that from old recollections I have a great regard for him, as well as
admiration for his talents; but you may rely on it that if he takes
this course the Queen will never forgive him, and that she will send
for Lord Grey or for any man in her dominions rather than for him, if
she has to choose a new Minister, and that nothing but compulsion will
make her take him, for she will think that his engagement to her was a
trick, and that he has shamefully deceived her.'
[Sidenote: LORD JOHN'S PROMISE TO THE QUEEN.]
In the afternoon Charles Villiers came to me again, and told me
that Cobden had received a great many letters from Manchester and
elsewhere full of approbation of the scheme, and that it was very
evident (though the sliding scale was disliked very much) that there
would be a general manifestation of opinion in its favour, and such a
one that the Whigs would have a very good excuse for not supporting
the League, who must propose immediate repeal. What Charles Villiers
wants is that it should be proposed and be defeated. He is quite
content to take the plan as it is, but he cannot separate from his
friends, and Cobden considers himself obliged to propose it. After
all these communications I wrote to the Duke of Bedford, who is gone
to Belvoir, begging him to come up to town, telling him matters
were in a serious state, and that his moderating influence was very
necessary. In all this affair, so far, and since his speech the first
night which was very good, John Russell does not shine; but he is a
very clever, ingenious, but _little_ man, full of personal feelings
and antipathies, and not, I suspect, without something of envy, which
galls and provokes him and makes him lose his head and his temper
together. However, it is very necessary to keep him out of such a
scrape as he is getting himself into by his intended attack on the
Government measure, and in which the only safety for him would be in
defeat; not but what the attempt would do him irretrieveable mischief.
[Footnote 123: [Lord John Russell had stated in a letter to the
Queen (which was read in Parliament), on December 20th, that
'although he found it impossible to form an Administration, he
should he ready to do all in his power, as a Member of Parliament,
to promote the settlement of the question.']]
_February 2nd._--I dined with George Harcourt on Saturday, and sat
next to Macaulay at dinner, when we talked about the measure, and what
the Whigs should do. He was all for urging immediate repeal. I told
him they must take care not to put the measure itself in jeopardy, and
suggested my own view of what Peel might do, and what Lord John ought
to do after his letter to the Queen. He said, on the first point, that
he certainly would rather give up pressing for immediate repeal than
endanger the measure, but that if Peel would consider a vote carried
against him on that point so seriously as to induce him to throw it
up or resign, he ought to say so; he ought to take an opportunity of
giving them notice as to what he would regard in so serious a light,
that they might at least understand what they were about. As to the
second point, he said he was sure John Russell did not see it as I
did, and that not one of the eighteen or twenty persons who were
assembled the other day at his house took that view of it; that he
apprehended all Lord John meant was to intimate to the Queen that if
he did not succeed in improving the Bill in committee (which he was
entirely at liberty to do as he thought best), he should be content to
take it as the Government might have framed it. I said that I could
not possibly put any such construction on it, and that it seemed
hardly worth his while to tell the Queen that if he could not alter
it he would take it unaltered, which he could not help doing; and I
argued that taking it with the context of the letter, and with what
had previously passed, I thought nothing but the greatest sophistry
could put any other meaning on it than this--that though Peel's
measure might not be the same as his would have been, nevertheless he
would support it; that he would not insist as the condition of his
support that it should be exactly the same: and, therefore, to attack
it in an essential part, and the part he had specified as that which
he should not insist upon, would be a hostile move, and if successful
might have very serious consequences.
[Sidenote: IMMEDIATE REPEAL.]
In the evening I met Monteagle at Lady Palmerston's, when he took me
aside and said, 'I want to say something to you. If Peel will consider
an attempt to substitute immediate repeal fatal to his measure, he
ought to say so, he ought to give some notice of his intentions.' I
merely said, 'I understand you,' and we parted. Yesterday morning
I called on Graham and had a long conversation with him, telling
him precisely what had passed. I was not prepared for what he said
in reply, inasmuch as it indicated a possibility at least of their
adopting the immediate repeal instead of their own plan. He said
it would be very difficult for Peel to give any such intimation as
they required, and very inexpedient to fetter himself in any way, as
it was quite impossible to say what course it might eventually be
expedient to adopt; that if, as there seemed some reason to believe,
the agriculturists themselves should clearly manifest a preference
for immediate repeal, it might be advisable to alter the measure; and
he then told me of a letter Sidney Herbert had received from a large
farmer, one of his constituents, approving the measure, but regretting
it was not immediate; and he then enlarged on all the objections to
Peel's committing himself before he knew what turn affairs might take.
I said Peel was quite right, and that it was not necessary he should
do so at present, and all that was necessary was that before they came
to any important vote he should let the Whigs know what might be the
consequences of such a vote. In the debate itself, or just before it,
would be time enough to speak, that they might know what his feelings
were. He acquiesced in this, and said it might be done. He then talked
of Cobden's letter, and how able it was; of their position, and the
difficulties with their own Cabinet. It is perfectly clear that he
and Peel would both gladly propose immediate repeal, but cannot do
so unless the two Dukes (Wellington and Buccleuch), and the others
who are unwilling repealers, will consent, and with them it is more
an affair of pride than anything else. He said a great deal of the
importance of getting the Duke of Buccleuch's assistance on this
occasion, which carried or neutralised Scotland. This he repeated very
often, making it of more importance than I thought it was. He then
talked of the resignations of seats, which he thought very serious,
injurious, and wrong, the recognition of a democratic principle,
and he expressed great apprehension lest these examples should lead
others to do the same; then about Stanley and his bitterness, thought
that he would be disposed to advise the Lords to pass the Bill if it
went up to them, but that he would hardly be able to restrain himself
from making strong speeches, and if he got warmed up and poured forth
all his feelings and opinions, he would find an audience ready to
sympathise with him, and that without intending it he would become
the leader of a Protectionist party, and nobody could tell what might
be the consequences if he did put himself at their head. He said
Stanley disliked the manufacturing interest, and its progress and
power in Lancashire and all round about him at Knowsley, where his
territorial power was diminished by the contact. I asked him why they
had not resigned (he and Peel) early in November, which would have
been much better as it had turned out. He said it would, but that he
had been acting for twenty years with Stanley and Peel, for a still
longer time with the Duke, and they could not break up the Government
without making an attempt to bring them round to their views and
giving them time for consideration. He talked again of John Russell,
and said he was disappointed at the spirit he evinced, and repeated
that the Queen's feelings would be very strong and her resentment
considerable if he took a part inconsistent with what she considered
his engagement to her. I strongly urged him, if possible, to make the
repeal immediate, suggesting how desirable it was to take away all
pretext for the continuance of the League; and telling him, which he
was disposed to doubt, that Cobden certainty did wish to close his
own career of agitation and settle the whole question, but that there
were others who wanted to keep it open and to tack on other objects
to Corn Law agitation, who would therefore rejoice that the sliding
scale was still continued. We had a very long talk, which I have put
down _anyhow_, and of course have omitted a great many particulars. He
ended by saying I must be very cautious in what I said to those with
whom I had been conversing in reference to what had passed between
him and me; and I replied that I should say nothing, that almost
anything would perhaps give rise to misconceptions and expectations,
and that I should simply say I had made known what they wished Peel to
know. He read me some extracts from his own and Peel's speeches, to
show that they had said enough to satisfy everybody they had changed
their opinions some time ago; but these extracts were very vague. He
did this on my lamenting that Peel had not been more explicit, and
had not better prepared his party for the change which he must have
been contemplating, however undecided he might have been as to time.
He also read me the letter which he wrote to Peel in October last,
stating his opinion that the ports must be opened, and this must lead
to a settlement of the Corn Laws. I always supposed he had taken the
initiative on this occasion.
[Sidenote: MORE MODERATE COUNSELS.]
_February 8th._--It is thought that the violence of the Protectionists
is somewhat abated, and giving way to despondence. The resignations
of seats still continue, but Peel is in high spirits, not at all
dejected or dismayed. Francis Egerton went to Graham the other day and
strongly advised him to give up the three years' delay. Meanwhile the
Whigs have become perfectly reasonable, and mean to yield anything
rather than risk the success of the measure. Clarendon had a long
conversation with John Russell, and urged on him the expediency of
moderation, and pointed out how he had bound himself by his letter to
the Queen. He denied this, but yielded to the general argument, not
however failing to display his bitterness towards Peel. He said since
he had read my pamphlet he had a worse opinion of him than ever, and
he saw no reason why he should do anything to assist him; that he
(Peel) had no claim on him. I told Clarendon that the real truth was
that he was jealous of Peel and envious, he could not bear Peel's
popularity and the prevailing opinion that he was the best man. It
is all very small, but he _is_ small, and since I have looked more
narrowly into past transactions, and his career, I am the more struck
with it.
Yesterday I had Delane to dine with me, and Foster, the 'Times'
Commissioner in Ireland, a very intelligent man, with plenty to say
and no difficulty in saying it. My banquet to these potentates of the
press did very well.
_February 12th._--The debate in the House of Commons has been going on
two nights, and will go on two or three more; very dull and languid.
Graham and Sidney Herbert made speeches which have not been well
received, and there is no disguising the fact that they cannot wriggle
themselves out of a very awkward position, and no boldness or candour
prevents their cutting a very sorry figure. However right the measure
may be, and however pure their motives in acting as they do, it is
vain to attempt to persuade people that there has not been something
very wrong somewhere, and at some time. Nobody now doubts that the
question will be carried, and that Peel will go out soon after. Ellice
told me last night he had been doing all he could with John Russell
to induce him to conciliate Peel, and to prepare when he came in to
form a junction with some of Peel's people, such as Lincoln, Sidney
Herbert, and Dalhousie, and to take them in as guarantees of the
principles of his Government, and to ensure Peel's support. The advice
is not bad, but I doubt his following it; he hates Peel so cordially
that I doubt his doing anything which would savour of an alliance with
him of any sort. But Lord John has behaved very well and very wisely
about this measure, and spoke on Monday just as he ought.
[Sidenote: DEBATE ON THE CORN LAWS.]
_February 14th._--I saw Aberdeen yesterday. He told me Peel was
full of spirits and determination; he (Aberdeen) thought they could
not go on long, though he believed they would not be beaten on the
Sugar Duties, and he did not know on what question they would be
defeated; and then they would have to decide whether they should try
a dissolution, for which the Queen would press vehemently, for (he
said) she was quite as anxious to keep Peel as ever she had been
to keep Melbourne. I told him I hoped they would never think of
dissolving unless pretty sure of success; that the Whigs had disgraced
themselves and lost everything by this measure in 1841, and nothing
but success could justify such an appeal. He said he quite agreed with
me; and though he evidently wishes to stay in, he is prepared to go
out, and would prefer doing so with credit rather than sticking to
place dangerously and disreputably.
_February 16th._--The debate in the House of Commons (the dullest
on record) lasted all last week, and will probably last all this.
Meanwhile affairs grow daily more uncomfortable and perplexed. The
Government measure will certainly pass the House of Commons by a
majority under one hundred, and most people think it will pass the
House of Lords. Then will come the dissolution of the Government and
the advent of John Russell; but how he is to get on, or what is to
happen afterwards, nobody has an idea. Though the Tories have made
up their minds to be defeated, they show no symptom of mitigated
feelings towards Peel and the Government, but the contrary. The debate
presents hardly any argument on their side, but bitter lamentations
and reproaches, and quotations from former speeches or addresses of
the Ministers who are now abandoning them. On the other hand, the
Liberals, while they support Peel, encourage and confirm the Tories
in their indignation and resentment, and they abuse the Government
quite as lustily, not for what they are doing now, but for all they
have been saying and doing for the last four years. The whole of the
press takes the same line, the Tory and Whig papers naturally; and the
'Times' chuckles and sneers, and alternately attacks and ridicules
Whigs, Protectionists, and Peelites.
There was a comment on my pamphlet in defence of Peel in Ward's paper,
the 'Weekly Chronicle,' yesterday; very well done, with much truth in
it. The real fact is that Peel is not obnoxious to blame for what he
has _done_; it is very fair for party men to attack him on this score,
but he is easily defensible on it. But nothing can excuse all that
he and his colleagues have _said_. When the best excuse their conduct
admits of is made for them, it will be found that their language,
the opinions and the arguments they have put forth do not correspond
with the excuse. This is the first point against them, and the second
is that they have made out no adequate case for doing now what they
have done. The case which Graham put forth really is no case at all.
All this does unquestionably give their friends and supporters a
just cause of complaint; and though as a Free Trader I rejoice at
the repeal of the Corn Laws, I must own that if I belonged to Peel's
party I should feel the same disgust and indignation they all do.
Then there is no denying the immensity of the moral mischief that has
been done. It is very remarkable that I am the only person who has
defended Peel and made any apology for him whatever. It is impossible
that hundreds of people, members of both Houses of Parliament, and the
whole press should go on day after day crying out against treachery
and deceit and a violation of public honour, and not produce a deep
and strong impression. When one hears the apologies the Ministers
make for themselves, one cannot but feel how insufficient they are.
There is no getting over the speeches that are flung in their faces;
they are unquestionably _now_ conscientious in what they are doing;
but what were they before? If they were sincere before, if they did
not anticipate the changes they are now (as they think) compelled
to make, they were blind and unsafe guides, deficient in sagacity
and foresight. I must say that, on calm reflexion, I think Peel has
shown throughout this matter a considerable want of skill and wisdom.
His scheme of gradual alteration and step by step Reform was wise,
and probably was the only one practicable; but by his speeches he
has counteracted his own object. He was so afraid of saying too much
at first, and of prematurely frightening his friends, that he ran
into the opposite danger of confirming them in the convictions and
expectations which it was his object to loosen; and at all events, if
he did say enough to alarm them with a vague alarm, he said so little
as to give them the right they are now exercising of reproaching him
for the deceit he practised. He would have done much better to have
proclaimed boldly at first that the principle of Free Trade was sound,
but that its application was difficult, and could only be made safely
by being made gradually and slowly. In this way he might have availed
himself of what he calls his three years' experiment; but when he puts
it forward as the ground of his conversion, everybody laughs at it and
knows he is not speaking the truth. For my part, I earnestly wish to
see this question settled, and the Government out; they cannot remain
in either advantageously or creditably. If they can redeem their
credit, it must be out of office, and through the success of their
measure. To have sacrificed themselves to it is the only atonement
that can be accepted for their former disingenuous professions. Their
position is now very mortifying and embarrassing; their people who
vacate can none of them be re-elected.
[Sidenote: WESTMINSTER ELECTION.]
Rous will be beaten for Westminster, which will be a great slap on
the face to the Government. This is the result of bad management; he
never ought to have resigned without being pretty sure of re-election;
neither he nor the Government took any pains to ascertain his
chance. He fancied himself secure, told Peel so, and Peel believed
him. The tardy and reluctant resignations of seats of some, and the
clinging to seats of others, have excited a good deal of derision and
disapprobation; in short, there is no shutting one's eyes to the fact,
that this measure, so salutary in itself, is making its way through
much that is deplorable and injurious to public morals. It matters not
that by a very minute analysis it may be proved that the men who are
accused are not really so much to blame as they appear, that it is
difficult to show clearly what they ought to have done at different
periods instead of what they have done; the loud and general clamour
produces an effect which cannot be prevented, and they have furnished
out of their own mouths materials for any condemnation their enemies,
old or new, are disposed to pass on them.
_February 18th._--The night before last Peel made a very grand speech,
vindicating himself in a very high tone, making out a very good case
for his measure _at this time_, and dealing in details with his usual
skill. It was certainly one of his most successful efforts, and
Charles Villiers told Clarendon it was one of the finest speeches he
ever heard in Parliament. It served, however, to widen the breach
between himself and the Tory party. Clarendon told me that he had been
very unfair to John Russell in one point, when he said that he thought
he would have carried the measure if he had taken office; that he must
know this was not the case, for Peel would not have been able to bring
twenty people with him when out of office.
While Peel was making this great speech in the House of Commons,
Stanley was making a very different sort of speech in the Lords. There
he denounced the measure in strong terms, exhibited a bitter feeling,
and a disposition to put himself at the head of the Protectionists and
throw out the measure. Such was the impression he gave, and his speech
was rapturously hailed both there and elsewhere. It filled with alarm
all the moderate people, and encouraged the violent. It is, however,
quite impossible to conjecture what he will do when it comes to the
point. It is difficult to decide whether his object is ambition and
power, or only sport and mischief. As to his forming a Government,
he is himself quite as unfit as the rest are incompetent. There is
probably not a public man in the country who inspires so little
confidence. His speech, however, has made the cauldron boil more hotly
than ever, and increased the doubt whether the measure will pass.
[Sidenote: INCONSISTENCY OF BOTH PARTIES.]
I have had a long correspondence with the Duke of Bedford about people
and things connected with this affair, and as he was always drawing
comparisons between the purity and consistency of Lord John, and the
dishonesty and inconsistency of others, I at last resolved to show him
what Lord John's own course had been (though without finding fault
with him), but letting him see that he was just as obnoxious to the
charge of inconsistency or insincerity, if an enemy wished to urge
it, as Peel or anybody else. I proved to him that between 1828 when
he became (by his own avowal) the advocate of a fixed duty and 1839,
during eleven years, he never opened his lips in favour of it; and on
every occasion when it was brought forward by anybody else, he voted
against it or stayed away. Then he advocated a fixed duty in 1841; and
having done so with cogent reasons up to June 1845, in November of the
same year he blurted out his famous letter declaring for total Repeal.
The only excuse that his conduct admits of is that of expediency,
the very same that is demanded, on grounds at least as strong, for
Peel; but circumstances place the one man beyond the necessity of an
apology, and render the other incapable of making the real and true
one. Peel's best excuse for not having done before what he is doing
now is afforded by the actual state of affairs. In spite of four or
five years of discussion, of the dissemination of sound principles, of
the diffusion of knowledge, of numerous and respectable conversions,
of the success of his partial experiments in Free Trade, and of his
having the potato famine as a base for his operation, he cannot do
what he does now without entirely breaking up his party, and he has to
encounter difficulties almost insurmountable--_si argumentum requiris
circumspice_.
_February 25th._--The debate drags on, this being the third week of
it. The Protectionists are very proud of the fight they have made,
which in point of fact has been plausible and imposing enough, though
for the most part consisting of sarcasms and assaults upon the
Ministers and their supporters, and with a very slender portion of
argument mixed therewith. Their great hero, Disraeli, spoke on Friday
for two hours and a half, cleverly and pointedly; it was meant to be
an argumentative speech, and to exhibit his powers in the grave line.
Accordingly there was very little of his accustomed bitterness and
impertinent sarcasms on Peel, but a great deal of statistical detail
and reasoning upon it. The Protectionists thought it very fine, but
in reality it was poor and worthless; and on Monday night Sir George
Clerk, who is no great orator, made a very complete exposure of the
fallacy of his arguments and the inaccuracy of his facts. Nobody has
the least idea what the Lords will do, whether they will pass it, or
throw it out altogether, or adopt Lord Ashburton's proposal of making
the reduced sliding scale permanent.
These last few days we have been occupied with the Indian news, which
has superseded the interest of the debate. Nobody knows what to think
of it, the slaughter so dreadful, the success so equivocal, and the
conduct of the authorities so questionable. At all events it was a
great feat of arms as far as bravery and resolution go; but we seem to
have been surprised, and it appears monstrous that a Sikh army should
be provided with a _matériel_ so superior to ours, an artillery with
which ours could not cope.[124]
[Footnote 124: [The battle of Aliwal was fought on January 28th by
Sir Harry Smith against the Sikhs. This action was followed by the
battles of Moodkee and Ferozeshah, and the final defeat of the Sikh
army on February 10th at Sobraon. These were the fiercest and most
sanguinary battles ever fought by the British in India, The Sikh
army had 30,000 men, Khalsa troops, and seventy pieces of cannon,
and they were ably commanded. The result of these victories was the
annexation of the Punjaub to the British Empire.]]
[Sidenote: LORD GEORGE BENTINCK'S SPEECH.]
_March 1st._--On Friday night at three o'clock, after twelve nights'
debate, the House divided and the Government measure was carried by
97; but for the delay and some casualties the majority would have
topped 100. George Bentinck, who had all along threatened to speak,
and had gone through a most laborious preparation, and was armed at
all points with statistical details, wound up the debate in a speech
of three hours' length, which was listened to with great impatience,
restrained only by consideration for a speaker so unused to address
the House. As his speech consisted entirely of statistical details,
it was, as might have been expected, intolerably tiresome, and he
committed an enormous error in judgement in rising at twelve o'clock
at night on the last day, when everybody was weary, exhausted, sick
of the debate, and eager for the division. Nothing would have then
gone down but a smart, brilliant, Israelitish philippic, if even
that would. It was wonderful that the House was so enduring as it
was, but everybody I have seen acknowledges that it was, all things
considered, a very remarkable performance, exhibited great power of
mind, extraordinary self-possession and clearness, and proving beyond
a doubt that if he had for the last twenty years devoted himself to
business instead of to horse-racing, if he had cultivated his mind and
practised himself in the business of the House of Commons, he might
have taken a high place in political life. My testimony as regards him
is beyond suspicion, for we are not friends, and I have no doubt it is
true that he has wasted energies and misused talents which, properly
exercised, would have conferred on him an honourable fame, and made
his career creditable and useful.
Cobden made an extraordinary speech last night, but one of the ablest
I ever read, and it was, I am told, more striking still to hear,
because so admirably delivered. The general opinion at Brooks's
yesterday was, that this division would make the Lords pass the bill.
On the whole, but with much hesitation, I incline to think so too; but
it is very doubtful.
Now that we have got the whole of the Indian news, it is clear that
Hardinge's mismanagement has been very great.[125] He was in a
continual cloud of error, not believing that would happen which did,
though with every reason for its probability, and consequently making
none of the preparations for encountering the danger, till so late
that there was just a possibility of meeting and repelling it, and no
more. From all these negligences and errors we have suffered such a
loss as we never experienced in India before, so great as to take away
all the pleasure and exultation we should naturally feel at a military
exploit the brilliancy and bravery of which never was surpassed.
[Footnote 125: [This stricture has not been borne out by public
opinion. If Lord Hardinge was not fully prepared for the emergency,
it was owing to his extreme reluctance to go to war; but the
magnanimity and gallantry of his conduct in the field, and the
splendour of these victories, silenced all criticism, as is fairly
stated by Mr. Greville a little further on.]]