CHAPTER VI.

Dinner to Sir Charles Napier--A Ministerial Indiscretion--Doubts as

to the Reform Bill--Discontent of Lord John Russell--The Secret

Correspondence with Russia--War declared--Weakness of the

Government--Mr. Greville disapproves the War--Divisions in the

Cabinet--Withdrawal of the Reform Bill--Blunder of the

Government--The Fast Day--Licences to trade in War--Death of the

Marquis of Anglesey--Mr. Gladstone's Financial

Failures--Dissolution of Parties--Mr. Gladstone's Budget--Lord

Cowley's Opinion of the Emperor's Position--The House of Commons

supports the War--Disraeli attacks Lord John Russell--A Change of

Plans--Lord John Russell's Mismanagement--Attacks on Lord

Aberdeen--Popularity of the War--Government Majority in the

Lords--Attitude of the German Powers--A Meeting of the Liberal

Party--An Appointment cancelled--Expedition to the Crimea--English

and French Policy united in Spain--Close of the Session--The

Character of Lord Aberdeen's Government--Effect of the Quarrel with

Russia--Lord Palmerston's Resignation--Waywardness of the House of

Commons.

DINNER TO SIR CHARLES NAPIER.

_London, March 13th_, 1854.--The only event of recent occurrence was

the dinner given last week to Sir Charles Napier at the Reform Club,

with Lord Palmerston in the chair. Everybody disapproves of the whole

proceeding, which is thought to have been unwise and in bad taste. The

only Ministers there besides Palmerston were Graham and Molesworth, and

the former made an excessively foolish, indiscreet speech, which has

been generally censured, and to-night he is to be called to account for

it in the House of Commons. It is marvellous that a man of mature age,

who has been nearly forty years in public life, should be so rash and

ill-judged in his speeches.[1] There seems now to be a better chance of

John Russell's again putting off his Reform Bill next month. There are

not two opinions, except among the extreme Radicals, of the expediency

of his doing so, and his best friends (including his brother) greatly

regret that he did not put it off _sine die_ instead of to another fixed

day.

[Footnote 1: At this dinner at the Reform Club, Sir James Graham made

an intemperate speech in which he said: 'My gallant friend (Napier) says

that when he goes into the Baltic he will declare war. I, as First Lord

of the Admiralty, give my free consent to do so. I hope the war may be

short, and that it may be sharp.' Sir Charles Napier's subsequent

performances in the Baltic did not at all correspond to this heroic

language, and did not add to his former reputation.]

_March 20th._--There has been a little episode, not very important, but

which being entirely personal caused some noise in the world. About a

week ago, or perhaps more, appeared the Petersburg 'Gazette' with a sort

of manifesto, complaining bitterly of the conduct of the British

Government, which was said to be the more inexcusable as a confidential

correspondence had taken place between the two Governments, and we had

been all along informed of their views and intentions. The 'Times'

published this (as did all the other papers), and with it a peremptory

denial of its truth, stating that John Russell, then Foreign Secretary,

had sent an indignant refusal to the proposals made to us. Derby took

this up in the House of Lords, complaining of State secrets having been

imparted to the 'Times,' and insinuating his belief that Aberdeen had

communicated them. Aberdeen denied the imputation with some resentment,

and said that a flagrant breach of confidence had been certainly

committed, and he had reason to believe that the culprit was a man

formerly in the Foreign Office as clerk, though now out of it, who had

been appointed by Lord Malmesbury. On this Malmesbury flared up, and

desired to know his name, which Aberdeen said he did not know. On a

subsequent night Malmesbury again took the matter up, and challenged

Aberdeen to give the name and produce his proof. Aberdeen said he had

received the information in a way which left no doubt on his mind of its

truth, and he was willing to leave the matter to the gentleman himself,

and if he denied it, he would acknowledge that he was mistaken and had

been misinformed. By this time everybody was aware that a young man of

the name of Astley was the accused party. He wrote a letter to

Malmesbury denying the charge, but his letter was not very distinct.

However, Malmesbury read it in the House, and called on Aberdeen to

retract the charge, which he immediately and completely did, and there

the matter ended; but though the man is thus acquitted, and the

Opposition papers abuse Aberdeen (who in fact was very imprudent to

mention it), there seems no doubt that he really did babble about this

matter, though it is very certain it was not from him the 'Times' got

its information.[1] The story told is this: Astley talked of the

correspondence to some person in a railway carriage. That person told it

to Lady Ashburton, who repeated it to Clarendon. When thus talked of, it

might easily get to the 'Times;' and the only wonder is, it did not get

into many other papers besides.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S REFORM BILL.

Lord John Russell continues in a very perplexed and uncertain state

about his Reform Bill, and hesitates whether to bring it on or not next

month. On one hand he is urged to do so by his little knot of domestic

adherents, by Graham vehemently, and to a certain degree by Aberdeen; on

the other he is entreated and argued with by all the rest of his

colleagues, by his brother, by Hayter, and by an immense majority of his

political friends and supporters. Still he hesitates. He has got a

notion, and others tell him so, that his character is concerned in

bringing it on, and that he is bound to risk everything to maintain it.

Graham is quite inconceivable; always rash at one moment and cowardly at

another, he is now, and on this question, in his rashest mood, and he

has persuaded himself, and tries to persuade Lord John, that if he

perseveres and is beaten (which he cannot disguise from himself is

probable, if not certain) he will only have to go out in order to return

in triumph as Prime Minister. If a dissolution is proposed, and the

Cabinet consent to it, he fancies a new Parliament will give him

everything; if the Cabinet will not dissolve, Lord John, Graham and

Aberdeen would retire, the Government be broken up, and Lord John would

have Parliament and the country with him in forming another. All this I

believe to be pure delusion. By persisting in his course he may, and

probably would, break up the Government, but he would destroy himself,

he would never be forgiven by his party or by the country at large for

breaking up the Government at such a moment as this, and all his visions

of success and power would soon be dispersed. Whatever else might

happen, he would be excluded from office, probably for ever. His

discontent with his present position the more inclines him to take this

hazardous step, because he wants a change of some sort.

The Duke of Bedford came to me the other day to tell me Lord John was

determined no longer to go on as he now is, and it seems that he is

moved principally by pecuniary considerations.[2] He is poor and has a

large family. While he is in office he is obliged to incur expenses by

giving dinners and parties, and this additional expense is defrayed by

the Duke, but in a very unsatisfactory way. Lord John sends him a sort

of estimate or account of his extra expenses, and the Duke pays the

money. It is not surprising that Lord John dislikes such assistance as

this, and though he never complains, he is probably mortified and

provoked that his brother does not once for all give him a sum of money

or a large annuity. Everybody else is amazed that he does not do this;

but though he is much attached to Lord John, admires and is proud of

him, his love of money is so great that he cannot bring himself, even

for his brother, to do a generous thing on a great scale. His colossal

fortune, which goes on increasing every day, and for which he has no

use, might well be employed in making his brother easy, and in buying

golden opinions for himself; but the passion of avarice and the pleasure

of accumulation outweigh all such considerations, and he falls in

readily with Lord John's notion of taking an office for the sake of its

emoluments. The present idea is to have this matter settled before

Easter, to turn out Mr. Strutt from the Duchy of Lancaster, and put

Lord John in the place, with an increased salary during his occupation

of it. Nothing, however, is settled about it yet.

The publication of the secret correspondence with Russia has excited

great interest, and does great credit to the Government, but it

increases the public indignation against the Emperor, because it exposes

the extreme duplicity of his conduct; and as he must have been aware

that such would be the inevitable result of publicity, it is difficult

to conceive what induced him to provoke it, unless Walewski's conjecture

is the true one. He thinks that the Emperor thought it would make bad

blood between us and France, fancying that we had not imparted the

correspondence to the French Government, in which he was mistaken, as we

had done so.

[Footnote 1: The indiscretion, such as it was, appears to have been

that of Lord Aberdeen himself, and Lord Malmesbury quoted with a good

deal of wit and _à propos_, in the House of Lords, Sancho Panza's

saying, 'that a cask may leak at the top as well as at the bottom.']

[Footnote 2: Lord John at this time had a seat in the Cabinet and led

the House of Commons without any office in the Ministry and without any

salary.]

WAR IS DECLARED.

_March 29th._--The die is cast, and war was declared yesterday. We are

already beginning to taste the fruits of it. Every species of security

has rapidly gone down, and everybody's property in stocks, shares, &c.,

is depreciated already from twenty to thirty per cent. I predict

confidently that, before many months are over, people will be as

heartily sick of it as they are now hot upon it. Nobody knows where our

fleets and armies are going, nor what they mean to attempt, and we are

profoundly ignorant of the resources and power of Russia to wage war

against us. As the time for action approaches, Austria and Prussia grow

more reluctant to engage in it. The latter has proclaimed her

neutrality, and unless some events should make a change in her policy, I

do not believe the former will ever be induced to _act_ with us and

against Russia. The Government here are in a very weak unsatisfactory

state. They are supported in carrying on war, but in every other respect

they are treated with great indifference, and appear to have very little

authority or influence either in Parliament or in the country. Nobody

seems to have risen in estimation, except perhaps Clarendon, who has

done his work well and got credit for it. Palmerston and Graham have

positively disgraced themselves by their dinner to Napier, and the

foolish speeches they made both there and in the House of Commons

afterwards. I do not know what Palmerston's popularity might turn out to

be if it should be tested by some change which brought him forward, but

he certainly has greatly lost ground this year by his whole conduct from

his resignation down to this time. Gladstone, the great card of the

pack, has forfeited by the failure of his financial schemes a good deal

of the credit he had obtained. John Russell has offended everybody by

his obstinacy about his ill-timed Reform Bill, so that the Government

does not stand very high, and is only strong in the weakness of all

other parties. They are constantly beaten on small matters in the House

of Commons, which produces a bad effect. Up to this moment nobody knows

what John Russell means to do about the Reform Bill; if he puts it off

again, he ought to do so to-morrow, when the discussion will take place

about the declaration of war.

_April 2nd._--The debates in both Houses were marked by great bitterness

on the part of the Opposition, by Derby in one House, and by Disraeli

and Layard in the other. The war fever is still sufficiently raging to

make it impossible for any man who denounces the war itself to obtain a

patient hearing. Nobody ventures to cry out against it but Bright in the

House of Commons, and Grey in the House of Lords, but already I see

symptoms of disquietude and alarm. Some of those who were most warlike

begin to look grave, and to be more alive to the risks, difficulties,

and probably dangers of such a contest. I cannot read the remonstrances

and warnings of Bright without going very much along with him; and the

more I reflect on the nature of the contest, its object, and the degree

to which we are committed in it, the more uneasy I feel about it, and

the more lively my apprehensions are of our finding ourselves in a very

serious dilemma, and being involved in great embarrassments of various

sorts. Amongst other misfortunes, one is the discredit into which

Gladstone has fallen as a financier. Notwithstanding his extraordinary

capacity, most people who are conversant with the subject of finance

think he has greatly mismanaged his affairs, and suffered his notions or

crotchets to get the better of his prudence, and consequently that he

has prepared for himself as Chancellor of the Exchequer very great

difficulties. His Budget last year was so popular, and his wonderful

readiness and skill in dealing with everything relating to finance

excited so much admiration, that his reputation was prodigious, and he

was not only the strength of the Government, but was marked out as the

future Prime Minister whenever changes took place. All this _prestige_

is very much diminished; and although his failures are in great measure

attributable to accidents over which he had no control, many who are not

unfriendly to him think he has been rash, obstinate, and injudicious,

and no longer feel the same confidence in him which they did a short

time ago.

DIVISIONS IN THE CABINET.

_April 3rd._--The Duke of Bedford has just been here, as uneasy about

the state of affairs and as disgusted and alarmed at the war as I am. He

does not know what Lord John will do about the Reform Bill, but fears

rather than hopes as to his intentions. Aberdeen had desired that there

should be a Cabinet before Easter, and that Lord John should _then_

determine what he would do, but Palmerston requested that the final

decision should only be made on the 26th, the day before that on which

it is to come on. What his object is, they do not know. The Duke in

talking to Lord John suggested the certainty of his breaking up the

Government by bringing on his measure, and the enormous evil this would

be, to which Lord John replied that if he knew what the internal state

of the Government was, he would perhaps not think the evil of the

dissolution so great. The fact is, that when the Opposition, as is their

wont, taunt the Government with their internal disagreement and want of

cordiality and union, they are much more right than they themselves are

aware of. The Duke told me that the Queen told him the other day that

she had herself written to Lord John urging him to give up bringing on

his Bill. Not long ago the Queen was in favour of proceeding with it,

but circumstances were very different at that time.

_April 15th._--This has been a week of excitement. It had been settled

that on Monday last John Russell should announce his intention with

regard to the Reform Bill. His uncertainty still prevailed, and he got

into such a state of mind about it that it made him ill. He could not

sleep, and was in a terrible state of vexation and perplexity. Aberdeen

then proposed to him to give up the Bill, but to obtain from the Cabinet

a unanimous consent to his pledging them to go on with it hereafter at

some indefinite time. On Saturday there was a Cabinet, at which he made

this proposal, but Palmerston and Lansdowne both refused their consent,

and Lansdowne was in conversation with his friends very vehement about

it. Graham appears to have been reasonable at this Cabinet, and ready to

adopt the course proposed to Lord John. It was eventually settled that

he should announce the abandonment of the Bill, and make the best

statement he could, not pledging the _whole_ Cabinet as he had intended;

but before this he urged them to accept his resignation, which they

refused, and then Palmerston begged he might resign, which they refused

equally. So matters stood on Saturday night, and everybody believed it

was settled. On Sunday Lord John's doubts and fears returned, his mind

became unsettled again, and he was inclined to withdraw from his

agreement and to go on. To the surprise of the whole House of Commons,

when Monday came, Lord John only said he would make his statement the

next day. Everybody saw something was wrong, and the curiosity and

excitement were very great. All Monday and Tuesday mornings were passed

in conferences and going backwards and forwards, the Duke of Bedford

being called in to work upon Lord John. He did his best, and at last on

Tuesday morning he and others finally persuaded Lord John to adhere to

what had been determined and withdraw his Bill. This he did in a very

good speech, full of an emotion and manifestation of sensibility which

succeeded completely with the House, and he was greeted with prodigious

cheering and compliments and congratulations on all sides. Nothing could

in fact go off better, or in a way more gratifying to him, and the

Government appears to have been strengthened by the operation. His

emotion was sincere, because he is no actor, but it was in my opinion

totally uncalled for; and as there is but a step between the sublime and

the ridiculous, it might just as well have appeared ridiculous; but

fortunately for him his audience were disposed to take it _au grand

sérieux_. Even his brother, partial as he is to him, takes the same view

of this that I do, and has written to me that as Lord John has often

been abused when he did not deserve it, so he has now been overpraised.

A FAST DAY.

_April 24th._--When this Government was formed, its principal merit was

supposed to be its great administrative capacity, and the wonderful way

in which the business of the country was to be done. It has turned out

just the reverse of what was expected, for they commit one blunder after

another, and nothing can be more loose, careless, and ignorant than the

way in which their business is conducted. All sorts of mistakes and

embarrassments are continually occurring in the House of Commons, and I

have had occasion to see ample proofs of what I say, in all that has

been done and is doing about licences and trade permissions, consequent

on the recent declarations and Orders in Council.[1] Now another matter

has occurred, discreditable from the carelessness which has been

evinced. When it was thought necessary to order a fast day for the war,

the Queen set her face against it. She thought it very absurd (as it is)

and objected _in toto_. Aberdeen with some difficulty overcame her

objections, setting forth that it had been done by George III., and that

the religious part of the community would make a clamour if it were not

done. So she gave way, but still insisted it should not be a 'fast,' so

they settled it should be a day of 'humiliation.' The Archbishop of

Canterbury fully concurred, and the proclamation was issued accordingly.

But the other day the merchants took alarm, and represented that, as the

word 'fast' was omitted, the case would not come within the provisions

of Masterman's Bill, and that bills of exchange, &c., would be payable

on the day itself, and not the day before as provided by that Act, and

that all sorts of confusion would arise. The Bank of England took the

Solicitor General's opinion, who thought that such would be the law. A

great difficulty arose, for time pressed. The Chancellor thought the

case would stand, and was for taking the chance, but the Cabinet on

Saturday decided that it would be safer to correct the error even thus

late. Aberdeen went to the Queen and told her, and this afternoon there

is to be a Council to turn the 'day of humiliation' into a 'fast day,'

in order that 'merchants' bills may be presented on one day instead of

another, and that banking operations may not be deranged. The ridicule

this throws on the religious part of the question is obvious, and the

effect it ought to have is to discontinue these preposterous

observances, which all sensible people regard as a mockery and a

delusion. But all this ought to have been provided for, and the law

officers ought to have foreseen the consequences and advised

accordingly. In Peel's time this never would have happened; but with a

nominal Premier, a Home Secretary who will give himself no trouble about

the details of his office, and an Attorney General who does nothing,

knows nothing of law, and won't attend to anything, it is no wonder that

such things and many others occur.

To return to the question of trading licences. When we went to war, the

Government, I believe very wisely, resolved to relax belligerent rights

and give all possible latitude to trade, with no more restrictions and

reservations than were essentially necessary for carrying on the war.

But this resolution involved a revolution of the old system and the

necessity of completely constructing a new one, and as they long ago

knew war was inevitable, they ought to have well considered all this,

and framed their regulations before they issued their orders. But not a

bit of this was done, and the consequence was a state of unparalleled

confusion and embarrassment, applications from all sides, and hosts of

petitions for leave to export goods of different descriptions. The

Government at last set to work to deal with these cases, but in a very

irregular, unbusinesslike way. Some two or three of them met in

Committee at the Council Office, and with the help of Cardwell,

President of the Board of Trade but not in the Cabinet, and Dr.

Lushington, who has nothing to do with the Government, they have

contrived to scramble through the business; but the _laches_ and

indifference of those who ought to be most concerned, and the loose way

of proceeding, have been very striking. Some would not come at all, some

came for a short time, different people attended on different days, so

that different opinions prevailed, and no regular system was

established. The other day, on Cardwell's saying these questions would

be taken up as soon as Parliament met and Government called to account,

I suggested to ---- that, such being the case, he ought to get Lord John

Russell to attend the Committee. He said he would ask him, 'but John

Russell could not bear details; he doubted if he would come, and, if he

did, would be of no use, as he would be sure to go to sleep;' and this

is the way business of the greatest importance is transacted.

[Footnote 1: On the outbreak of the war a Committee of Council was

summoned to consider and frame divers Orders with reference to the

prohibition of the export of military and naval stores, the detention of

Russian ships, and questions of trade in Russian produce. Dr.

Lushington, the judge of the Admiralty, was a member of this Committee,

besides several Cabinet Ministers. The French Government proposed to

revert to the old system of licences to trade with the enemy; but this

proposal was not agreed to by Great Britain. The Russian trade was left

open, except when stopped by blockade. Licences were issued by the Privy

Council for the export of military and naval stores to neutral ports.]

DEATH OF THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEY.

_May 3rd._--The death of Lord Anglesey, which took place a few days ago,

has removed one of the last and the most conspicuous of the comrades of

the Duke of Wellington, who all seem to be following their commander

very rapidly. I have lived with Lord Anglesey for so many years in such

intimacy, and have received from him such constant kindness, that I

cannot pass over his death without a brief notice.

A more gallant spirit, a finer gentleman, and a more honourable and

kindhearted man never existed. His abilities were not of a very high

order, but he had a good fair understanding, excellent intentions, and a

character remarkably straightforward and sincere. In his youth he was

notoriously vain and arrogant, as most of his family were, but as he

advanced in age, his faults and foibles were diminished or softened, and

his virtues and amiable disposition manifested themselves the more. He

distinguished himself greatly in the command of the cavalry in Sir John

Moore's retreat, but was not employed in the Duke's army during the

subsequent years of the Peninsular war. In the Waterloo campaign he

again commanded the cavalry, not, as was supposed, entirely to the

Duke's satisfaction, who would have preferred Lord Combermere in that

post. He lost a leg at the battle of Waterloo; for this wound Lord

Anglesey was entitled to a very large pension, of which he never would

take a shilling. He was a great friend of George IV., and exposed

himself to unpopularity by taking the King's part in the Queen's trial;

but their friendship came to an end when Lord Anglesey connected himself

with the Whig party, and when he went to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant he

deeply offended the King by his open advocacy of the Roman Catholic

cause in 1829. The Duke of Wellington, then Minister and about to give

up the Catholic question, quarrelled with Lord Anglesey and recalled

him. For some years past they had not been on very friendly terms. Lord

Anglesey was jealous of the Duke, and used to affect to disparage his

capacity both as a general and a statesman, and this political

difference completed their mutual estrangement. These hostile feelings

did not, however, last long; Lord Anglesey had a generous disposition,

and was too fair and true to do permanent injustice to the Duke. I do

not know how the reconciliation between them was brought about, but

their temporary alienation was succeeded by a firm and lasting

friendship, and the most enthusiastic admiration and attachment

entertained by Lord Anglesey towards the Duke. For many years before the

death of the latter, the two old warriors were the most intimate friends

and constant companions, and every vestige of their former differences

and antipathies was effaced and had given way to warm sentiments of

mutual regard. When the regiment of Guards became vacant, King William

sent for Lord Anglesey and announced to him that he was to have it; he

of course expressed his acknowledgements; but early the next morning he

went to the King and said to him that he felt it his duty to represent

to him that there was a man worthier than himself to have the regiment,

that Lord Ludlow had lost his arm at their head, and that he could not

bear to accept that to which Lord Ludlow was so justly entitled. This

remonstrance, so unselfish and honourable, was accepted, and the

regiment was conferred on Lord Ludlow.[1]

[Footnote 1: George James, 3rd Earl of Ludlow in the peerage of

Ireland, and created a baron of the United Kingdom in 1831, was born

December 12, 1758, and died April 16, 1842, when the titles became

extinct. He served with distinction in the army, and was colonel of the

38th regiment of foot.]

A FINANCIAL FAILURE.

_May 7th._--The failure of Gladstone's Exchequer Bill scheme has been

very injurious to the Government, and particularly to him. The

prodigious applause and admiration with which he was greeted last year

have given way to distrust and apprehension of him as a finance

minister, and the repeated failures of his different schemes have in a

very short time materially damaged his reputation, and destroyed the

prestige of his great abilities. All practical men in the City severely

blame him for having exposed himself to the risk of failure, and

reproach him with the folly of trying to make too good a bargain, and by

so doing exposing himself to the defeat he has sustained. The

consequences will not probably be serious, but the Government is

weakened by it, and the diminution of public confidence in Gladstone is

a public misfortune.

Next in importance to the financial difficulty is the Oxford Bill, with

which Government have got into a mess, and they are struggling through

the measure with doubtful and small majorities, having been beaten on an

important point, and now quite uncertain if they shall be able to carry

it. I fell in with Graham yesterday, and spoke to him about these

things, when he replied that Gladstone's failure was very unfortunate,

but he had no doubt he would make a great speech in his own defence on

Monday night. With regard to Oxford, he said it was quite true that they

could not depend on carrying the clauses of their bill, but that was

because in the present state of the House 'they could not carry a

turnpike bill,' they were absolutely without power, and 'it was a state

of things that could not go on.'[1] Last night I had a talk with Charles

Wood on the same subject, and he said that the truth was, a revolution

had silently been effected. Parties were at an end, and the House of

Commons was no longer divided into and governed by them; and that the

predicament in which this Government is placed would be the same with

every other, and business could no longer be conducted in Parliament in

the way it used to be. All this is in my opinion quite true, and what

has long struck me. Whether the extreme elasticity of our institutions,

and the power of adaptation to circumstances which seems to pervade

them, will enable us to find remedies and resources, and that the

apparent derangement will right itself, remains to be seen. But it is a

condition of affairs full of uncertainty, therefore of danger, and which

makes me very uneasy whenever I think of it. It is evident that this

Government is now backed by no great party, and that it has very few

independent adherents on whom it can count. It scrambles on with casual

support, and its continuing at all to exist is principally owing to the

extreme difficulty of forming any other, and the certainty that no other

that could be formed would be stronger or more secure, either more

popular or more powerful.

[Footnote 1: Lord John Russell introduced a bill to make further

provision for the good government of the University of Oxford and the

colleges therein, which passed both Houses, with some amendments, in the

course of the session.]

MR. GLADSTONE'S BUDGET.

_May 7th._--It is scarcely a year ago that I was writing enthusiastic

panegyrics on Gladstone, and describing him as the great ornament and

support of the Government, and as the future Prime Minister. This was

after the prodigious success of his first Budget and his able speeches,

but a few months seem to have overturned all his power and authority. I

hear nothing but complaints of his rashness and passion for experiments;

and on all sides, from men, for example, like Tom Baring and Robarts,

one a Tory, the other a Whig, that the City and the moneyed men have

lost all confidence in him. To-morrow night he is to make his financial

statement, and intense curiosity prevails to see how he will provide the

ways and means for carrying on the war. Everybody expects that he will

make an able speech; but brilliant speeches do not produce very great

effect, and more anxiety is felt for the measures he will propose than

for the dexterity and ingenuity he may display in proposing them.

Parliament is ready to vote without grumbling any money that is asked

for, and as yet public opinion has not begun to waver and complain; but

we are only yet at the very beginning of this horrible mess, and people

are still looking with eager interest to the successes they anticipate,

and have not yet begun to feel the cost.

_May 10th._--Gladstone made a great speech on Monday night. He spoke for

nearly four hours, occupying the first half of the time in an elaborate

and not unsuccessful defence of his former measures. His speech, which

was certainly very able, was well received, and the Budget pronounced an

honourable and creditable one. If he had chosen to sacrifice his

conscientious convictions to popularity, he might have gained a great

amount of the latter by proposing a loan, and no more taxes than would

be necessary for the interest of it. I do not yet know whether his

defence of his abortive schemes has satisfied the monetary critics. It

was certainly very plausible, and will probably be sufficient for the

uninformed and the half-informed, who cannot detect any fallacies which

may lurk within it. He attacked some of his opponents with great

severity, particularly Disraeli and Monteagle, but I doubt if this was

prudent. He flung about his sarcasms upon smaller fry, and this

certainly was not discreet. I think his speech has been of service to

his financial character, and done a good deal towards the restoration of

his credit.

_May 12th._--Cowley called on me yesterday, when we talked over the war

with all its etceteras. He said the Emperor had been most reluctant to

go into it, but was now firmly resolved to pursue it vigorously, and

not to desist till he had obtained fair terms of peace; above all things

he is bent on going on with us in unbroken amity. Cowley thinks his

political position as secure as any position can be in France, and

certainly the country seems satisfied with his rule. His social position

is unimproved and rather worse; his marriage was a fatal measure; he

would have done far better if he could have married the Hohenlohe girl,

who was dying to be Empress, and Cowley thinks the Queen was wrong to

prevent the match. In that case the Court might have been very

different. In the beginning, after his marriage, he attempted to purify

it as well as he could, and to get rid of all the disreputable women

about it; but by degrees they have all come back again, and now they are

more _encanaillées_ than ever.

The French Government have given a strong proof of their goodwill to us

by recalling Baraguay d'Hilliers from Constantinople, and not sending

another ambassador, as they find none can possibly live on good terms

with Stratford. Cowley says the war might have been prevented, he

thinks, and particularly if Stratford had not been there. The Emperor

would have made greater concessions if Stratford had not been at

Constantinople, and another ambassador would have striven to preserve

peace instead of being, as he was, bent on producing a war.

Edward Mills tells me Gladstone's recent speech has immensely raised

him, and that he stands very high in the City, his defence of his

measures very able, and produced a great effect; he said he lately met

Walpole, who told him he had the highest admiration of Gladstone, and

thought he had more power than ever Peel had even at his highest tide.

DEFEATS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

_May 28th._--I have been so much occupied with the very dissimilar

occupations of preparations for Epsom races in the shape of trials,

betting, &c., and the finishing and correction of an article in the

'Edinburgh Review' on King Joseph's Memoirs, that I have had no leisure

to think of politics, or to record what has been going on in the

political world, nor in truth has much material been furnished either by

domestic or foreign transactions. The last fortnight in Parliament has

been going on much in the way in which the present Government always

goes on, and Gladstone, whom I met at dinner the other day, repeated to

me very much what Graham had said some time before, about their utter

inability to carry their measures in the House of Commons. There is,

however, one important exception to this rule, and that is one of vital

importance. On everything which relates to the war, and on all questions

of supply, they can do whatever they please, and have no difficulty, and

encounter no opposition. Tom Baring's motion on Monday last exhibited a

striking proof of this; he introduced it by an able speech, and he

mustered all the support that could be got, and yet he was defeated by

above 100. I met Disraeli in the street the next day, when he said,

'Your Government is very strong.' I said, the war which was supposed to

be their weakness turns out to be their strength. They can carry

everything which appertains to that, and nothing else. And so it is; no

sooner do they get a great majority on some important question than they

find themselves in a minority, perhaps more than one, on something else.

John Russell got beaten on his Oaths Bill the other night, a victory

which was hailed with uproarious delight by the Opposition, though

leading to nothing, and only mortifying to John Russell personally.

These defeats, however, do not fail to be morally injurious to the

Government, and to shake their credit. It was an ill advised measure,

which drew down upon itself those who are against the Jews and those who

are against the Catholics. Palmerston has been showing ill humour in the

House of Commons, and has ceased to be so very popular as he used to be

there. They have great difficulty in getting on with the University

Bill, and Gladstone told me the other night he was very doubtful if they

should be able to bring it to a successful end. All the Tories and High

Churchmen are against it of course, and the Dissenters regard it with no

favour because it does not do for them what they desire; so it is left

to the support of the friends of Government and those who sincerely

desire a good measure of reform for those bodies.

_June 5th._--I was at Epsom all last week. In the beginning of it or the

week before there was a great passage of arms in the House of Commons

between John Russell and Disraeli, not a very creditable exhibition, but

which excited greater interest than more important matters. Though

Disraeli began the attack, Lord John threw the first stone of offence,

which he had better have let alone. In reply to this Disraeli broke out

with inconceivable violence and made the most furious assault upon John

that he could, saying everything most offensive and provoking. Lord John

made a rejoinder, and was followed by Bright, whose speech was very

hostile and spiteful, and much more calculated to annoy Lord John than

that of Disraeli, though much less vituperative. Disraeli seems inclined

to have recourse to his old tactics against Peel, and to endeavour to

treat John Russell, and Gladstone when he can, in the same way, hoping

probably to re-ingratiate himself with his own side by giving them some

of those invectives and sarcasms against their opponents which are so

congenial to their tastes. This course will not raise him either in the

House or in the country, and he will not find in Lord John a man either

so sensitive or so vulnerable as Peel, and he can make out nothing

against a man who refuses place, patronage, and emolument, and gives his

gratuitous services at a great personal sacrifice because he thinks it

his public duty to do so. There is nothing new in the condition of the

Government; they are very firmly seated in their places, the House of

Commons supporting them by large majorities in all their great measures

and those which involve a question of confidence; but having no

dependable majority on miscellaneous questions, nor even knowing whether

they can carry any measure or not, it is idle to twit them with being a

Government on sufferance and Lord John with not 'leading' the House of

Commons. A revolution has taken place in the conditions of the political

existence of governments in general and their relations with Parliament,

and there is at present no likelihood that any government that can be

formed will find itself in different circumstances, or that the old

practice by which a government could command the House of Commons on

almost everything will ever be restored. Whether the new system be

better or worse than the old may be doubtful, but governments must make

up their minds to conform to it for the present at least. In the course

of the next few days the division of the Colonial from the War

Department will take place. There seems little doubt that Newcastle will

elect to take the War Department, and Clarendon told me yesterday he

thought he would be the best man for it, warmly praising his energy,

industry, and ability, and his popular and conciliatory qualities. Their

great object is to prevail on Lord John to take the Colonial Office,

which I expect he will eventually do, but not without much reluctance

and hesitation. Granville tells me he is in a dissatisfied state of

mind, in which he will probably long remain, especially as his

_entourage_ will always do their best to foment his discontent.

THE PRESIDENCY OF THE COUNCIL.

_June 11th._--Yesterday and the day before the world was made acquainted

with the recent arrangements and appointments, which have been received

with considerable disapprobation.[1] Nobody can understand what it all

means, and why John Russell, if he was to take office, was to insist on

so strange an arrangement, and such a departure from the invariable

practice of putting a peer in the office of President of the Council.

Nothing can be more ungracious than the air of the whole proceeding: he

turns out Granville to make room for himself, and turns out Strutt to

make room for Granville. It seems that they wanted him to be Colonial

Secretary, but this he would not hear of on the score of his health, and

as it is now admitted as an axiom that the leader in the House of

Commons has enough to do, and cannot efficiently discharge the duties of

a laborious department, it was reasonable enough that Lord John should

decline the Colonies; but there seems no sufficient reason for his not

taking the Duchy of Lancaster, for the more completely the office is a

sinecure, the more consistent his taking it would appear. However, he

would be President of the Council or nothing. I have been amazed at his

indelicacy and want of consideration towards Granville, who deserved

better treatment at his hands. Granville has always been his steady and

stout adherent, defending his Reform Bill, holding himself his especial

follower in the Coalition Cabinet, and ready to support him or go out

with him if necessary. It was therefore particularly odious to insist on

foisting himself into Granville's place, and inflicting on him the

mortification of going downstairs. Granville behaved very well about it,

with great good humour, only anxious to do whatever was best for the

general interest, and putting aside every personal consideration and

feeling; and his conduct is the more meritorious, because he dislikes

the arrangement of all things. Aberdeen behaved very kindly to him, and

told him, if he objected to the change, he would not consent to it, and,

cost what it might, would tell John Russell he could not and should not

have the place. Granville proposed to go out, at least for a time, but

Aberdeen said he could not spare him, and nothing could be more

flattering than all he expressed of his usefulness in the House of

Lords, and of the value of his services. Personally, therefore, he loses

nothing; for though he preferred the Council Office to the Duchy, his

conduct has raised him in everybody's estimation, and he will play a

part even more prominent than he did before.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S POSITION.

One reason why Lord John should not have come to the Council Office was

the embarrassment he will be sure to find himself in about questions of

education, his reputation and his antecedents, as well as his political

connexions, making him peculiarly unfit to be at the head of the

Education Department; and I am inclined to agree with Vernon Smith, who

said to me the other day that it would infallibly end in Lord John's

bringing in next year an impracticable Education Bill and withdrawing

it. George Grey's coming into office will be of use to the Government.

Newcastle's being War Minister is sure to be attacked, and all the

Palmerstonians are indignant that Palmerston is not in that place, which

never was offered him, nor was he consulted about the arrangement. I

think there is still a considerable opinion that he would make a good

War Minister, though everybody is aware he makes a very bad Home one,

and the _prestige_ about him and his popularity are greatly worn out.

They have been obliged to go back to the reign of Henry VIII. to find a

precedent for a commoner being President of the Council, when they say

there was one, but I don't know who he was.

[Footnote 1: Lord John Russell insisted on taking the office of Lord

President of the Council, which has always been held by a peer, and to

effect this change Earl Granville was removed from the higher office of

Lord President to that of Chancellor of the Duchy. The Right Honourable

Edward Strutt, who had been Chancellor of the Duchy with a seat in the

Cabinet, was dismissed from office, but he was subsequently raised to

the peerage with the title of Lord Belper. This transaction reflected no

credit on the author of it, who consulted nothing but his own dignity

and convenience.]

_June 21st._--At St. Leonards last week for Ascot races, where I got

wet, and have been ever since confined with the gout. The 'Times,'

though by way of supporting the Government, went on violently attacking

John Russell about the recent changes. Lord John was very well received

in the City at his election, and at the opening of the Crystal Palace he

was more cheered than anybody. This morning the Duke of Bedford came

here and told me he had had a good deal of conversation with his brother

about this business, to which he (the Duke) had been a stranger while it

was going on. Lord John said that when the Government was formed he had

proposed to Aberdeen that he should be President of the Council, but

Aberdeen had objected on the score of its being so unusual, therefore he

was only going back to his original design. He had an invincible

repugnance to taking the Duchy of Lancaster or any inferior office. Both

when the Government was formed and now, he would have much preferred to

have kept aloof, and to have led in the House of Commons that section of

the Whig party which would have followed him, but he found this

impossible, and as the Government could not have been formed without

him, and could not now go on without him, he was obliged to sacrifice

his own inclination. I said I could not conceive why he could not go on

as he was till the end of the session, and then settle it, that his

pushing out Granville had a very ungracious appearance, and he would

have done much better to take the sinecure office of the Duchy, it being

quite absurd to suppose that he could be degraded by holding any office,

no matter what. The Duke owned it would have been better to wait till

Parliament was up before anything was done, and he regarded the question

of the particular office much as I do.

There was a discussion in the House of Lords on Monday night on the war,

when Lyndhurst made a grand speech, wonderful at his age--82; he spoke

for an hour and a quarter with as much force and clearness as at any

time of his life: it was greatly admired. Clarendon spoke well and

strongly, and elicited expressions of satisfaction from Derby, after

whom Aberdeen rose, and imprudently spoke in the sense of desiring

peace, a speech which has been laid hold of, and drawn down upon him a

renewal of the violent abuse with which he has been all along assailed.

I see nothing in his speech to justify the clamour, but it was very ill

judged in him with his antecedents to say what he did, which malignity

could so easily lay hold of.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL VOTES WITH THE TORIES.

_June 25th._--There never was such a state of things as that which now

exists between the Government, the Party, and the House of Commons. John

Russell made such a hash of it last week, and put himself and his

Government in such a position, that nothing but the war, and the

impossibility which everybody feels there is of making any change of

Government in the midst of it, prevents the immediate downfall of this

Administration. Last week John Russell opposed the motion for the

abolition of Church rates in a flaming High Tory and Church speech. The

motion was rejected by a slender majority, but his speech gave great

offence to the Liberal party and his own friends. Immediately afterwards

came on the motion in the University Bill for admitting Dissenters to

the University. This John Russell opposed again, although in his speech

he declared he was in favour of the admission of Dissenters, but he

objected to the motion on various grounds. The result was that he went

into the lobby with Disraeli and the whole body of the Tories, while the

whole of the Liberal party and all his own friends and supporters went

against him and defeated him by a majority of 91. He took with him six

or seven of his colleagues, and two or three of the underlings.

Molesworth, Bernal Osborne, and some more stayed away, and some others

voted in the majority. In the majority were found Christopher and a few

Tories besides, who, however, only voted with the object and hope of

damaging the bill itself and procuring its rejection in the House of

Lords. Never was man placed in so deplorable and humiliating a position

as John Russell, and nothing can exceed his folly and mismanagement in

getting himself into such a scrape. The indignation and resentment of

the Liberals are boundless, and I think he has completely put an

extinguisher on himself as a statesman and as the leader of a party;

they never will forgive him or feel any confidence in him again. There

was a capital article on him and his proceedings in the 'Times'

yesterday, which was not acrimonious, like some others on him, and was

perfectly just and true.

The victorious Liberals managed their affairs very ill. Instead of

resting satisfied with a victory which must have been decisive (for

after all the House of Commons had affirmed the principle of admitting

the Dissenters by so large a majority, neither the House of Lords nor

the University would have ventured to oppose it), they imprudently

pressed on another division[1] in which they were beaten, though by a

small majority, and this of course does away with a good deal of the

effect of the first division. Between the recent changes which were

universally distasteful, and his extraordinary maladroitness in these

questions, Lord John is fallen prodigiously in public favour and

opinion, and while he is, or has been till very recently, dreaming of

again being Prime Minister, it is evident that he is totally unfit to be

the leader of the Government in the House of Commons even in a

subordinate post. He communicates with nobody, he has no confidence in

or sympathy with any one, he does not impart his intentions or his

wishes to his own political followers, and does not ask to be informed

of theirs, but he buries himself at Richmond and only comes forth to say

and do everything that is most imprudent and unpopular.

The House of Commons is in a state of complete anarchy, and nobody has

any hold on it; matters, bad enough through John Russell, are made worse

by Aberdeen, whose speech the other night has made a great, but I think

unnecessary clamour; and Layard, who is his bitter enemy, took it up in

the House of Commons, and has given notice of a motion on it which is

equivalent to a vote of censure. Almost at the same moment Aberdeen,

with questionable prudence and dignity, gave notice in the Lords that on

Monday he should explain the speech he made the other night. Layard's

design can hardly be matured, because they never can permit a speech

made in one House of Parliament to be made the subject of a motion and

debate in the other. It is, however, incontestable that clamour and

misrepresentation have succeeded in raising a vast prejudice against

Aberdeen, and that he is exceedingly unpopular.

The people are wild about this war, and besides the general confidence

that we are to obtain very signal success in our naval and military

operations, there is a violent desire to force the Emperor to make a

very humiliating peace, and a strong conviction that he will very soon

be compelled to do so. This belief is the cause of the great rise which

has been taking place in the public securities, and all sorts of stories

are rife of the terror and dislike of the war which prevail in Russia,

and of the agitation and melancholy in which the Emperor is said to be

plunged. But the authentic accounts from St. Petersburg tell a very

different tale. They say, and our Consul just arrived from St.

Petersburg confirms the statement, that the Emperor is calm and

resolute, that his popularity is very great, and the Russians of all

classes enthusiastic in his cause, and that they are prepared to a man

to sacrifice their properties and their lives in a vigorous prosecution

of the war.

Footnote 1: It seems it was Mr. Walpole who insisted on the second

division, which he did for the express purpose of neutralising the

effect of the first, hoping to get a majority, which he did, and it was

rather dexterously done.

UNPOPULARITY OF LORD ABERDEEN.

_July 9th._--It is remarkable that the Government are unquestionably

stronger in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons, as has been

clearly proved by the result of the Oxford University Bill. Derby

endeavoured to alter it, and was completely defeated. There were several

divisions, in all of which the Government obtained large majorities, and

at last Derby said it was evidently useless to propose any alterations,

as the Government could do what they pleased in that House. The session

is drawing to a close; that is, though it will last a month longer, all

important business is over. The Government will end it much in the same

condition as they were in at the beginning of it, only that their

weakness and want of popularity have been manifested in a thousand ways

during the session. Aberdeen's explanatory speech and the publication of

his despatch of 1829 have given rather a turn to the current against

him; for though his violent opponents still snarl at him and abuse him,

the impartial people begin to think he is not so bad as he has been

represented, and the excessive absurdity of the charges with which he

has been assailed begins to strike people. There is still, however, a

strong prejudice against him, particularly amongst the extreme Liberals,

and I saw a long letter from Sir Benjamin Hall to the Duke of Bedford

setting forth the discontent of the Liberal party and vehemently urging

that the Government should be immediately modified, Aberdeen retire, and

Lord John Russell again be Minister, with Palmerston as War

Minister--perfectly absurd and impracticable, but showing what the

notions are of the ultra-Radicals. The Tories, agreeing in nothing else,

concur with the Radicals in hating Aberdeen because he represents the

Peel party, and is Minister as the successor of Sir Robert Peel, for

whose memory their hatred is as intense as it was for his person when he

was alive. The war goes on without any immediate results, and without,

as far as can be seen, a probability of the attainment of any signal or

important successes. The foolish public here, always extravagant and

impatient, clamour for attacks upon Sebastopol and Cronstadt, and are

very indignant that these places are not taken, without knowing anything

of the feasibility of such operations. We now begin to believe that

Austria is going to side actively with us, but we do not feel certain of

it, nor shall we till she actually enters on the campaign.

_July 19th._--Within a few days everything is changed. In respect to

Austria, the intrigues of Russia with Prussia, and the determination of

the King to do everything that he can or that he dares to assist his

imperial brother-in-law, have had the effect of paralysing the Austrian

movements, and suspending the operation of her Treaty with Turkey. She

cannot venture to declare war against Russia and to march her army into

the Principalities while there is a large Russian force on the borders

of Galicia, and the Prussians are in such an ambiguous attitude and

disposition, that she can not only not depend upon Prussia to execute

their defensive Treaty by protecting her dominions in the event of their

being attacked by Russia, but she cannot depend upon not being taken in

flank by Prussia as the ally of Russia. Clarendon told me on Sunday that

it was impossible to make out what Austria was about, or what she really

means to do. There is no doubt about Prussia, and he still inclines to

believe that Austria's disposition to act with us is unchanged, but that

she is compelled to act a cautious and dilatory part by her uncertainty

as to Prussia.

On Monday John Russell convoked his supporters and quasi-supporters to a

gathering in Downing Street, when he harangued them on the state of

affairs and the difficulties of the Government, intimating the necessity

of being better supported if the Government was to go on at all. There

are differences of opinion as to the way in which the meeting went off,

and whether it was on the whole satisfactory. The principal speakers

were Bright, Vernon Smith, and Horsman, the two latter bitter enough

against the Government. Bright, rather hostile, spoke well and alluded

to Aberdeen in a friendly spirit, as did Hume. The meeting gradually

melted away, so that Lord John had no opportunity of making a reply,

which was a pity, as he might have answered the objectors. The best

proof, however, that on the whole it was successful, was afforded by the

fact that there was neither debate nor division on the War Secretary's

estimate moved for by Lord John that night. All went off with the

greatest ease. I am in hopes therefore that the Government is somewhat

in better plight than it was.

AN APPOINTMENT CANCELLED.

_August 4th._--I have been out of town for the greater part of the time

since the 19th ultimo, at Goodwood, nearly ten days. Nothing very

important has occurred in politics. As the session has drawn towards a

close, the Government have, on the whole, done rather better in

Parliament, that is, the Opposition have been quite incapable of

striking any blows or doing them any injury. The points that were

expected to be made against them entirely failed, and, with the

exception of one personal matter, they have had no difficulties or

annoyances to vex them. This matter was the case of----, the

_dénouement_ of which took place two days ago; after being Gladstone's

private secretary for two years, this gentleman was appointed by

Newcastle, just before he gave up the Colonies, to be Governor of South

Australia. The appointment was criticised, but about ten days ago it was

called in question in the House of Commons, and at the same time rumours

were rife that he had been gambling in the funds and had lost money; he

denied, and authorised his friends to deny the imputation, but some of

the Carlton runners got scent of his transactions and followed it up

with such perseverance that he became alarmed and thought himself

obliged to prevent the shame and odium of detection by confessing the

fact. The consequence was that the appointment was cancelled, and the

whole matter explained and discussed on Thursday night in the House of

Commons, when George Grey made a long statement. The discussion upon it

was very creditable to the House, for there was no personal animosity

and no coarseness or inhumanity displayed, but, on the contrary,

forbearance and good nature towards the individual. Any expectation of

being able to wound Gladstone through him has quite failed. He is a

clever fellow enough and well educated, but he has been very imprudent,

and contrived at once to lose his place of private secretary, his

government, his seat in Parliament, his character, and his money.

At last it does now appear as if Austria was going to join us completely

against Russia, and the invasion of the Crimea is about to take place in

complete ignorance of the means of resistance and defence possessed by

Russia, and whether it will be a nearly impossible or comparatively easy

enterprise.

Clarendon, when I saw him last Sunday, expressed great alarm at the

state of affairs in Spain, from the weakness of Espartero, the

difficulty of any cordial union between the military chiefs, so long

rivals, and above all from the republican element which is so rife in

Spain, and which may produce effects extending far beyond that country.

He said that the French Government were acting in complete harmony and

concert with us; the Emperor is much alarmed at the state of Spain, but

resolved to go with us in the policy of non-interference, and to take no

part but such as we should take also. If he adheres to this wise course,

it will cement the alliance between the countries, and bind us to him

more than anything that could happen, and it will form a great and happy

contrast to the policy of Louis Philippe and the conduct of Palmerston

and Guizot.

PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT.

_August 14th._--The session closed on Saturday, and, all things

considered, the Government wound it up tolerably well. Clanricarde, true

to the last to his spiteful opposition, gave Clarendon an opportunity of

making a parting speech on foreign affairs, of which he acquitted

himself very successfully, and placed himself and the Government in a

very good position as respects our diplomacy and the conduct of the war.

But though all immediate danger is removed from the Government, and,

unless they fall to pieces during the recess by any internal

dissensions, they will probably go on unscathed, the state of affairs is

very unsatisfactory, and pregnant with future troubles and difficulties.

The Government in its relations with the House of Commons throughout the

past session has been extraordinary, and I believe unprecedented. From

the Revolution to the time of the Reform Bill, that is during 150

years, the system of Parliamentary government had been consolidating

itself and was practically established; the Sovereign nominally, the

House of Commons really, appointed the ministers of the Crown, and it

was settled as an axiom that when the Government was unable to carry its

measures, and was subjected to defeats in the House of Commons, its

resignation was indispensable--not indeed that any and every defeat was

necessarily fatal, because governments have often been beaten on very

important questions without being ruined or materially weakened, but it

was supposed that repeated defeats and Government measures repeatedly

rejected implied the withdrawal of the confidence and support of

Parliament so clearly that in the aggregate such defeats were equivalent

to an absolute vote of want of confidence, which is in itself a sentence

of political death. In former times the Crown was a power, and the House

of Commons was a power, generally blended and acting harmoniously

together, but sometimes resolving themselves into their separate

elements, and acting independently, perhaps antagonistically, towards

each other. In modern times, and more entirely in our own, this separate

and independent action ceased, the Crown became identified with the

majority of the House of Commons, and no minister, when he could no

longer command that majority so as to be certain of carrying out all, or

nearly all, his measures of government and legislation, could continue

to be minister, and was obliged as a matter of course to surrender

office to those who were in possession of, or could count upon, that

command. The ministers were taken from the ranks of the Parliamentary

majority, and when once appointed it was considered indispensable and

certain that the same majority would place confidence in them, accept at

their hands all the measures they should concert and propose, and

support them against all hostile attacks, the spirit of party and

combination suppressing all individual prejudices, crotchets, fancies,

and partial or local influences. The Government and the party were bound

by a sort of mutual allegiance to each other, and supposed to be, and

usually were, animated by the same spirit and a communion of opinion

and interest. Such were the general relations and such the normal state

of things, liable to occasional variations and disturbances, bringing

about various political changes according to circumstances. But the

system was complete, and practically it worked well, and conduced to the

prosperity and progress of the country.

REVIEW OF PARTIES.

When the great measure of Reform in Parliament was introduced in 1831,

apart from all question of party struggles there was the still greater

question considered by many reflecting people, whether the new

Parliamentary and electoral system would be found compatible with the

old practice of government by means of party and steady Parliamentary

majorities. The Duke of Wellington in particular expressed his

apprehension that it would not, and he put the question which has so

often been quoted and referred to, 'How is the King's Government to be

carried on?' He did not, so far as I remember, develope his thoughts at

the time, and argue the matter in detail, but it is very evident that

what he anticipated was some such state of things as that at which we

now appear to have arrived. For a long time his apprehensions appeared

to be groundless, and certainly they were not realised by the course of

events. In consequence of political circumstances which I shall not stop

to specify and explain, notwithstanding all the changes which were

effected, the governments contrived to go on without any insuperable

difficulties, and without any striking difference from the way in which

governments had been previously conducted. The popularity of the Reform

Bill Administration supported them for a few years, and the Tory

reaction, together with the great abilities of Sir Robert Peel,

supported the Conservative Government for a few years more. Matters went

on better or worse, as might be, till the great Conservative schism in

1846, which completely broke up that party, and produced a final

separation between the able few and the numerous mediocrity of the

party. Ever since that time the House of Commons has been in a state of

disorganisation and confusion: the great party ties had been severed.

After the repeal of the Corn Laws and the establishment of Free Trade it

was difficult to find any great party principles which could be

converted into bonds of union, and every day it became obviously more

and more difficult to form any government that could hope to be strong

or permanent. John Russell succeeded on the fall of Peel, but the

Peelites warmly resented the conduct of the Whigs in Peel's last

struggle, and, though they hated Derby and his crew much more, never

gave Lord John's Government a cordial support.

Next came the quarrel between Palmerston and Lord John and the fall of

the Whig Government. Many people, and Graham especially, were of opinion

that a Derby Government _for a time_ was an inevitable but indispensable

evil, and after one abortive attempt at length a Derby Government was

formed. From the beginning nobody thought it could last; the wretched

composition of it, its false position, and the mixture of inconsistency

and insincerity which characterised it, deprived it of all respect,

authority, and influence, and it was the more weak because divided and

dissatisfied within, and because all the more honest and truthful of the

party were disgusted and ashamed of the part they were playing. Thus

feeble and powerless, despised by the public and detested by the Court,

the first moment that the different parties and sections of parties

combined to overthrow them, their destruction was inevitable, and after

enjoying office for one year they fell.

It was easier to turn them out than to find a good and strong government

to replace them. It was obvious that neither the Whigs nor the Peelites

could form a government, still less Palmerston or the Radicals, and it

became a matter of absolute necessity to attempt a coalition, which,

whatever objections there might be to coalitions, would at least have

the advantage of filling the several offices with able men.

When the Queen had a short time before, in anticipation of the event,

consulted the Duke of Bedford as to whom she should send for when Derby

resigned, he had advised her to send for Lord Lansdowne and Lord

Aberdeen, being himself conscious that Lord John could not again form a

government, at least not at that time. She did send for them, and each

of them very sincerely and earnestly endeavoured to persuade the other

to accept the post of Prime Minister, and the task of forming a

Government. Lansdowne was ill at the time, and while it is very doubtful

whether anything would have induced him to come forward, his attack of

gout was enough to ensure his peremptory refusal, and nothing remained

but that Aberdeen should make the attempt. The task was difficult and

unpleasant, for it was impossible not to make many people discontented

and mortified, inasmuch as places could not be found for all who had

previously been in office, or who aspired to it, and it was no easy

matter to decide who should be taken in, and who left out. Aberdeen

resolved to make the coalition very comprehensive, and as much as

possible to form a government which should represent the Opposition

which had turned Derby out, but he put almost all the Peelite leaders

into good offices, and the exclusions were principally on the Whig side.

For a long time it was very doubtful whether John Russell would enter

the Government at all, but Aberdeen was so well aware that he could not

do without him that he announced his determination to throw up the

Government unless Lord John consented to join. After much hesitation,

and a struggle between his family and some malcontent hangers on who

wished him to keep aloof, on one side, and the wisest of his political

friends and colleagues who urged that it was his duty to come forward on

the other, Lord John consented to lead the House of Commons, but without

an office. He proposed indeed to take the Presidency of the Council, to

which Aberdeen objected, but gave him the choice of every other office.

He said that if he could not be President of the Council he would be

nothing at all, and so it was settled. Next came the negotiation about

Palmerston, who first refused, and afterwards, at the pressing

solicitation of Lansdowne, agreed to join. Molesworth came in to

represent the Radicals; Monsell and Keogh (not in the Cabinet)

represented the Irish, and so the Coalition Government was completed.

THE COALITION GOVERNMENT.

Very strongly composed, it never, however, was so strong as it looked.

The Ministers, Aberdeen, John Russell, Palmerston, having consented to

act together, were too sensible, too gentlemanlike and well-bred, not to

live in outward good fellowship with each other, but their respective

and relative antecedents could not be forgotten. There could be no real

cordiality between Palmerston and Aberdeen, or between Palmerston and

John Russell, and both the latter all along felt uncomfortable and

dissatisfied with their respective positions. Lord John fancied he was

degraded, and his flatterers endeavoured to persuade him he was so, by

joining a government of which he was not the head, and by serving under

Aberdeen. Palmerston could not forget the long and bitter hostility

which had been carried on between himself and Aberdeen upon foreign

policy, and still less his having been turned out of the Foreign Office

by John Russell. The Whigs were dissatisfied that the Peelites, who had

no party to bring to the support of the Government, should have so large

a share of the offices, and above all the great bulk of the Whig party

could not endure that a Peelite should be at the head of the Government,

and of all the Peelites they most particularly disliked Aberdeen, so

that they yielded a reluctant allegiance, and gave a grudging and

capricious support to the coalition.

Nevertheless, the first session of Parliament was pretty well got

through, principally owing to Gladstone's successful Budget, the great

ability he displayed in the House of Commons, and the efficient way in

which the public business was done, while the numerous measures of

improvement which were accomplished raised the reputation of the

Government, and gave them security if not strength. The session of 1853

closed in quiet, prosperity, and sunshine, but during the recess clouds

began to gather round the Government; they were beset with internal and

external difficulties. John Russell became more and more discontented,

and at last he announced to Aberdeen that he was resolved not to meet

Parliament again in his present position, and intimated his intention to

be once more Prime Minister or to quit the concern. In the meantime the

Turco-Russian quarrel had begun, the hostile correspondence with Russia

was in full activity, the public mind in a high state of excitement,

the press bellowed for war and poured forth incessant volleys of abuse

against the Government, but more particularly against Aberdeen, who was

singled out as the object of attack, and the persevering attempts to

render him unpopular produced a certain amount of effect. The Cabinet

became divided as to the mode of carrying on the dispute and the

negotiations, some being for what were called vigorous measures, that

is, for threats and demonstrations of force which could only lead to

immediate war, while others were for exhausting every attempt to bring

about an accommodation and preserve peace. Something was known or

suspected of these divisions, they were published and commented on with

enormous exaggerations and the most unscrupulous violations of truth,

and the Tory and Radical newspapers vied with each other in the violence

of their denunciations of Aberdeen, and, in a less degree, of Clarendon.

When this fury was at its height, the world was startled and astounded

by the news of Palmerston's resignation. It is needless to state here

the history of that affair, which I have already recorded in ample

detail. It was in vain that the 'Times' proclaimed that it was the

Reform Bill and not the Eastern Question which was the cause of it. The

statement was scouted with the utmost scorn, and the public incredulity

was confirmed when the 'Morning Post,' which was notoriously devoted to

Palmerston, asserted the direct contrary. Everybody imagined that the

Government would go to pieces, that when Parliament met there would be

prodigious revelations, and that the Eastern Question with its supposed

mismanagement would prove fatal to the Coalition Cabinet. The Derbyites

were in raptures, and already counted on Palmerston as their own. Great

as had been the public surprise and the exultation of the Carlton Club

at Palmerston's resignation, greater still was that surprise and the

mortification and disappointment of the Carlton, when a few days

afterwards it was announced that Palmerston had changed his mind and was

not going to resign. Nobody could comprehend what it all meant, and

ample scope was afforded to every sort of conjecture, and to all the

statements and inventions that anybody chose to circulate. But as about

the same time the Eastern affair progressed a step or two, and some

energetic measures were adopted, the most plausible explanation was,

that Palmerston had resigned because enough was not done, that the

Government had been frightened into doing what he had before advised,

and that, on their adopting his suggestion, he had consented to remain.

In process of time the truth began to ooze out, but it never was

completely known till Parliament met, and even then many people

continued to believe that though the Reform Bill was the pretext, the

Eastern Question was the real cause of Palmerston's conduct.

THE BLUE BOOKS.

These threatening clouds cleared away. Aberdeen told Lord John nothing

should induce him to resign after all the attacks that had been made on

him, and he would meet Parliament and defend himself. Lord John gave up

his demands, and consented to go on leading the House of Commons.

Palmerston agreed to swallow the Reform Bill, and at length Parliament

met. Everybody was ravenous for the Blue Books, which as soon as

possible were produced. Their production was eminently serviceable to

the Government, and though some criticisms were made, and there were

some desultory attacks in both Houses, and the press continued to be as

scurrilous and abusive as ever, the general impression was extremely

favourable. Clarendon's despatches were highly approved of, and all fair

and candid observers, including many who had found fault with the

Government before, declared that they were perfectly satisfied that our

policy had been wise and proper, and the whole of the negotiations very

creditable to all who had been concerned in carrying them on. So little

did the event correspond with the general expectation, that the Eastern

Question, which had been considered to be the weak part of the

Government, turned out to be its greatest strength; and the war which

eventually broke out has been the principal cause of their being able to

maintain themselves in power. It is now the fashion to say that if it

were not for the war, they would have been turned out long ago. It is

certainly true that their power in the House of Commons has been limited

to all that concerns the war, in respect to which they have had no

difficulty to contend with. The estimates have been granted without a

semblance of opposition, and they have received hearty and unanimous

support in every measure and every demand requisite for carrying on the

war, nor, though exposed to some adverse criticism, have they been

seriously assailed with regard to their diplomacy or their warlike

preparations.

But while this, which is the most essential, has also been their

strongest point, on everything else, without exception, they have been

almost powerless, and the House of Commons has run riot with an

independence and waywardness and a caprice of which it would be

impossible to find an example. The Government has had no majority on

which it could depend, and it has never brought forward any measure

which it could count upon carrying through. Obliged to withdraw many

measures altogether, and to submit to the alteration of others till they

became totally different from what they originally proposed, their

defeats have been innumerable, and nobody seems to have the smallest

scruple in putting them in a minority upon any occasion; at the same

time it was very evident that the House of Commons was determined that

they should continue in office, for whenever any vital question arose,

or any vote which could be construed into a question of confidence, and

therefore involved the existence of the Government, they were always

sure of a majority, and the Derbyite opposition, while they were able to

worry and insult them by partial defeats and by exposing their general

weakness, found themselves miserably baffled whenever they attempted

anything which had a tendency to place the Government in serious

embarrassment. The whole conduct of the Session, and the relations of

the Government with the House of Commons, presented something certainly

very different from what had ever been seen before in the memory of the

oldest statesman, implied a total dissolution of party ties and

obligations, and exhibited the Queen's Government and the House of

Commons as resolved into their separate elements, and acting towards

each other in independent and often antagonistic capacities. Disraeli

was always reproaching the Government with holding office on what he

termed the unconstitutional principle of not being supported by a

majority of the House of Commons, and of living from hand to mouth; but

though this was a plausible topic, he knew very well that no other

government could be formed which could exist otherwise, and that the

House of Commons, while it buffeted the Government about _au gré de ses

caprices_, was quite determined to keep it alive, and not to allow any

other to be substituted for it. At present it is difficult to see how

this state of things is to be altered, and time alone can show whether

great parties will again be formed, and governments be enabled to go on

as in times past, powerful in a consistent and continual Parliamentary

support, or whether a great change must be submitted to, and governments

be content to drag on a precarious existence, taking what they can get

from the House of Commons, and endeavouring to strengthen themselves by

enlisting public opinion on their side.

PRECARIOUS TENURE OF THE MINISTRY.

With regard to the prospects of this Government, much depends on the

progress of the war; for though they have done their part and are not

responsible for failure or success, they are sure to be strengthened by

success or weakened by failure. But much depends also upon what passes

in the Cabinet. John Russell, whose mind is in a state of chronic

discontent which was suspended for a time, is again becoming uneasy and

restless, and will soon begin making fresh difficulties. Then his Reform

Bill, which he gave up so reluctantly, is still in his thoughts, and he

will most likely insist upon bringing it forward again, a proposition

which is sure to produce dissension in the Cabinet.