February 20th, 1836

TOWILLIAM CAVENDISH BENTINCK,WHO DURING SEVEN YEARS RULED INDIA WITH EMINENT PRUDENCE,INTEGRITY, AND BENEVOLENCE;WHO, PLACED AT THE HEAD OF A GREAT EMPIRE, NEVER LAID ASIDE THESIMPLICITY AND MODERATION OF A PRIVATE CITIZEN;WHO INFUSED INTO ORIENTAL DESPOTISM THE SPIRIT OF BRITISH FREEDOM;WHO NEVER FORGOT THAT THE END OF GOVERNMENT IS THE HAPPINESSOF THE GOVERNED;WHO ABOLISHED CRUEL BITES;WHO EFFACED HUMILIATING DISTINCTIONS;WHO GAVE LIBERTY TO THE EXPRESSION OF PUBLIC OPINION;WHOSE CONSTANT STUDY IT WAS TO ELEVATE THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORALCHARACTER OF THE NATIONS COMMITTED TO HIS CHARGE;THIS MONUMENTWAS ERECTED BY MENWHO, DIFFERING IN RACE, IN MANNERS, IN LANGUAGE, AND IN RELIGION,CHERISH WITH EQUAL VENERATION AND GRATITUDETHE MEMORY OF HIS WISE, UPRIGHT, AND PATERNAL ADMINISTRATION.

I walked home with Lord Sandon last night, and had much talk about the state of parties, particularly about Peel and the events at the close of the last session. He talked upon the usual topic of Peel’s coldness, uncommunicative disposition, want of popular qualities, and the consequent indifference of his followers to his person. With respect to last year, he said that Peel had arranged with the Duke of Wellington and Lyndhurst the course that it would be advisable to adopt with regard to the Corporation Bill, and that he was put exceedingly out of humour by the House of Lords adopting a different line; that the leaders of the Lords found their party impracticable, and they were compelled (or thought themselves so) to give way to the prejudices of the majority. But Peel did not understand thisknocking underto violence and folly, and his pride was mortified, because it was a sort of renunciation of his authority as leader and chief of the whole party. Accordingly it was with reference to these proceedings thatLORD SANDON’S OPINION OF PEEL.Peel spoke with great bitterness to Sandon, and said that ‘he never would be the tool of the Lords,’ He left town in high dudgeon, and was probably not sorry to display his resentment at the same time with his power, when he suddenly returned and made his speech on the Lords’ amendments. Sandon confirmed the statement of his having done this without any communication with the Duke and Lyndhurst, in which he thinks he was to blame. I think he ought to have seen the Duke, and have imparted to him his intentions and his motives; but with Lyndhurst he probably felt very angry for the part he took. He has now, however, put himself more openly and decidedly at the head of the party, and Sandon considers that Stanley already virtually belongs to it, inasmuch as they sit together and consult together, and the other day when he went to Peel’s house he found Stanley there.

There is a mighty stir about the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the Regius Professorship of Divinity at Oxford, on the ground of his having put forth doctrines or arguments of a Socinian tendency. The two Archbishops went to Melbourne with a remonstrance, but he told them the appointment was completed, and that he had not been aware of any objections to Dr. Hampden, and had taken pains to ascertain his fitness for the office. It will give the Churchmen a handle for accusing Melbourne of a design to sap the foundations of the Church and poison the fountain of orthodoxy; but he certainly has no such view.

Had some conversation with Lord Wharncliffe the other day, who has always been a great alarmist. I asked him if he was so still. He said yes; that he was convinced the House of Lords and the House of Commons could not go on, that the Lords would not pass their Bills; a ferment would be produced, which would finish by an open dissension. ‘What, then, would be the result?’ I asked. ‘Why, the Lords would be beaten.’ He then complained bitterly of the Government, and of their conduct and language, and said he was convinced Lord John Russell had originallyintroduced that clause for the purpose of effecting a permanent quarrel between the two Houses. I told him I was satisfied there was no danger if their party would act a prudent, temperate, and honourable part; if they would not aim at office, but be satisfied to exert the strength they possessed not for party, but for Conservative purposes; and on this I dilated, showing what they ought to do. He said that the Tories never would be contented so to act. ‘Then,’ I said, ‘I certainly won’t pretend to answer for the consequences, but I am sure you have a good game enough in your hands, if you choose to play it; if you will throw it away, that is another thing.’ He told me one thing of Melbourne rather droll. Wharncliffe gave notice of a motion (which comes on to-night) about Lord John Russell’s appointment of magistrates under the new Act, which he declares to have been very partially and improperly done. After speaking to Melbourne about it, Melbourne came over to him (Wharncliffe) and said, ‘Now tell me, have we been very bad in our appointments?’

Last night I sat next to Poulett Thomson at dinner, who told me a great deal about Dr. Hampden’s appointment,[9]which makes such an uproar among the Tories and High Churchmen. He declares that Melbourne consulted various authorities, and the Archbishop of Canterbury among the rest, who made no objection to the appointment; that when the Oxford remonstrance was sent up the Archbishop wrote a very Jesuitical letter, in which he endeavoured to reconcile his former approbation of the appointment with his present concurrence in the remonstrance. Melbourne sent for him, and asked whether he had any charge to make against Hampden; he replied that he had none; when Melbourne said that he could not, then, cancel the appointment, which had been already notified to him. [This account of Poulett Thomson’s was, however, untrue. William Cowper, Melbourne’s private secretary and nephew, gave me another, which I doubt not is more correct, and puts the matter in aDR. HAMPDEN’S APPOINTMENT.very different point of view. Melbourne sent to the Archbishop and desired him to give him a list of six names, which he accordingly did; but Melbourne would not take any of them, and without consulting the Archbishop about Hampden, appointed him. He did consult Coplestone and some others, but not the Archbishop. I believe the cry against Hampden to be a senseless cry, and that it is raised by mere bigotry and spite, but I think Melbourne behaved neither prudently nor properly. When he desired the Archbishop to give him a list of six, the latter must certainly have conceived that he would select one out of the number, and would not have divined that he would pass them all over and appoint another man without consulting him at all.—February 28th.] I have read the pamphlet written against Hampden, and though some of his expressions are perhaps imprudent as giving occasion to malicious cavil, it contains no grave matter, and nothing to support an accusation of heterodoxy. If he had been a Tory instead of a Liberal in politics, we should probably have heard nothing of the matter.

[9][This was the appointment of Dr. Hampden to be Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. He was raised to the See of Hereford in 1848.]

I was surprised to hear Poulett Thomson talk in great indignation of Lord William Bentinck’s address to Glasgow, which he characterised as very disgraceful, and asserted that such miserable truckling to the will of his constituents would not avail him anything, but rather diminish their respect for him—very good sentiments. The Government are very angry at what took place about the Orange Lodge resolutions. Mr. Jervis moves an address to the Crown to-night, and Perceval proposed to Lord John Russell to draw up some resolution condemning these associations, which he said they would agree to if not violent and offensive, and that it was very desirable the sentiments of the House of Commons should be expressed unanimously, or by a very large majority, because in that case the Orangemen would see the necessity of yielding obedience to them, and would do so. Accordingly John Russell sent him the copy of a resolution (on Saturday) which he proposed to bring forward, but which he said he had not yet submitted to the Cabinet. This was communicated to Peel and Stanley aswell, and all parties agreed to it; but John Russell was much surprised and disgusted when this resolution (which was communicated quite privately to Perceval, and which he told him his colleagues had not been as yet consulted about) appeared yesterday morning in the ‘Times.’

Lord John Russell immortalised himself on Tuesday night. After a speech from Hume of three hours, in which he produced a variety of the most inconceivable letters from Kenyon, Wynford, Londonderry, and other Orangemen, but made the most miserable hash of his whole case, and instead of working up his ample materials with dexterity and effect stupidly blundering and wasting them all—after this speech John Russell rose, and in a speech far surpassing his usual form, dignified, temperate, and judicious, moved a resolution of a moderate and inoffensive character. The speech actually drew tears from the Orangemen, enthusiastic approbation from Stanley, a colder approval from Peel, and the universal assent of the House. It was a night of harmony; the Orangemen behaved very well, and declared that after this speech they would abandon their association; they only objected to the Orange Lodges being mentioned by name, and urged that the resolution should be only general in expression; and in this Stanley and Peel supported them; Lord John declined, and properly; the others would have done better to advise the Orangemen not to cavil at this, but to swallow the whole pill handsomely, and not mar the effect of their really meritorious conduct by making any trivial difficulties. Peel’s and Stanley’s speeches were characteristic; the latter with a generous enthusiasm of praise and congratulation to his old friend, which evinced feeling and was sincere; Peel colder in his expressions, and showing a great interest in the Orangemen, for the purpose evidently of conciliating them towards himself, and even incurring some risk of disturbing the general harmony by his warmth and sympathy towards them; but I have no doubt that he is as glad as any man at the dissolution of the confederacy, which now appears likely really to take place, for though they will probably not actually dissolve themselves,LORD RUSSELL AND THE ORANGEMEN.when the chiefs abandon the lodges their existence will be but a lingering one, and must come to an end or cease to be dangerous. In accomplishing this by moderate and healing counsels, by a conciliatory tone and manner, Lord John Russell deserves the name of a statesman. His speech is worth a thousand flowery harangues which have elicited the shouts of audiences or the admiration of readers, and he has probably conferred a great and permanent benefit upon the country. I do not mean that peace will be by these means restored to Ireland, or rather be bestowed on her, for when was she ever at peace? but until this object was accomplished, till the way was cleared, peace was unattainable. O’Connell behaved wisely; he made a short speech, and fell in cordially with the general feeling of the House. This has strengthened the Government in reality, as it ought. So Lord Stanley said, and it is true.

Moore and O’Connell — Defeat of the Opposition — The Carlow Election — Lord Alvanley’s Speech to the Tory Peers — Nortonv.Lord Melbourne — Catastrophe after Epsom — Mendizabal and Queen Christina — Lord John Russell’s Moderation in the Ecclesiastical Commission — Theatricals at Bridgewater House — Irish Church — Ministerial Difficulties — Deplorable State of Spain — What was thought of Lord Palmerston in 1836 — Weakness of Government — Lord Lyndhurst’s Summary of the Session — Balance of Parties — Lady Augusta Kennedy’s Marriage — King’s Speech to Princess Victoria — Revolution of La Granja — Rudeness of the King to Ministers — Irritation of the King at the Duchess of Kent — Scene at Windsor on the King’s Birthday — Prince Esterhazy’s View of the Affairs of Europe — Emperor Nicholas at Vienna — A Crisis in Trade — State of the Court at Vienna — Duc de Reichstadt.

It is impossible to conceive anything like the stagnation in the political world—the Government secure in their seats, the Opposition aware of the helplessness of their efforts. I met Moore[1]at dinner a day or two ago, not having seen him for a long time. He told us some amusing anecdotes of his own reception in Ireland, which was very enthusiastic, in spite of his having quarrelled with O’Connell. Of this quarrel he likewise narrated the beginning and the end. He was indignant at O’Connell’smannerof prosecuting his political objects, and resolved to put his feelings on record. This he did, and he afterwards wrote some letters to a mutual friend explanatory of his sentiments and motives, and these were shown (intentionally) to O’Connell. Moore declined to retract or qualify, and a rupture consequently took place. When they met at Brookes’ O’Connell averted his face. So things remained till a short time ago, when theOPPOSITION DEFEATED.editor of a new quarterly review, which has been established for Catholic and Irish objects, wrote to Moore for his support, and O’Connell, whom he told of it, said, ‘Oh, pray let me frank the letter to Mr. Moore.’ This was repeated, and when Moore met O’Connell the other day at Brookes’, he went up to him and put out his hand. He said O’Connell was mightily moved, but accepted the proffered reconciliation, and they are again on good terms.

[1][Thomas Moore, the poet.]

Majority of 64 for Government on Tuesday night; unexpected by the public, but not, I take it, by the Whig managers, who make their people attend. It is an irrecoverable blow to the other side, and shows that the contest is hopeless there. O’Connell and Stanley made good speeches. It is remarkable that the Tory numbers are precisely what they were last year (243). At the levee yesterday they were all very gay at this victory; and Hobhouse said to me, ‘What fools they are; they don’t know their own interest; they are beaten in the House of Commons, their people won’t attend, they won’t see that they can’t resist these questions and that it is for their own interest they should be carried; why, when the appropriation clauses and these Bills are carried there will remain no difference between Peel and us. As for me, I care not who is in, or whether I am in or out of office; I care for peace and quietness, and that the country should go on. The Tories have rung the changes on this O’Connell cry till they can do no more, and it has failed them entirely; they have had every chance, and must now give it up;’ and a good deal more he said, till we were interrupted. I agree about the O’Connell cry; the subject is worn threadbare, it has been argued and ranted uponusque ad nauseam, and in spite of the mistakes O’Connell has made, the anti-Popery prejudices which prevail, and the blots upon his personal character, I doubt if he is as much hated in England as the Tories would have him. They have overdone their attacks on him, and as it has unluckily been their solecheval de bataille, they have ridden it till it has not a leg to stand upon.

Fell in with Lyndhurst in the street yesterdayreturning from Philips’, where he had been sitting for his portrait. ‘Well,’ he said, in his laughing, off-hand way, ‘we are done, entirely done.’ ‘What do you mean to do?’ ‘Oh, we shall pass Peel’s Bill, and they will be very glad of it; it will give the Government all the power which O’Connell would otherwise obtain, and they don’t want to see his power increase, and will prefer the augmentation of their own.’

It was only yesterday that I read the report of the Committee and O’Connell’s complete acquittal.[2]It is very singular that he does not seem to have known his own case, or he might have rebutted the accusations in the first instance; but it has turned out lucky for him, as it has afforded him a great triumph and his adversaries an equally great mortification. It is now time for the Tories to give up attacking him—that is, making him their grand political butt. They do not lower him; on the contrary, they raise his importance everywhere, and make his sway in Ireland more absolute. They are abominably sulky at this result of the Committee, which, however, was fairly constituted and unanimous in its decision. I must say I never expected they would make out much of a case. Yesterday I dined with Ben Stanley in Downing Street, and met Lytton Bulwer and Fonblanque, the latter a very agreeable man.

[2][The proceedings of the Committee on the Carlow election are here referred to. A Mr. Raphael had been returned for Carlow, chiefly by the influence of O’Connell. He was unseated on petition, and it was supposed that the evidence taken by the Committee would incriminate O’Connell, but the reverse was the case. O’Connell was wholly acquitted of any illegal or improper practices.]

Many weeks without a single line. I have been at Newmarket, and have known nothing of any sort or kind. All seems quieter in the political world than for a long time past. There was a meeting of Peers at Apsley House a week or ten days ago, to consider the course they should adopt about the Corporation Bill. After the discussion Alvanley rose and asked the Duke if there would be any more meetings. He said he was not aware that there would be, when Alvanley said that he was of opinion that the majority of the House of Lords, while dealing with the Government measures, wereLORD ALVANLEY’S PLAN FOR IRELAND.bound to give notice to the country of the measures of relief that they were themselves prepared to offer to Ireland, that in his opinion the only real relief that could be given was some system of poor law, and the payment of the Catholic clergy, bringing that body under the control of the Government, and making it penal to draw contributions from their flocks, and that he trusted their Lordships would be prepared to go so far. He describes the effect of this suggestion to have been most ludicrous. The Duke of Newcastle, who sat by him, was ready to bounce off his chair; all sorts of indistinct noises, hems, grunts, and coughs of every variety of modulation and expressive intonation were heard, but no answer and no remark. He told me that he had intended on Tuesday last to repeat the same thing in the House of Lords, and asked me to go down and hear him, but they would not allow him. The Duke said it was out of the question, and overruled him. I am very sorry he did not, for these are the true remedies, and I wish to see them put forth, and a beginning made of bringing such principles into action; but the Duke is not the man to let others have the credit of such measures. I expect to see the day when he will bring them forward himself; it is a pig not yet fit for killing, and he will not let anybody stick it but himself.

Great talk about the adjournment of Parliament on the 20th, and about Melbourne’s affair with Mrs. Norton, which latter, if it is not quashed, will be inconvenient. John Bull fancies himself vastly moral, and the Court is mighty prudish, and between them our off-hand Premier will find himself in a ticklish position. He has been served with notices, but people rather doubt the action coming on. I asked the Duke of Wellington a night or two ago what he had heard of it, and what he thought would be the result. He said he had only heard what everybody said, and that nothing would result. I said, ‘Would Melbourne resign?’ ‘O Lord, no! Resign? Not a bit of it. I tell you all these things are a nine-days’ wonder; it can’t come into court before Parliament is up. People will have done talking of it before that happens; it will all blow over, and won’t signify a straw.’So spoke his Grace. I doubt not prime ministers, ex and in, have a fellow-feeling and sympathy for each other, and like to lay down the principle of such thingsnot mattering. I hope, however, that itwillblow over, for it would really be very inconvenient and very mischievous. The Tories would fall on the individual from political violence, the Radicals on his class or order from hatred to the aristocracy. I believe the adjournment is principally on account of the affairs of Canada, regarding which the Government is in a difficulty that appears inextricable. I have heard a great deal on the subject, enough to show the magnitude of the embarrassment, but not enough to describe the state of things.

The Epsom races being over, which always absorb every other interest, I have leisure to turn my mind to other things. This year there has been a miserable catastrophe. Berkeley Craven deliberately shot himself after losing more than he could pay. It is the first instance of a man of rank and station in society making such an exit. He had originally a large landed estate, strictly entailed, got into difficulties, was obliged to go abroad, compromised with his creditors and returned, fell into fresh difficulties, involved himself inextricably in betting, and went on with a determination to shoot himself if his speculations failed, and so he did. He was very popular, had been extremely handsome in his youth, and was a fellow of infinite pleasantry and good-humour.

Lord Melbourne’s affair after all is likely to come before a court of law. He is very much annoyed at it, and so are his relations, but nobody expects him to resign. The Low Tories, the herd, exult at this misfortune, and find a motive for petty political gratification in it, but not so the Duke of Wellington or any of them who are above the miserable feelings of party spite. I am sorry for it, because it is a bad thing to see men in high places dragged through the mire.

I have heard a curious fact connected with the dismissal of Mendizabal from his post of Prime Minister. He made an attempt on the person of the Queen, which she resentedRESULT OF LORD MELBOURNE’S TRIAL.with the greatest aversion and rage. He afterwards wrote an apology, and then, aware of the blunder of so committing himself, endeavoured to get his letter back, which she refused to part with. The consequence was that she availed herself of the first opportunity to get rid of him.

Dined at St. James’s yesterday with the Jockey Club. The King made a speech about himself and the Queen and the turf; he told us ‘the Queen was an excellent woman, as we all knew, and that of all the societies which he had to entertain (which in his capacity were many and various) we were the most truly British.’ He was very tired, and withdrew early. Wharncliffe said he was weary and dejected.

The town has been full of Melbourne’s trial;[3]great exultation at the result on the part of his political adherents, great disappointment on that of the mob of Low Tories, and a creditable satisfaction among the better sort; it was in point of fact a very triumphant acquittal. The wonder is how with such a case Norton’s family ventured into court, but (although it is stoutly denied) there can be no doubt that old Wynford was at the bottom of it all, and persuaded Lord Grantley to urge it on for mere political purposes. There is pretty conclusive evidence of this. Fletcher Norton, who was examined on the trial, is staying in town with a Mr. Lowe, a Nottinghamshire parson, and Denison, who is Norton’s neighbour, called on him the other day; Denison talked to Lowe, who told him that Fletcher Norton had shown him the case on which they were going to proceed, and that he had told him he thought it was a very weak one, to which he had replied so did he, but he believed they expected it would produce a very importantpoliticaleffect. The King behaved very civilly about it, and expressed his satisfaction at the result in terms sufficiently flattering to Melbourne.

[3][The trial of the cause Nortonv.Lord Melbourne, which ended in a verdict for the defendant.]

To-night is the great night in the House of Lords, when they are to deal with the Commons’ amendments of theMunicipal Bill. Lord Grey is expected to speak, and he told his old colleagues that if he did he should say what they would not like. The fact is, he is out of humour. First he doesn’t like being laid aside, though he would not own this even to himself, and as he and Howick disagree on many points, Howick tells him nothing, and consequently he knows nothing, and this provokes him; then he is indignant at the O’Connellism of the Government, and abhors the attacks onhis order. Tavistock talked to me a great deal yesterday about Lord John Russell, who he declares is by no means the Radical he is accused by his adversaries of being, that he is opposed tooth and nail to the reform of the House of Lords, much disagreeing with O’Connell, that he has constantly and firmly refused to comply with the demands of the Dissenters in the matter of Church rates, and that in the Ecclesiastical Commission he and the bishops are on the best terms, and they are abundantly satisfied with him, that the greatest Reformer there is Lord Harrowby, and John Russell has had to act as mediator between him and the bishops. The prelates, it seems, have grasped at patronage with all their might, and have taken to themselves that which appertained to the chapters, much to the disgust of the latter; they likewise endeavoured to get hold of that which belongs to the Chancellor, and on this occasion John wrote on a slip of paper (which he threw across the table to the Archbishop of York), ‘I don’t object to your robbing one another, but I can’t let you rob the Crown.’ The Archbishop wrote back, ‘That is just what I expected from you.’ This shows at least the good-humour that prevails among them.

There has been such a stagnation in politics lately that I have heard nothing, and having been laid up with the gout for a fortnight, have seen scarcely anybody. The greatest interest I have had has been in the dramatic representation at Bridgewater House, to the rehearsals of which I ventured to go. They were very brilliant and successful. As the space was limited, the invitations necessarily were so, and everybody was wild to be there. There were one or twotracasseriesgrowing out of the thing, agitating for theTHEATRICALS AT BRIDGEWATER HOUSE.moment, but very uninteresting in themselves. The pieces were ‘Glenfinlas,’ taken from Walter Scott’s ballad, and ‘Lalla Rookh,’ from Moore’s poem; the principal performers were James Wortley, my brother Henry, Mitford, Mrs. Bradshaw, Miss Kemble (Mrs. Sartoris); and the chorus was composed of Mrs. Baring, Mrs. Hartopp, Miss Gent, Miss Paget, Lady Mary Paget (Lady Sandwich), Lady Wallscourt, Lady Georgiana Mitford, my sister, Lord Compton, Messrs. Westmacott, Holford, James Macdonald, Baynton Lushington. Grieve painted beautiful scenery, and the dresses were magnificent; all the ladies were covered with diamonds, which the great jewellers lent to them for the occasion. Mrs. Bradshaw’s acting was perfection itself, and altogether it was singular, striking, and eminently successful, especially ‘Glenfinlas,’ which was very ingeniously managed, and went off to the amazement of those who were concerned in it, who did not expect such success.

At Stoke for three days; divine weather, profusion of flowers and shade, and every luxury; nobody there of any consequence. On Tuesday night at the House of Lords to hear the debate, which was worth hearing. Lyndhurst spoke very ably, by far the finest style of speaking, so measured, grave, and earnest, nothing glittering and gaudy, but a manly and severe style of eloquence. Lord Grey spoke very becomingly, but was feeble compared with what he used to be. He endeavoured to effect a compromise, and said nothing offensive to anybody or any party, spoke strongly in favour of the Ministerial measure, and I think took the sound view. I have no doubt the Tory Lords are all in the wrong in taking the course they do, and their arguments are very frivolous and inefficient. O’Connell was not in the House during Lyndhurst’s philippic, but came in soon after, and his arrival made a great bustle.

Since Monday (4th) at De Ros’s villa. The division on the appropriation clause and the majority of only twenty-six was hailed with great triumph by the Tories, and was a grievous disappointment to the Government. This,with the Warwickshire election at the same moment, has made them very down in the mouth, and raised theConservative stockpretty considerably. There was very sharp work between Stanley and John Russell, who left offnoble friendingand took tonoble lordinghim, to show that they were quite two. The fact is that they are in a huge difficulty with this appropriation clause, which served their turn for a while (when it turned out Peel and cemented their alliance with the Radicals), and now it hangs like a millstone round their necks, and is not unlikely to produce the dissolution of the Government. Strange that this Irish Church in one way or another is the insuperable obstacle to peace and tranquillity in Ireland, and to the stability of any Administration here; and yet it is fought for as if the prosperity or salvation of the State depended on it—

Tantumreligiopotuit suadere malorum.

As far as the Whig Ministers are concerned it serves them right, for it was a wicked and foolish proceeding; their conduct will tell against them in the country, and when the House of Lords is accused of stopping legislation, people will not fail to ask, What else is the House of Commons doing, or rather how much more? They assert that tithes are the great bane of Ireland, and the cause of the disorder which prevail, and they propose a Tithe Bill as the remedy, but they clog it with a condition which they know, with as much certainty as human knowledge can attain, will prevent its passing into a law, and in this shape they persist in producing it. Lord John Russell and his colleagues, it is said, are pledged not to pass a Tithe Bill without this clause; but what cares the public for their pledges, and what is their consistency compared with the great interests at stake, and which are involved in the settlement of this question?

They acted ‘Genfinlas’ for the last time on Thursday, with greater success than ever. The Queen was invited, but did not come. All London is intent upon morning amusements—morning parties, which are extended into the night. TheAPPROPRIATION CLAUSE ABANDONED.Duchess of Buccleuch gave entertainments on Monday and Wednesday; De Ros on Friday—dinners, tents, illuminations, and dancing; all very gay for those who can find amusement in it, which I have ceased to do.

On Thursday night, almost as soon as I got back from Newmarket, I heard that it was strongly suspected that the Cabinet were in great embarrassment about the Irish Church question, and of course the Tories were proportionably elated at the visions of return to office which are always ready to dance before their eyes. This report was confirmed to me the next day (Friday) by Lord Tavistock, who told me what really was the case. The late division seems to have made a considerable impression, and several of the supporters of Government have represented that matters cannot continue in their present state, and that the resistance to payment of tithe on the one hand and the threats of rebellion on the other render it of paramount necessity to settle the question, and that it is better after all to take the Bill without the appropriation clause than to let it be again lost. This difference of opinion has of course particularly embarrassed Lord John Russell, and they do not know what to do. With respect to Lord John himself the question is, Can he continue in office and let the Bill pass without the clause? If he cannot, are his colleagues as completely committed as he is, or may not they elect some other leader on his migration, and take the Bill in that state? I told Tavistock that he well knew what my opinions had always been with respect to the introduction of that clause, which seemed to be more fully justified by the event; that I did not think any difference could be made between John and his colleagues, and they must stand or fall together. With respect to their taking the Bill without the clause, they, and Lord John in particular, must make up their minds, if they did so, to have every species of abuse poured upon them from their Tory enemies and their Radical friends; but they were in a scrape, and had, in fact, got the country into a scrape too, and their duty now was to take that course which on the whole seemed to promise the best results, whatever it might personallycost them and to whatever reproaches they might render themselves liable. If they were satisfied that no other Government would at present be formed, and that the Irish Church question could be settled in no other way, they ought to swallow the pill. He said he thought they were not indisposed to face the obloquy, if it must be so, and that all depended upon the conduct of the Lords, and upon their affording the Government a decent pretext for taking the Bill. I asked how. He said that what he thought of was this—earnestly conjuring me not to commit him and his friends by saying he had suggested any such thing (which satisfied me that it was not only his own idea, but that of others also belonging to the Government)—that last year the Lords had thrown out the Bill, because the appropriation clause being a money clause, they could not touch it, but that now this objection was removed as to form, and they were at liberty to cut it out if they pleased, and return the Bill without it to the Commons; that if they would at the same time pass a resolution declaring that if any surplus was reported such surplus should be at the disposal of Parliament, without expressing any opinion as to the way in which Parliament should deal with it, this, he thought, would be sufficient to enable the Whigssalvo honoreto take the Bill; neither party would be compromised or committed to anything at variance with the principles they had already professed, and the alteration in the state of the question produced by the discovery of that legal process to which the clergy had had recourse would, together with such a resolution, be a sufficient warrant to them to pass the Bill. I told him that I would not commit him, and I would endeavour (if I had an opportunity) to ascertain if there was any chance of the Lords taking such a course, to which I could see no objection.

Came here yesterday from Hillingdon, the day before from London. In the morning (Friday) there was a meeting of the Ministerialists at the Foreign Office; called by Lord John Russell, to talk to them about the Church Bill. After the skirmish in the House of CommonsTHE MINISTRY IN DIFFICULTIES.between him and Charles Buller a deputation, headed by Hume, waited on Melbourne to remonstrate, and they reported that the interview was on his part very civil and good-natured, but very unsatisfactory. Lord John Russell therefore called them together and harangued them. He is said to have spoken very well, stating that Government could not and would not give way with respect to this measure, and reminding Hume that in a former speech he had already assented to the principle of the Bill. The English Radicals were, however, not to be appeased, spoke strongly, and declared they would oppose the Bill in every stage. O’Connell rose, and said that he would support Government, that it was of vital consequence to Ireland that there should be no appearance of disunion in the party, and that no idea should prevail there that there was a chance of its being broken up; and for this reason Government should have his support.

I met them all coming away, and fastened on Tom Duncombe, who told me what had passed, and how angry they (the English Radicals) were. I asked him whether their resentment would induce them to desert Government on the appropriation clauses and stay away, because, if so, they must go out; and he said that it would not push them to that length. It may be presumed that O’Connell’s behaviour at this meeting will have bound the Government still more not to give way on this clause, and that whatever the Lords may do, they will fight the battle.

The Lords in the meantime have gone quietly into Committee, and the second reading passed off with tolerable harmony. Melbourne made a good speech, and produced a surplus, but which the Duke of Wellington will take very good care to reduce again tonil. This is very easily done on one side, and the contrary on the other; redistribution can accomplish either desideratum—surplus or no surplus. However, the Government seems to be in a pretty state between their moderate and their violent adherents, and though they may scramble through this session, and hustle Parliament to an end, it is difficult to see how they will everpass the ordeal of another, for they can neither continue in their present course nor adopt any other with safety.

I met old Denison (the member for Surrey)—a strong supporter of the Government and an old Whig—coming from the meeting on Friday, and suggested to him what a scrape his friends were in. He owned that it was so, but said that parties were so balanced that Peel could not go on if he came in. I said Peel could not go on if the King turned out the Government as he had done before, or if Peel was instrumental in compelling them to resign; but that if they resigned of their own accord, and because they were themselves conscious that they could not go on, I thought Peel would be supported by a majority even of this House of Commons; for, after all, the country must have a Government, and if Peel took it because it was vacant, and nobody else could be found to occupy it, he could not be refused the trial, which he had in vain asked for before. He owned this was true, and such an admission from such a man was a great deal. The King is evidently waiting with the greatest impatience for the moment when his Ministers must resign. He complained bitterly of my brother-in-law’s[4]going abroad, and said it was a time when every Conservative ought to be at his post, which means that every opponent of his Ministers should strive with ceaseless zeal to drive them to the wall. He is a true king of the Tories, for his impatience fully equals theirs.

[4][Lord Francis Egerton.]

After the meeting at the Foreign Office there seems to have been an end of all notion of any compromise, or any giving way on the part of the Government about the clauses in the Tithe Bill, and Lord John Russell held very strong language. The debate presented nothing remarkable. Sheil came over from Ireland on purpose to speak, not being able to vote, as he had paired. Great exertions were made on both sides, and the Tories dragged up Sir Watkin Williams Wynn from Wales, very infirm; and had a blind man in the House, led about by Ross. TheDISSENSION BETWEEN LORDS AND COMMONS.majority of twenty-nine ought to have been twenty-six, just the same as the last division. Sir Charles Cockerell (Whig) was shut out, whilst on the other side Lord Arthur Hill’s[5]vote was lost by his mother’s death, which made him a Peer, and the Lennoxes and Poyntz stayed away. The whole thing went off tamely enough; everybody in Parliament knew what was to happen, and out of doors people don’t care. While the revenue presents an excess of two millions, and everything flourishes, political excitement is impossible. The Lords continue to throw out Bills, and many complaints are made of their evident determination to reject as many of the Commons’ measures as they can. Some of them have been opposed, particularly the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill, by the Ministers themselves. The Lords, however, no doubt evince a very imprudent disposition to exercise their power of rejection without grave and sufficient cause, and needlessly to expose themselves to the charge of wanton and intemperate opposition to the measures of the Commons. It is the height of folly to make the line between the two Houses as broad as possible, and to publish to the world on every occasion that the one House is Whig and the other Tory; not but what (in the present rage for legislation, and the careless and hurried way in which measures are bustled through the House of Commons) the revision and watchful superintendence of the House of Lords are more than ever necessary.

[5][Lord Arthur Hill became Baron Sandys on the death of his mother, the Marchioness of Downshire, who was Baroness Sandys in her own right.]

There was a report of General Evans’ death the other day, which was believed for some time, and long enough to show that there would have been a contest for Westminster if it had been true.

The accounts from Spain are deplorable, and it is curious enough that while Palmerston was proclaiming in the House of Commons his conviction of the ultimate success of the Christino cause he must have had letters from Villiers in his pocket telling him that it was almost hopeless. I saw one from him a few days ago, written in the greatest despondency.He said that he had been stopped on his road to St. Ildefonso by intelligence that the Carlists were approaching the place, and that the Queen had taken flight. He found all the relays of mules ready for her Majesty, and he returned to Madrid. It turned out to be a false alarm, and the Queen stayed where she was; but he said that he could only compare the progress of the Carlists to water spreading over table-land. It will be a severe blow to Palmerston if this cause is overthrown, though perhaps no fault of his policy. Had France acted fairly, the result of the Quadruple Alliance would have answered the expectation of its authors, but France, instead of co-operating according to the spirit of that treaty, has thrown every impediment in its way. It is surprising to hear how Palmerston is spoken of by those who know him well officially—the Granvilles, for example. Lady Granville, a woman expert in judging, thinks his capacity first-rate; that it approaches to greatness from his enlarged views, disdain of trivialities, resolution, decision, confidence, and above all his contempt of clamour and abuse. She told me that Madame de Flahault had a letter written by Talleyrand soon after his first arrival in England, in which he talked with great contempt of the Ministers generally, Lord Grey included, and said there was but one statesman among them, and that was Palmerston. His ordinary conversation exhibits no such superiority; but when he takes his pen in his hand his intellect seems to have full play, and probably when engaged exclusively in business.

On Monday last I was riding early in the Park and met Lord Howick. We rode together for some time. He said that ‘he supposed they should be out after this session, and they ought to be out, as they could carry none of their measures, and the Lords rejected Bill after Bill sent up from the other House; that since the Tories chose to go on in this way, they must make the experiment and carry on the Government if they could, but they must look for every opposition from his friends and his party. It was quite impossible things could go on upon their presentPARLIAMENT PROROGUED.footing; the country would not stand it, and the Lords must look to those changes which their own conduct rendered indispensable.’ I said to Howick that the appropriation clause made the great difficulty of the Whigs; that I believed they were, on the whole, a very Conservative Government, but why struggle for this absurdity, and why not bring forward a measure at once of real relief and pay the Catholic clergy? He said they could not do it; their own friends would not support them; that the Tories might have done it, but that the Whigs could not. ‘So,’ I replied, ‘both parties are in such a position that no Conservative measures can be carried but by the Whigs, and no Liberal ones but by the Tories.’

Since this there has been a free conference, and the Lords have been bowling down Bills like ninepins. This certainly cannot go on; either the Tories must come into power again, or the Whigs must do something to control the House of Lords, or the Lords must lower their tone and adopt more moderate counsels. The latter would be the best, as it is the least probable, of the three alternatives.

His Majesty was pleased to be very facetious at the Council the other day, though not very refined. A new seal for the Cape of Good Hope was approved, and the impression represented a Caffre, with some ornaments on his head which resembledhorns. The King asked Lord Glenelg what thesehornsmeant, but Glenelg referred his Majesty to Poulett Thomson, to whom he said, ‘Well, Mr. Thomson, what do you say to this? I know you are a man of gallantry, but if you choose to be represented with a pair of horns I am sure I have no objection;’ at which sally their lordships laughed, as in duty bound.

Yesterday the King prorogued Parliament with a very moderate, inoffensive Speech. The Tories had spread a report that the Ministers wanted to thrust into the Speech some allusions to the conduct of the House of Lords, but no such thing was ever contemplated.

The session was wound up by an oration of Lyndhurst’s in the House of Lords, introduced with a considerable note ofpreparation. It was announced a day or two before that he was going down to deliver a vindication of the majority of the Lords and of himself for their conduct during the session, and the expectation which was raised was not disappointed. It seems to have been a great display, and sufficiently well answered by Melbourne. As his opponents universally admit that Lyndhurst’s speech was of consummate ability, while his friends confess that it was not discreet and well judged, we may safely conclude that it deserves both the praise and the blame; and as the Duke of Wellington rose afterwards and made a speech of remarkable moderation, it would certainly appear as if he thought it necessary to temper the violence of Lyndhurst by a more conciliatory tone. When I sayhis friendshave expressed the opinions above stated, I should say that I have conversed with only two—Lords Bathurst and Ripon—and they both expressed themselves to this effect. Lord Holland, who endeavoured to answer it, said he thought Lyndhurst’s one of the best speeches he had ever heard in Parliament.

If he had confined himself to a temperate and dignified vindication of the proceedings of the House of Lords (that is, of his own), and had abstained from any attack on the Government, and especially from any language reflecting on the Commons, perhaps it would have been a wise measure, but it cannot be wise to widen the differences which already exist between the two Houses, and to render all the animosities of public men more bitter and irreconcilable than they were before. The Tories are convinced that they are becoming more and more popular, and that the country approves of the daring behaviour of the Lords. The Whigs insist that the apathy of the country (which they mistake for approbation) is nothing but the imperturbability resulting from prosperity and full employment, but that if adverse circumstances arise a storm will burst on the Lords, and they will see how miserably deceived they are. I think the Lords have gone too far, and though a vast deal of crude legislation comes up from the Commons, requiring much supervision, and often great alteration, theyMARRIAGE OF LADY AUGUSTA FITZCLARENCE.have shown an animus and adopted a practice quite foreign to the usual habits of the House of Lords, and which is in itself an important innovation. The truth is, it is not (as has been represented) a contest betweenthe two Houses, but between the two greatpartiesvery nearly balanced, of which the stronghold of one is in the Lords, and that of the other in the Commons. It can scarcely cross the minds of either party, or of any individual of either, that the substantive power of Government can or ought to be transferred from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, and Lyndhurst and the Tories would not venture to make the havoc which they do in the Government Bills if they were not persuaded that if ever a crisis is produced by the collision their party will succeed in obtaining the sanction of the country and an ascendency in the other House. If they have estimated correctly their own strength and the real disposition of the country, their Parliamentary tactics have been skilful, but the game which they play is a very desperate one, for if it fails the House of Lords can hardly avoid suffering very materially from the conflict. However, much is to be said on the subject when considered in all its bearings.

The King at his last levee received Dr. Allen to do homage for the see of Ely, when he said to him, ‘My Lord, I do not mean to interfere in any way with your vote in Parliament except on one subject,the Jews, and I trust I may depend on your always voting against them.’

At Hillingdon from Saturday to Monday. There were great festivities at Windsor during the Egham race week, when the King’s daughter Lady Augusta was married at the Castle[6]. It was remarked that on the King’s birthday not one of the Ministers was invited to the Castle, and none except the Household in any way connected with the Government. At the Queen’s birthday a short timebefore not one individual of that party was present. Nothing can be more undisguised than the King’s aversion to his Ministers, and he seems resolved to intimate that his compulsory reception of them shall not extend to his society, and that though he can’t help seeing them at St. James’s, the gates of Windsor are shut against them. All his habitual guests are of the Tory party, and generally those who have distinguished themselves by their violence or are noted for their extreme opinions—Winchilsea and Wharncliffe, for example, of the former, and the Duke of Dorset of the latter sort. At the dinner on his birthday the King gave the Princess Victoria’s health rather well. Having given the Princess Augusta’s he said, ‘And now, having given the health of the oldest, I will give that of the youngest member of the Royal Family. I know the interest which the public feel about her, and althoughI have not seen so much of her as I could have wished, I take no less interest in her, and the more I do see of her, both in public and in private, the greater pleasure it will give me.’ The whole thing was so civil and gracious that it could hardly be taken ill, but the young Princess sat opposite, and hung her head with not unnatural modesty at being thus talked of in so large a company.

Back to Index Next