The Greville Memoirs, Part 1 (of 3), Volume 2 (of 3) / A Journal of the Reigns of King George IV and King William IV

by Charles Greville

1832

Panshanger, January 1st, 1832

PANSHANGER. Distress seems to increase hereabouts, and crime with it. Methodism and saintship increase too. The people of this house are examples of the religion of the fashionable world, and the charity of natural benevolence, which the world has not spoiled. Lady Cowper and her family go to church, but scandalise the congregation by always arriving half an hour too late. The hour matters not; if it began at nine, or ten, or twelve, or one o’clock, it would be the same thing; they are never ready, and always late, but they go. Lord Cowper never goes at all; but he employs multitudes of labourers, is ready to sanction any and every measure which can contribute to the comfort and happiness of the peasantry. Lady Cowper and her daughters inspect personally the cottages and condition of the poor. They visit, enquire, and give; they distribute flannel, medicines, money, and they talk to and are kind to them, so that the result is a perpetual stream flowing from a real fountain of benevolence, which waters all the country round and gladdens the hearts of the peasantry, and attaches them to those from whom it emanates.

Panshanger, January 6th, 1832

Talleyrand, Dino, Palmerston, Esterhazy, came yesterday and went away to-day—that is, the two first and the Seftons did. There has been another contest in the Cabinet about the Peers, which has ended in a sort of compromise, and five are to be made directly, two new ones and three eldest sons called up. Old Talleyrand came half-dead from the conferences, which have been incessant these few days, owing to the Emperor of Russia’s refusal to ratify the treaty and the differences about the Belgian fortresses. One conference lasted eleven hours and a quarter, and finished at four o’clock in the morning.

Gorhambury, January 7th, 1832

Came here to-day. Berkeley Paget and Lushington; nobody else. Had a conversation with Lady C. before I came away; between Palmerston, Frederick Lamb, and Melbourne she knows everything, and is a furious anti-Reformer. The upshot of the matter is this: the question about the Peers is still under discussion; Lord Grey and the ultra party want to make a dozen, now, the others want only to yield five or six. Lord Grey wrote to Palmerston saying the King had received his proposition (about the Peers) very well, but desired to have his reasons in writing, and to-day at twelve there was to be another Cabinet on the subject, in order probably that the ‘reasons’ might go down by the post. The moderate party in the Cabinet consists of Lansdowne, Richmond, Palmerston, Melbourne, and Stanley. Palmerston and Melbourne, particularly the latter, are now heartily ashamed of the part they have taken about Reform. They detest and abhor the whole thing, and they find themselves unable to cope with the violent party, and consequently implicated in a continued series of measures which they disapprove; and they do not know what to do, whether to stay in and fight this unequal battle or resign. I told her that nothing could justify their conduct, and their excuses were good for nothing; but that there was no use in resigning now. They might still do some good in the Cabinet; they could do none out of it. In fact, Durham and the most violent members of the Cabinet would gladly drive Palmerston and Melbourne to resign if they could keep Stanley, who is alone of importance of that squad; but he is of such weight, from his position in the House of Commons, that if he can be prevailed upon to be staunch, and to hold out with the moderates against the ultras, the former will probably prevail. Durham wants to be Minister for Foreign Affairs, and would plague Lord Grey till he gave him the seals, unless his other colleagues put a veto upon the appointment. But the anxiety of the Reformers to make Peers has not reference to the Reform Bill alone; they undoubtedly look further, and knowing their own weakness in the House of Lords, they want to secure a permanent force, which may make them stronger than their antagonists in that House. Otherwise they would not be so averse to all questions of conciliation, express their disbelief in conversions, and trumpet forth their conviction that any individual of the late majority will vote just the same way again. The earnest EFFORTS OF THE MODERATE PARTY. desire of the moderate party in the Cabinet is that those who will vote for the second reading shall make haste to declare their intention, and I have written to Lady Harrowby to endeavour to get Lord Harrowby to take some such step. I had already written to De Ros, urging him to speak to Wharncliffe, and get him to take an opportunity of giving the King to understand that the necessity for a creation of Peers is by no means so urgent as his Ministers would have him believe.

Panshanger, January 13th, 1832

Returned here yesterday; found Melbourne, Lamb, the Lievens, the Haddingtons, Luttrell, the Ashleys, John Ashley, and Irby. While I was at Gorhambury I determined to write to Wharncliffe and urge him to speak to the King, and accordingly I did so. I received a letter from him saying that De Ros had already spoken to him, that he had had a conversation with Sir Herbert Taylor, which he had desired him to repeat to the King and to Lord Grey, that he had intended to leave the matter there, but in consequence of my letter he should ask for an audience. This morning I have heard again from him. He saw the King, and was with him an hour; put his Majesty in possession of his sentiments, and told him there would be no necessity for creating Peers if the Government would be conciliatory and moderate in the Committee of the House of Commons; he promised to tell me the particulars of this interview when we meet.

Last night Frederick Lamb told me that Lord Grey had sent word to Melbourne of what Wharncliffe had said to Sir Herbert Taylor, and Lord Grey assumed the tenour of Wharncliffe’s language to have been merely an advice to the King not to make Peers, whereas all I suggested to him was to explain to the King that the creation was not necessary for the reasons which have been assigned to his Majesty by his Ministers, viz., the intention of all who voted against the second reading last year to vote against it this. In the meantime the dispute has been going on in the Cabinet, time has been gained, and several incidents have made a sort of cumulative impression. There is a petition to the King, got up by Lord Verulam and Lord Salisbury, which is in fact a moderate Reform manifesto. It has been numerously signed, and Verulam is going to Brighton to present it. I have been labouring to persuade him to make up his mind to vote for the second reading, and to tell the King that such is his intention, which he has promised me he will. When I had obtained this promise from him I wrote word to Lady Cowper, telling her at the same time that Lord Harris (I had heard) would vote for the second reading, and this letter she imparted to Melbourne, who stated the fact in the Cabinet, where it made a considerable impression. All such circumstances serve to supply arms to the moderate party.

This morning Melbourne went up to another Cabinet, armed with another fact with which I supplied him. Lord Craven declared at his own table that if the Government made Peers he would not vote with them, and if he was sent for he should reply that as they could create Peers so easily they might do without him. All such circumstances as these, I find, are considered of great importance, and are made available for the purpose of fighting the battle in the Cabinet. As to Lord Grey, it is exceedingly difficult to understand his real sentiments, and to reconcile his present conduct with the general tenour of his former professions; that he was averse to the adoption of so violent a measure I have no doubt—his pride and aristocratic principles would naturally make him so—but he is easily governed, constantly yielding to violence and intimidation, and it is not unlikely that the pertinacity of those about him, the interests of his party, and the prolongation of his power may induce him to sacrifice his natural feelings and opinions. It is very probable that, although he may have allowed himself to be at the head of those who are for the creation, he may have such misgivings and scruples as may prevent his carrying that point with the high hand and in the summary way which he might do.

January 15th, 1832

This morning Frederick Lamb showed me a letter he had got from Melbourne to this effect: ‘that they had resolved to make no Peers at all at present; that to make a few would be regarded as a menace, and be as bad as WHARNCLIFFE’S INTERVIEW WITH THE KING. if they made a great many; but that as many as would be necessary to carry the Bill would be made, if it was eventually found that it must be so;’ he added ‘it only remained for people to come forward and declare their intention of supporting the second reading.’ This is certainly a great victory, and I do believe mainly attributable to our exertions, to the spirit we have infused into Melbourne himself, and the use we have made of Wharncliffe and Verulam, and the different little circumstances we have brought to bear upon the discussion. What now remains is the most difficult, but I shall do all I can to engage Peers to take a moderate determination and to declare it. Lamb told me that the King has an aversion to making a few Peers, that he has said he would rather make twenty-five than five, that whatever he must make he should like to make at once, and not to have to return to it. Anyhow, time is gained, and a victory for the moment.

London, January 20th, 1832

Came up on Monday last. I have been changing my house, and so occupied that I have not had time to write. Wharncliffe came to town on Wednesday, and came straight to my office to give me an account of his interview with the King, in which it appears as if he had said much about what he ought, and no more. He told his Majesty that the reports which had been circulated as to the disposition and intentions of himself and his friends, and the argument for the necessity of making Peers, which he understood to have been founded on these reports, had compelled him to ask for this audience, that he wished to explain to his Majesty that he (Lord Wharncliffe) had no intention of opposing the second reading of the Reform Bill as he had done before, that he had reason to believe that many others would adopt the same course, and if Ministers showed a moderate and conciliating disposition in the House of Commons, he was persuaded they would have no difficulty in carrying the second reading in the House of Lords. He then implored the King well to consider the consequences of such a coup d’état as this creation of Peers would be; to look at what had happened in France, and to bear in mind that if this was done for one purpose, and by one Government, the necessity would infallibly arise of repeating it again by others, or for other objects. He was with the King an hour dilating upon this theme. The King was extremely kind, heard him with great patience, and paid him many compliments, and when he took leave told him that he was extremely glad to have had this conversation with him. Sir Herbert Taylor gave Lord Wharncliffe to understand that he had made an impression, only impressions on the mind of the King are impressions on sand. However, from Taylor’s cautious hints to him to persevere, it is likely that he did do good. He is himself persuaded that his audience principally produced the delay in the creation of Peers.

In the meantime he was not idle at Brighton. Lord Ailesbury, who saw the King, consulted Wharncliffe, and agreed at last to tell the King that his sentiments were the same as those which Lord Wharncliffe had expressed to him, and Lord Kinnoull and Lord Gage have promised him their proxies.

Yesterday morning he came to me again, very desponding. He had found Harrowby in a state of despair, uncertain what he should do, and looking upon the game as lost, and he had been with the Duke of Wellington, who was impracticably obstinate, declaring that nothing should prevent his opposing a Bill which he believed in his conscience to be pregnant with certain ruin to the country; that he did not care to be a great man (he meant by this expression a man of great wealth and station), and that he could contentedly sink into any station that circumstances might let him down to, but he never would consent to be a party directly or indirectly to such a measure as this, and, feeling as he did, he was resolved to do his utmost to throw it out, without regard to consequences. Wharncliffe said he was quite in despair, for that he knew the Duke’s great influence, and that if he and Harrowby endeavoured to form a party against his views, they had no chance of making one sufficiently strong to cope with him. He spoke with great and rather unusual modesty of himself, and of his inadequacy for THE WAVERERS AND WELLINGTON. this purpose; that Harrowby might do more, and would have greater influence, but that he was so undecided and so without heart and spirit that he would not bestir himself. However, he acknowledged that nothing else was left to be done.

In the evening went to Lady Harrowby’s, where I found him and Lord Haddington. We stayed there till near two, after which Wharncliffe and I walked up and down Berkeley Square. He was in much better spirits, having had a long conversation with these two Lords, both of whom he said were now resolved to sail along with him, and he contemplates a regular and declared separation from the Duke upon this question. In the morning he had seen Lyndhurst, who appeared very undecided, and (Wharncliffe was apprehensive) rather leaning towards the Duke, but I endeavoured to persuade him that Lyndhurst was quite sure to adopt upon consideration the line which appeared most conducive to his own interest and importance, that he had always a hankering after being well with Lord Grey and the Whigs, and I well remembered when the late Government was broken up he had expressed himself in very unmeasured terms about the Duke’s blunders, and the impossibility of his ever again being Prime Minister; that with him consistency, character, and high feelings of honour and patriotism were secondary considerations; that he relied upon his great talents and his capacity to render himself necessary to an Administration; that it was not probable he would like to throw himself (even to please the Duke) into an opposition to the earnest desire which the great mass of the community felt to have the question settled; and that both for him and themselves much of the difficulty of separating themselves from the Duke might be avoided by the manner in which it was done. I entreated him to use towards the Duke every sort of frankness and candour, and to express regret at the necessity of taking a different line, together with an acknowledgment of the purity of the Duke’s motives; and if this is done, and if other people are made to understand that they can separate from the Duke on this occasion without offending or quarrelling with him, or throwing off the allegiance to him as their political leader, many will be inclined to do so; besides, it is of vital importance, if they do get the Bill into Committee, to secure the concurrence of the Duke and his adherents in dealing with the details of it, which can only be effected by keeping him in good humour. On the whole the thing looks as well as such a thing can look.

---

CHAPTER XVII.

Measures for carrying the Second Reading of the Reform Bill in the House of Lords — The Party of the Waverers — The Russo-Dutch Loan — Resistance of the Tory Peers — Lord Melbourne’s Views on the Government — Macaulay at Holland House — Reluctance of the Government to create Peers — Duke of Wellington intractable — Peel’s Despondency — Lord Grey on the Measures of Conciliation — Lord Wharncliffe sees the King — Prospects of the Waverers — Conversations with Lord Melbourne and Lord Palmerston — Duke of Richmond on the Creation of Peers — Interview of Lord Grey with the Waverers — Minute drawn up — Bethnal Green — The Archbishop of Canterbury vacillates — Violence of Extreme Parties — Princess Lieven’s Journal — Lord Holland for making Peers — Irish National Education — Seizure of Ancona — Reform Bill passes the House of Commons — Lord Dudley’s Madness — Debate in the Lords.

---

January 24th, 1832

Yesterday morning Frederick Lamb came to me and told me that the question of the Peers was again in agitation, that the King had agreed to make as many as they pleased, and had understood Wharncliffe’s conversation with his Majesty not to have contained any distinct assurance that he would vote for the second reading of the Bill. Our party in the Cabinet still fight the battle, however, and Stanley (on whom all depends) is said to be firm, but circumstances may compel them to give way, and Lord Grey (who is suspected to have in his heart many misgivings as to this measure), when left to Durham and Co., yields everything. Under these circumstances I went to Wharncliffe last night, to persuade him to declare his intentions without loss of time. He owned that he had not pledged himself to the King, and he was frightened to death at the idea of taking this step, lest it should give umbrage to the Tories, and he should find himself without any support at all. We went, however, together to Grosvenor Square, and had a long conference with Harrowby, whom I found equally undecided.

In the meantime the Tories are full of activity and expectation, and Lord Aberdeen is going to bring on a motion about Belgium on Thursday, on which they expect to beat the Government, not comprehending that a greater evil could not occur, or a better excuse be afforded them for an immediate creation; still they have got it into their heads that if they can beat the Government before the Reform Bill comes on they will force them to resign. I found Harrowby and Wharncliffe equally undecided as to the course they should adopt, the former clinging to the hope that the Peerage question was at last suspended, that Lord Grey was compunctious, the King reluctant, and so forth—Wharncliffe afraid of being abandoned by those who are now disposed to consult and act with him, and indisposed to commit himself irretrievably in the House of Lords. After a long discussion I succeeded in persuading them that the danger is imminent, that there is no other chance of avoiding it, and they agreed to hoist their standard, get what followers they can, and declare in the House for the second reading without loss of time. Harrowby said of himself that he was the worst person in the world to conciliate and be civil, which is true enough, but he has a high reputation, and his opinion is of immense value. Until they declare themselves not a step will be made, and if they cannot gain adherents, why the matter is at an end; while if their example be followed, there is still a chance of averting the climax of all evils, the swamping the House of Lords and the permanent establishment of the power of the present Government. Wharncliffe is to go to the Duke of Wellington to-day, to entreat him not to let his party divide on Aberdeen’s motion on Thursday, and Harrowby will go to the Archbishop to invite his adhesion to their party. I am very doubtful what success to augur from this, but it is the only chance, and though the bulk of the Tory Peers are prejudiced, obstinate, and stupid to the last degree, there are scattered amongst them men of more rational views and more moderate dispositions. Sandon PLANS OF CONCILIATION. came in while we were there, and expressed precisely the same opinion that I had been endeavouring to enforce upon them. He said that in the House of Commons, whence he was just come, the Government had refused to give way upon a very reasonable objection, without assigning any reason (the numbers in Schedule B), that this evinced an unconciliatory spirit, which was very distressing to those who wished for a compromise, that Hobhouse came to him after the debate, and said how anxious he was they should come to some understanding, and act in a greater spirit of conciliation, and talked of a meeting of the moderate on either side, that his constituents were eager for a settlement, and by no means averse to concession, but that while Peel, Croker, and others persisted in the tone they had adopted, and in the sort of opposition they were pursuing, it was quite impossible for the Government to give way upon anything, or evince any disposition to make concessions. Sandon said he had no doubt whatever that if Peel had assumed a different tone at the beginning of the session the Government would have been more moderate, and mutual concessions might have been feasible even in the House of Commons. Hobhouse, however, said that the alterations, whatever they might be (and he owned that he should like some), would come with a better grace in the House of Lords, and this is what I have all along thought. O’Connell arrived yesterday, took his seat, and announced his intention of supporting Government at any rate. All the Irish members do the same, and this great body, that everyone expected would display hostility to the Bill, have formed themselves into a phalanx, and will carry it through any difficulties by their compactness and the regularity of their attendance.

January 25th, 1832

We met at Lord Harrowby’s last night—Wharncliffe, Harrowby, Haddington, and Sandon—and I found their minds were quite made up. Wharncliffe is to present a petition from Hull, and to take that opportunity of making his declaration, and the other two are to support him. Wharncliffe saw the Bishop of London in the morning, who is decided the same way, and he asked Lord Devon, who knows the House of Lords very well, if he thought, in the event of their raising the standard of moderate Reform, that they would have adherents, to which he replied he was convinced they would. Lord Harrowby saw the Archbishop, who would not pledge himself, but appeared well disposed; and altogether they think they can count upon nine bishops. Wharncliffe spoke to the Duke of Wellington about Lord Aberdeen’s motion, and represented all the impolicy of it at this moment, and the connection it might have with the Peerage question; to which he only replied by enlarging on ‘the importance of the Belgic question,’ either unable or unwilling to embrace this measure in its complex relations, and never perceiving that the country cares not a straw about Belgium or anything but Reform, though they may begin to care about such things when this question is settled. Haddington also went to Aberdeen, who would hear nothing; but he and the Duke severally promised to speak to one another. The question last night was whether Wharncliffe should say his say directly, or wait (as he wishes to do) for a few days. The decision of this he referred to me, and I have referred it to Melbourne, to whom I have communicated what has passed.

News came yesterday that the cholera had got within three miles of Edinburgh, and to show the fallacy of any theory about it, and the inutility of the prescribed precautions, at one place (Newport, I think) one person in five of the whole population was attacked, though there was no lack of diet, warmth, and clothing for the poor. This disease escapes from all speculation, so partial and eccentric is its character.

January 29th, 1832

There were two divisions on Thursday night last—in the House of Lords on the Belgian question, and in the House of Commons on the Russian Loan. Harrowby, Wharncliffe, and Haddington stayed away; Lyndhurst voted. Only two bishops, Durham and Killaloe. Ministers had a majority of thirty-seven, for Aberdeen and the Duke persisted in bringing on the question and dividing upon it. The former spoke nearly three hours, and far DISCREDIT OF MINISTERS. better than ever he had done before; the Duke was prosy. In the other House the Government had not a shadow of a case; their law officers, Home and Denman, displayed an ignorance and stupidity which were quite ludicrous, and nothing saved them from defeat but a good speech at the end from Palmerston, and their remonstrances to their friends that unless they carried it they must resign. Not a soul defends them, and they are particularly blamed for their folly in not coming to Parliament at once, by which they might have avoided the scrape.[1] They had only a majority of twenty-four. They were equally disgusted with both these divisions, both plainly showing that they have little power (independently of the Reform question) in either House. To be sure the case in the House of Commons was a wretched one, but in the House of Lords there was nothing to justify a vote of censure on Government, to which Aberdeen’s motion was tantamount. But while they had a majority which was respectable enough to make it impossible to propose making Peers on that account, it was so small that they see clearly what they have to expect hereafter from such a House of Lords, and accordingly their adherents have thrown off the mask. Sefton called on me the day after, and said it was ridiculous to go on in this way, that the Tories had had possession of the Government so many years, and the power of making so many Peers, that no Whig or other Ministry could stand without a fresh creation to redress the balance.

[1] [For a more particular account of the question of the Russo-Dutch Loan, see infra [February 4, 1832], p. 244. It has since been universally admitted that the conduct of the Government was wise and honourable, and that the separation of Holland and Belgium did not exonerate Great Britain from a financial engagement to foreign Powers.]

After having, as I supposed, settled everything with Wharncliffe about his declaration, I got a letter from him yesterday (from Brighton), saying he thought it would be premature, and wished to put it off till the first reading of the Bill in the House of Lords. I took his letter to Melbourne, and told him I was all against the delay. He said it was no doubt desirable they should get as many adherents as they can, and if the delay would enable them to do so it might be better, but they must not imagine Government was satisfied with the division in the House of Lords. However, the question of Peers seems not to be under discussion at this moment, though it is perpetually revived. In the evening I went to Harrowby’s and showed him Wharncliffe’s letter. He concurred in the expediency of delay, but without convincing me. He showed me a letter, and a very good one, he has written to Lord Talbot, explaining his views, and inviting his concurrence, and of this he has sent copies to other Peers, whom he thinks it possible he may influence. The question of time and manner is to be reserved for future discussion.

February 2nd, 1832

Met Frederick Lamb at dinner to talk over the state of affairs before he goes to Vienna. What he wishes for is the expulsion of this Government, and the formation of a moderate one taken from all parties. Received another letter from Wharncliffe yesterday, in which he stated that he had communicated to the Duke of Wellington his intention of supporting the second reading, and asked if the Duke would support his amendments in Committee. In the meantime I wrote to Harrowby, begging he would communicate with Lord Carnarvon and the Duke of Buckingham. They keep doubting and fearing about who will or will not join them, but do not stir a step. George Bentinck told me that Lord Holland said to the Duke of Richmond the other day ‘that he had heard a declaration was in agitation; that nothing could be more unfortunate at this moment, as it would make it very difficult to create fifty Peers.’ In the meantime a difficulty is likely to arise from another source, and the Government to derive strength from their very weakness. Robert Clive (who is a moderate Tory) called on me the other day, and when (after expressing his anxiety that the question should be settled) I asked him whether such a declaration would meet with much success, said he thought that it would have done so a fortnight ago, but that the extreme discredit into which Ministers were fallen would now operate as a reason against supporting them in any stage of SIR HENRY PARNELL. the business, and offered so good a chance of expelling them altogether that people would be anxious to try it. Still it must be so obvious that it would be next to impossible to make a Government now, that it is to be hoped all but the most violent will feel it. Herries indeed told somebody that he had no doubt the Tories could make a Government, and that on a dissolution they would get a Parliament that would support them. Parnell[2] has been turned out for not voting on the Russian Loan affair, and Hobhouse appointed in his place. Tennyson resigned from ill health. Parnell was properly enough turned out, and he is a good riddance, but it is not the same thing as turning people out on Reform. He wrote an excellent book on finance, but he was a very bad Secretary at War, a rash economical innovator, and a bad man of business in its details. After waiting till the last moment for the arrival of the Russian ratification, the French and English signed the Belgian treaty alone, and the others are to sign after as their powers arrive.

[2] [Sir Henry Parnell had been appointed Secretary at War on the formation of Lord Grey’s Ministry. He had exasperated his colleagues by entering upon an unauthorised negotiation with the French Post Office, without the knowledge of the Duke of Richmond, then Postmaster-General, and by encouraging Joseph Hume to bring on a motion against the Post Office. Hume brought this letter to the Duke of Richmond, who was indignant and laid the whole matter before Lord Grey, who behaved very well about it. Parnell narrowly escaped dismissal at that time, and on his next sign of disaffection to the Government he was turned out of office.]

February 4th, 1832

Called on Lord Harrowby in the morning; found him in very bad spirits, as well he might, for to all the invitations he had written to Peers he had received either refusals or no reply, so that he augurs ill of their attempt. Carnarvon and Talbot refused; these besotted, predestinated Tories will follow the Duke; the Duke will oppose all Reform because he said he would. Those who are inclined will not avow their conversion to moderate principles, and so they will go on, waiting and staring at one another, till one fine day the Peers will come out in the ‘Gazette.’ The thing looks ill. Dined with Lord Holland. Melbourne, who was there, asked me if I had heard from Wharncliffe, but I did not tell him of Lord Harrowby’s refusals.

Falck dined there, and in conversation about the Russian Loan he told us the original history of it. The Emperor of Russia had borrowed ninety millions of florins, and when his concurrence and support were desired to the new kingdom of the Netherlands he proposed in return that the King of Holland should take this debt off his hands. The King said he would gladly meet his wishes, but could not begin by making himself unpopular with his new subjects and saddling them with this debt. Whereupon England interposed, and an arrangement was made [in 1815] by which Russia, England, and the King of the Netherlands divided the debt into three equal shares, each taking one. With reference to the argument that the countries being divided we ought no longer to pay our share, Falck said the King of the Netherlands had not refused to pay on those grounds, that he had only (with reference to his heavy expenses) expressed his present inability and asked for time, which the Emperor of Russia had agreed to. What he meant was that the kingdoms were not as yet de jure separated, and that the casus had not yet arrived. This, however, is nothing to the purpose, for the King and the Emperor understand one another very well, and it is not likely that the King should do anything to supply us with a motive or a pretext for refusing our quota to his imperial ally. Brougham’s speech on the Russian Loan everybody agrees to have been super-excellent—‘a continued syllogism from the beginning to the end.’ Lord Holland said, and the Duke of Wellington (I am told) declared, it was the best speech he had ever heard.

February 5th, 1832

Met Melbourne yesterday evening, and turned back and walked with him; talked over the state of affairs. He said Government were very much annoyed at their division in the House of Commons, though Brougham had in some measure repaired that disaster in the House of Lords; that it became more difficult to resist making Peers as Government exhibited greater weakness. I told him the Tories were so unmanageable because they wished to drive out the Government, and thought they could. Dined at the Sheriff’s dinner—not unpleasant—and went in the evening MACAULAY AT HOLLAND HOUSE. to Lady Harrowby; Lord Harrowby gone to his brothers’. Melbourne had told me that he had spoken to Haddington, and I found Haddington had given a report of what he said such as I am sure Melbourne did not mean to convey; the upshot of which was that there was only one man in the Cabinet who wished to make Peers, that there was no immediate danger, and that it would do more harm than good if they declared themselves without a good number of adherents. Called this morning on Lady C., who said that Melbourne was in fact very much annoyed at his position, wanted caractère, was wretched at having been led so far, and tossed backwards and forwards between opposite sentiments and feelings; that he thought the Government very weak, and that they would not stand, and in fact that he did not desire they should remain in, but the contrary. And this is Frederick’s opinion too, who has great influence over him, while at the same time he is rather jealous of Frederick.

February 6th, 1832

Dined yesterday with Lord Holland; came very late, and found a vacant place between Sir George Robinson and a common-looking man in black. As soon as I had time to look at my neighbour, I began to speculate (as one usually does) as to who he might be, and as he did not for some time open his lips except to eat, I settled that he was some obscure man of letters or of medicine, perhaps a cholera doctor. In a short time the conversation turned upon early and late education, and Lord Holland said he had always remarked that self-educated men were peculiarly conceited and arrogant, and apt to look down upon the generality of mankind, from their being ignorant of how much other people knew; not having been at public schools, they are uninformed of the course of general education. My neighbour observed that he thought the most remarkable example of self-education was that of Alfieri, who had reached the age of thirty without having acquired any accomplishment save that of driving, and who was so ignorant of his own language that he had to learn it like a child, beginning with elementary books. Lord Holland quoted Julius Cæsar and Scaliger as examples of late education, said that the latter had been wounded, and that he had been married and commenced learning Greek the same day, when my neighbour remarked ‘that he supposed his learning Greek was not an instantaneous act like his marriage.’ This remark, and the manner of it, gave me the notion that he was a dull fellow, for it came out in a way which bordered on the ridiculous, so as to excite something like a sneer. I was a little surprised to hear him continue the thread of conversation (from Scaliger’s wound) and talk of Loyola having been wounded at Pampeluna. I wondered how he happened to know anything about Loyola’s wound. Having thus settled my opinion, I went on eating my dinner, when Auckland, who was sitting opposite to me, addressed my neighbour, ‘Mr. Macaulay, will you drink a glass of wine?’ I thought I should have dropped off my chair. It was Macaulay, the man I had been so long most curious to see and to hear, whose genius, eloquence, astonishing knowledge, and diversified talents have excited my wonder and admiration for such a length of time, and here I had been sitting next to him, hearing him talk, and setting him down for a dull fellow. I felt as if he could have read my thoughts, and the perspiration burst from every pore of my face, and yet it was impossible not to be amused at the idea. It was not till Macaulay stood up that I was aware of all the vulgarity and ungainliness of his appearance; not a ray of intellect beams from his countenance; a lump of more ordinary clay never enclosed a powerful mind and lively imagination. He had a cold and sore throat, the latter of which occasioned a constant contraction of the muscles of the thorax, making him appear as if in momentary danger of a fit. His manner struck me as not pleasing, but it was not assuming, unembarrassed, yet not easy, unpolished, yet not coarse; there was no kind of usurpation of the conversation, no tenacity as to opinion or facts, no assumption of superiority, but the variety and extent of his information were soon apparent, for whatever subject was touched upon he evinced the utmost familiarity with it; quotation, illustration, anecdote, seemed ready in his hands for every topic. Primogeniture RELUCTANCE TO MAKE PEERS. in this country, in others, and particularly in ancient Rome, was the principal topic, I think, but Macaulay was not certain what was the law of Rome, except that when a man died intestate his estate was divided between his children. After dinner Talleyrand, and Madame de Dino came in. He was introduced to Talleyrand, who told him that he meant to go to the House of Commons on Tuesday, and that he hoped he would speak, ‘qu’il avait entendu tous les grands orateurs, et il désirait à présent entendre Monsieur Macaulay.’

February 7th, 1832

Called on Melbourne. He said he had not meant Haddington to understand that it was desirable the declaration should be delayed; on the contrary, that it was desirable Ministers should be informed as speedily as possible of the intentions of our friends and of the force they can command, but that if only a few declared themselves, they would certainly be liable to the suspicion that they could not get adherents; he added that every man in the Government (except one) was aware of the desperate nature of the step they were about to take (that man of course being Durham.) I told him that his communication to Haddington had to a certain degree had the effect of paralysing my exertions, and he owned it was imprudent. I was, however, extremely surprised to hear what he said about the Cabinet, and I asked him if it really was so, and that all the members of it were bonâ fide alarmed at, and averse to, the measure; that I had always believed that, with the exception of those who were intimate with him, they all wanted the pretext in order to establish their power. He said no, they really all were conscious of the violence of the measure, and desirous of avoiding it; that Lord Grey had been so from the beginning, but that Durham was always at him, and made him fall into his violent designs; that it was ‘a reign of terror,’ but that Durham could do with him what he pleased. What a picture of secret degradation and imbecility in the towering and apparently haughty Lord Grey! I told Melbourne that it was important to gain time, that there was an appearance of a thaw among the 199, but that most of them were in the country; communications by letter were difficult and unsatisfactory; that many were averse to breaking up the party or leaving the Duke—in short, from one cause or another doubtful and wavering; that it was not to be expected they should at a moment’s warning take this new line, in opposition to the opinions and conduct of their old leaders, and that when Lord Harrowby was exerting himself indefatigably to bring them to reason, and to render a measure unnecessary which in the opinion of the Cabinet itself was fraught with evil, it was fair and just to give him time to operate. He said this was very true, but that time was likewise required to execute the measure of a creation of Peers, that people must be invited, the patents made out, &c. We then parted. Downstairs was Rothschild the Jew waiting for him, and the valet de chambre sweeping away a bonnet and a shawl.

On my way from Melbourne called on Lord Harrowby, and read a variety of letters—answers from different Peers to his letters, Wharncliffe’s correspondence with the Duke of Wellington, and Peel’s answer to Lord Harrowby. Wharncliffe wrote a long and very conciliatory letter to the Duke, nearly to the effect of Lord Harrowby’s circular, and containing the same arguments, to which the Duke replied by a long letter, written evidently in a very ill humour, and such a galimatias as I never read, angry, ill expressed, and confused, and from which it was difficult to extract anything intelligible but this, ‘that he was aware of the consequences of the course he should adopt himself,’ and wished the House of Lords to adopt, viz., the same as last year, but that be those consequences what they might, the responsibility would not lie on his shoulders, but on those of the Government; he acknowledged that a creation of Peers would swamp the House of Lords, and, by so doing, destroy the Constitution, but the Government would be responsible, not he, for the ruin that would ensue; that he was aware some Reform was necessary (in so far departing from his former declaration of the 30th of November), but he would neither propose anything himself, nor take this measure, nor try and amend it.’ In short, he will do nothing but talk nonsense, despair, and be PEEL’S DESPONDENCY. obstinate, and then he is hampered by declarations (from which he now sees himself that he must dissent), and obliged from causes connected with the Catholic question and the Test and Corporation Acts to attend more to the consistency of his own character than to the exigencies of the country, but with much more personal authority than anybody, and still blindly obeyed and followed by men many of whom take very rational and dispassionate views of the subject, but who still are resolved to sacrifice their own sense to his folly. He really has accomplished being a prophet in his own country, not from the sagacity of his predictions, but from the blind worship of his devotees.

Peel’s letter, though arriving at the same conclusion, was in a very different style. It certainly was an able production, well expressed and plausibly argued, with temper and moderation. He owned that much was to be said on the side of the question which he does not espouse, but the reasons by which he says he is mainly governed are these: that it is of vital importance to preserve the consistency of the party to which we are to look for future safety, and that when this excitement has passed away the conduct of the anti-Reformers will have justice done to it. But there is a contradiction which pervades his argument, for he treats the subject as if all hope had vanished of saving the country, ‘desperat de republicâ,’ and he does not promise himself present advantage from the firmness and consistency of the Tories, but taking it in connection with the folly and wickedness of the other party (who he is persuaded bitterly regret their own precipitate violence and folly), he expects it to prove serviceable as an example and beacon to future generations. All the evils that have been predicted may flow from this measure when carried into complete operation, but it is neither statesmanlike nor manly to throw up the game in despair, and surrender every point, and waive every compensation, in order to preserve the consistency of himself and his own party, not that their consistency is to produce any advantage, but that hereafter it

May point a moral or adorn a tale.

So senseless is this, that it is clear to me that it is not his real feeling, and that he promises himself some personal advantage from the adoption of such a course. Peel ‘loves’ himself, ‘not wisely but too well.’

February 9th, 1832

Yesterday I met Lord Grey and rode with him. I told him that the Tories were pleased at his speech about the Irish Tithes. He said ‘he did not know why, for he had not said what he did with a view to please them.’ I said because they looked upon it as an intimation that the old Protestant ascendency was to be restored. He rejected very indignantly that idea, and said he had never contemplated any ascendency but that of the law and the Government. I said I knew that, but that they had been so long used to consider themselves as the sole representatives of the law and the Government, that they took the assertion he had made as a notification that their authority was again to be exercised as in bygone times. He then asked me if I knew what Lord Harrowby had done, said he had spoken to him, that he was placed in a difficult position and did not know what to do. I said that Harrowby was exerting himself, that time was required to bring people round, that I had reason to believe Harrowby had made a great impression, but that most of the Peers of that party were out of town, and it was impossible to expect them on the receipt of a letter of invitation and advice to reply by return of post that they would abandon their leaders and their party, and change their whole opinions and course of action, that I expected the Archbishop and Bishop of London would go with him, and that they would carry the bench. He said the Bishop of London he had already talked to, that the Archbishop was such a poor, miserable creature that there was no dependence to be placed on him, that he would be frightened and vote any way his fear directed. Then he asked, how many had they sure? I said, ‘At this moment not above eight Lords and eight bishops.’ He said that was not enough. I said I knew that, but he must have patience, and should remember that when the Duke of Wellington brought the Catholic Bill into the House of Commons he had a majority CONVERSATION WITH LORD GREY. on paper against him in the House of Lords of twenty-five, and he carried the Bill by a hundred. He said he should like to talk to Harrowby again, which I pressed him to do, and he said he would. I find Lord John Russell sent for Sandon, and told him that he and the others were really anxious to avoid making Peers, and entreated him to get something done by his father and his associates as soon as possible, that there was no time to be lost, that he should not deny that he wished Peers to be made, not now, but after the Reform Bill had passed. I called on Lord Harrowby in the afternoon, and found him half dead with a headache and dreadfully irritable. Letters had come (which he had not seen) from Lord Bagot refusing, Lord Carteret ditto, and very impertinently, and Lord Calthorpe adhering. I told him what had passed between Lord Grey and me. He said their insolence had been hitherto so great in refusing to listen to any terms (at the meeting of the six), and in refusing every concession in the House of Commons and not tolerating the slightest alteration, that he despaired of doing anything with them, that Lord Grey had told him he could not agree to make a sham resistance in Committee, but that he on the other hand would not agree to go into Committee, except on an express understanding that they should not avail themselves of the probable disunion of the Tories to carry all the details of their Bill. The difficulties are immense, but if Grey and Harrowby get together, it is possible something may be done, provided they will approach each other in a spirit of compromise. It is certainly easier now, and very different from the House of Commons, where I have always thought they could make no concession. In the House of Lords they may without difficulty. I dread the obstinate of both parties.

February 11th, 1832

Wharncliffe came to town on Thursday and called on me. At Brighton he had seen Sir Andrew Barnard, and showed him the correspondence with the Duke of Wellington, telling him at the same time he might mention it to Taylor if he liked, and if Taylor had any wish to see it he should. Accordingly Taylor sent him word he should be glad to have an interview with him. They met at Lord Wharncliffe’s house and had a long conversation, in the course of which Taylor gave him to understand that it was quite true that the King had consented to everything about the creation of Peers, but multa gemens, and that he was much alarmed, and could not endure the thought of this measure. The end was that a memorandum was drawn up of the conversation, and of Wharncliffe’s sentiments and intentions, which were much the same as those he had put forth at the time of the old negotiations. This was taken away by Taylor and shown to the King, and copies of it were forwarded to Grey, Brougham, and Melbourne. The next day Wharncliffe dined with the King, and after dinner his Majesty took him aside and said, ‘I have seen your paper, and I agree with every word you say; we are indeed in a scrape, and we must get out of it as we can. I only wish everybody was as reasonable and as moderate as you, and then we might do so perhaps without difficulty.’ That the King is alarmed is pretty clear, but it is more probable that his alarm may influence his Ministers than himself, and it looks very much as if it had done so. Sir H. Taylor likewise told Wharncliffe that the Duke of Wellington had written a letter which had been laid before the King, and had given him great offence, and that it certainly was such a letter as was unbecoming in any subject to write. This letter is supposed to have been addressed to Strangford; it got into Londonderry’s hands, and he laid it before the King (upon the occasion of his going with some address to Brighton), who desired it might be left with him till the next day. The reason why they think it was Strangford is that the word ‘Viscount’ was apparent at the bottom, but the name was erased. In the meantime Harrowby has had some conversation with Lord Lansdowne, who pressed the necessity of making a demonstration of their strength, and added that if the Archbishop could be induced to declare himself that would be sufficient. Lord Harrowby is accordingly working incessantly upon the Archbishop on the one hand, while he exhorts to patience and reliance on the other. Yesterday he took a high tone with Lord Lansdowne, told him that WELLINGTON AND WHARNCLIFFE. he had, as he firmly believed, as many as twenty-five Lords, lay and spiritual, with him, which would make a difference of fifty, but that as to a public irrevocable pledge, it was not to be had, and that Lord Grey must place confidence in his belief and reliance upon his exertions, or, if not, he must take his own course. Upon Lord Grey’s meeting with him, and the Archbishop’s being brought to the post, the matter now hinges.

In the meantime I have discovered the cause of the Duke of Wellington’s peevish reply to Wharncliffe, and the reason why Lord Harrowby’s letter to Lord Bagot was unanswered for ten days, and then couched in terms so different from what might have been expected. Lord Howe was at Bliffield at the time, and they, between them, sent Harrowby’s letter up to the Duke of Wellington, who of course wrote his sentiments in reply. For this they waited, and on this Lord Bagot acted. My brother told me yesterday that the Duke had seen the letter, and that Lord Howe had been the person who sent it him. This explains it all. Wharncliffe’s letter was but another version of Lord Harrowby’s, and he had therefore in fact seen it before, but seen it addressed to those whom he considered bound to him and his views, and I have no doubt he was both angry and jealous at Lord Harrowby’s interference. Nothing could be more uncandid and unjustifiable than Lord Bagot’s conduct, for he never asked Lord Harrowby’s leave to communicate the letter, nor told him that he had done so; on the contrary, he gave him to understand that the delay (for which he made many apologies) was owing to his reflection and his consulting his brother the bishop. The Duke, no doubt, gave him his own sentiments; yet, in his letter to Wharncliffe, he says ‘he has not endeavoured to influence anybody, nor shall he;’ and at the same time eludes the essential question ‘whether he will support in Committee.’ So much for Tory candour. As to the Duke, he is evidently piqued and provoked to the quick; his love of power and authority are as great as ever, and he can’t endure to see anybody withdrawn from his influence; provoked with himself and with everybody else, his mind is clouded by passion and prejudice, and the consequences are the ill-humour he displays and the abominable nonsense he writes, and yet the great mass of these Tories follow the Duke, go where he will, let the consequences be what they may, and without requiring even a reason; sic vult sic jubet is enough for them. One thing that gives me hopes is the change in the language of the friends of Government out of doors—Dover, for instance, who has been one of the noisiest of the bawlers for Peers. I walked with him from the House of Lords the night before last, and he talked only of the break-up of the 199, and of the activity of Harrowby and Wharncliffe and its probable effects.

February 14th, 1832

On Saturday evening I found Melbourne at the Home Office in his lazy, listening, silent humour, disposed to hear everything and to say very little; told me that Dover and Sefton were continually at the Chancellor to make Peers, and that they both, particularly the latter, had great influence with him. Brougham led by Dover and Sefton!! I tried to impress upon him the necessity of giving Harrowby credit, and not exacting what was not to be had, viz., the pledges of the anti-Reformers to vote for the second reading. He owned that in their case he would not pledge himself either. I put before him as strongly as I could all the various arguments for resisting this desperate measure of making Peers (to which he was well inclined to assent), and pressed upon him the importance of not exasperating the Tories and the Conservative party to the last degree, and placing such an impassable barrier between public men on both sides as should make it impossible for them to reunite for their common interest and security hereafter.

In the evening I got a message from Palmerston to beg I would call on him, which I did at the Foreign Office yesterday. He is infinitely more alert than Melbourne, and more satisfactory to talk to, because he enters with more warmth and more detail into the subject. He began by referring to the list of Peers likely to vote for the second reading, which I showed to him. At the same time I told CONVERSATION WITH LORD PALMERSTON. him that though he might make use of the information generally as far as expressing his own belief that Lord Harrowby would have a sufficient following, he must not produce the list or quote the names, for, in fact, not one of them had given any authority to be so counted; that he must be aware there were persons who would be glad to mar our projects, and they could not more effectually do so than by conveying to these Peers the use that had been made of their names. To all this he agreed entirely. He then talked of the expediency of a declaration from Lord Harrowby, and how desirable it was that it should be made soon, and be supported by as many as could be induced to come forward; that Lord Grey had said to him very lately that he really believed he should be obliged to create Peers. I said that my persuasion was that it would be quite unnecessary to do so to carry the second reading; that nothing was required but confidence in Lord Harrowby, and that his character and his conduct on this occasion entitled him to expect it from them; that if they were sincere in their desire to avoid this measure they would trust to his exertions; that I knew very well the efforts that were made to force this measure on Lord Grey; that it was in furtherance of this that Duncombe’s[3] ridiculous affair in the House of Commons had been got up, which had been such a complete failure; but that I could not believe Lord Grey would suffer himself to be bullied into it by such despicable means, and by the clamour of such men as Duncombe and O’Connell, urged on by friends of his own. He said this was very true, but the fact was they could not risk the rejection of the Bill again; that he knew from a variety of communications that an explosion would inevitably follow its being thrown out on the second reading; that he had had letters from Scotland and other places, and had no doubt that such would be the case. I said that he would find it very difficult to persuade our friends of this, and it appeared to me as clear as possible that the feeling for the Bill and the excitement had subsided; that they might be to a certain degree renewed by its rejection, but no man could doubt that modifications in it, which would have been impossible a few months ago, would now be easy; that if it was not for that unfortunate declaration of Lord Grey, by which he might consider himself bound, he might safely consent to such changes as would make the adjustment of the question no difficult matter; that with regard to the rejection of the Bill, whatever excitement it might produce, it was evident the Government had an immediate remedy; they had only to prorogue Parliament for a week and make their Peers, and they would then have an excellent pretext—indeed, so good a one that it was inconceivable to me that they should hesitate for a moment in adopting that course. This he did not deny. I then told him of the several conversations between Lord Harrowby and Lords Grey and Lansdowne, and mine with Lord Grey; that Lord Harrowby protested against Lord Grey’s availing himself of any disunion among the Opposition (produced by his support of the second reading) to carry those points, to resist which would be the sole object of Lord Harrowby in seceding from his party; and that Lord Grey had said he could not make a sham resistance. Palmerston said, ‘We have brought in a Bill which we have made as good as we can; it is for you to propose any alterations you wish to make in it, and if you can beat us, well and good. There are indeed certain things which, if carried against us, would be so fatal to the principle of the Bill that Lord Grey would not consider it worth carrying if so amended; but on other details he is ready to submit, if they should be carried against him.’ I said that would not do, that I must refer him to the early negotiations and the disposition which was then expressed to act upon a principle of mutual concession; that when Lord Harrowby and his friends were prepared to concede to its fullest extent the principle of disfranchisement CONVERSATION WITH LORD PALMERSTON. (though they might propose alterations in a few particulars), they had a right to expect that the Government should surrender without fighting some of those equivalents or compensations which they should look for in the alterations or additions they might propose. He said that ‘while Lord Harrowby was afraid that Ministers might avail themselves of his weakness to carry their details, they were afraid lest Lord Harrowby and his friends should unite with the ultra-Tories to beat them in Committee on some of the essential clauses of the Bill.’ I replied, then it was fear for fear, and under the circumstances the best thing was an understanding that each party should act towards the other in a spirit of good faith, and without taking any accidental advantage that might accrue either way. We then discussed the possibility of an agreement upon the details, and he enquired what they would require. I told him that they would require an alteration of Schedule B to exclude the town voters from county representation, perhaps to vary the franchise, and some other things, with regard to which I could not speak positively at the moment. He said he thought some alteration might be made in Schedule B, particularly in giving all the towns double members, by cutting off the lower ones that had one; that it was intended no man should have a vote for town and county on the same qualification, and he believed there were very few who would possess the double right. That I said would make it more easy to give up, and it was a thing the others laid great stress upon. He seemed to think it might be done. As to the 10ℓ., he said he had at first been disposed to consider it too low, but he had changed his mind, and now doubted if it would not turn out to be too high. We then talked of the metropolitan members, to which I said undoubtedly they wished to strike them off, but they knew very well the Government desired it equally. We agreed that I should get from Lord Harrowby specifically what he would require, and he would give me in return what concessions the Government would probably be disposed to make; that these should be communicated merely as the private opinions of individuals, and not as formal proposals; and we should try and blend them together into some feasible compromise.

[3] Duncombe brought forward a petition from six men at Barnet complaining that they had been entrapped into signing Lord Verulam’s and Lord Salisbury’s address to the King. The object was to produce a discussion about the Peers. It totally failed, but it was got up with an openness that was indecent by Durham and that crew, who were all (Durham, Sefton, Mulgrave, Dover) under the gallery to hear it. The thing was ridiculed by Peel, fell flat upon the House, and excited disgust and contempt out of it.

I afterwards saw the Duke of Richmond, who said that Dover and Sefton had both attacked him for being against making Peers, and he should like to know how they knew it. I told him, from the Chancellor, to be sure, and added how they were always working at him and the influence they had with him. He said the Chancellor’s being for making Peers was not enough to carry the question; that if it was done it must be by a minute of the Cabinet, with the names of the dissentients appended to it; and then the King must determine; that if the dissentients seceded upon it it would be impossible. He recollected, when there was a question of making Peers on the Catholic question by the Duke of Wellington, that he and some others had resolved, should it have been done, to avail themselves of the power of the House to come down day after day and move adjournments before any of the new Peers could take their seats; that the same course might be adopted now, though it would produce a revolution. I told him that I had little doubt there were men who would not scruple to adopt any course, however violent, that the power of Parliament would admit of; that there were several who were of opinion that the creation of Peers would at once lay the Constitution prostrate and bring about a revolution; that they considered it would be not a remote and uncertain, but a sure and proximate event, and if by accelerating it they could crush their opponents they would do so without hesitation.

In the meantime the cholera has made its appearance in London, at Rotherhithe, Limehouse, and in a ship off Greenwich—in all seven cases. These are amongst the lowest and most wretched classes, chiefly Irish, and a more lamentable exhibition of human misery than that given by the medical men who called at the Council Office yesterday I never heard. They are in the most abject state of poverty, without beds to lie upon. The men live by casual labour, are employed by the hour, and often get no more than four or five hours’ employment in the course of the week. They are huddled INTERVIEW OF LORD HARROWBY AND LORD GREY. and crowded together by families in the same room, not as permanent lodgers, but procuring a temporary shelter; in short, in the most abject state of physical privation and moral degradation that can be imagined. On Saturday we had an account of one or more cases. We sent instantly down to inspect the district and organise a Board of Health. A meeting was convened, and promises given that all things needful should be done, but as they met at a public-house they all got drunk and did nothing. We have sent down members of the Board of Health, to make preparations and organise boards; but, if the disease really spreads, no human power can arrest its progress through such an Augean stable.

February 14th, 1832

Dined with Lord Harrowby, and communicated conversation with Palmerston and Melbourne. He has not been able to decide the Archbishop, who is on and off, and can’t make up his mind. Lord Harrowby is going to Lord Grey to talk with him. The Tories obstinate as mules. The Duke of Buccleuch, who had got Harrowby’s letter, and copied it himself that he might know it by heart, has made up his mind to vote the other way, as he did before; Lord Wallace (after a long correspondence) the same. There can be little doubt that they animate one another, and their cry is ‘to stick to the Duke of Wellington.’ The cholera is established, and yesterday formal communications were made to the Lord Mayor and to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that London was no longer healthy.

February 17th, 1832

Wharncliffe came to town the night before last, it having been settled that Harrowby was to go to Lord Grey yesterday morning. After consultation we agreed he had better go alone, that it would be less formal, and that Lord Grey would be more disposed to open himself. The same evening, at Madame de Lieven’s ball, Melbourne and Palmerston both told me that Grey was in an excellent disposition. However, yesterday morning Harrowby had such a headache that he was not fit to go alone, so the two went. Nothing could be more polite than Grey, and on the whole the interview was satisfactory. Nothing was agreed upon, all left dans le vague; but a disposition to mutual confidence was evinced, and I should think it pretty safe that no Peers will be made. Lord Grey told them that if they could relieve him from the necessity of creating Peers he should be sincerely obliged to them, showed them a letter from the King containing the most unlimited power for the purpose, and said that, armed with that authority, if the Bill could be passed in no other way, it must be so. A minute was drawn up to this effect, of which Wharncliffe showed me a copy last night.

‘Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe cannot give any names, or pledge themselves to any particular persons or numbers who will support their views, but they have no doubt in their own minds that there will be, in the event of no creation of Peers, a sufficient number to carry the second reading of the Bill. In voting themselves for the second reading, their intention is to propose such alterations in Committee as, in their opinion, can alone render it a measure fit to be passed into law, and in the event of their being unable to effect the changes they deem indispensable, they reserve to themselves the power of opposing the Bill in its subsequent stages. Lord Grey considers the great principles of the Bill of such vital importance that he could not agree to any alteration in them, but admits that a modification of its details need not be fatal to it, reserving to himself, if any of its vital principles should be touched, the power of taking such ulterior measures as he may find necessary to ensure its success. Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe are prepared to make a declaration of their sentiments and intentions in the House of Lords at a proper time, that time to be a subject of consideration; and in the event of their having reason to believe that their present expectations are not likely to be fulfilled, they will feel bound to give Lord Grey information thereof, in order that he may take such measures as he may think right.’[4]

[4] This is the substance, not a textual copy.

At present the principal difficulty promises to be the 10ℓ. clause. Lord Grey seemed to think this could not be altered. Wharncliffe asked if it might not be modified, and so settled DISTRESS IN BETHNAL GREEN. as to secure its being a bonâ fide 10ℓ. clause, from which Lord Grey did not dissent, but answered rather vaguely.

In the meantime I think some progress is made in the work of conversion. Harris has gone back, and Wilton, whom I always doubted. I doubt anybody within the immediate sphere of the Duke, but Wynford is well disposed, and the Archbishop has nearly given in. His surrender would clinch the matter. I am inclined to think we shall get through the second reading. Lord Grey was attacked by Madame de Lieven the other day, who told him he was naturally all that is right-minded and good, but was supposed to be influenced against his own better judgment by those about him. She also said something to the Duke of Wellington about Lord Harrowby, to which he replied that Lord Harrowby ‘était une mauvaise tête!’ Very amusing from him, but he is provoked to death that anybody should venture to desert from him.

The cholera has produced more alertness than alarm here; in fact, at present it is a mere trifle—in three days twenty-eight persons. Nothing like the disorders which rage unheeded every year and every day among the lower orders. It is its name, its suddenness, and its frightful symptoms that terrify. The investigations, however, into the condition of the different parishes have brought to light dreadful cases of poverty and misery. A man came yesterday from Bethnal Green with an account of that district. They are all weavers, forming a sort of separate community; there they are born, there they live and labour, and there they die. They neither migrate nor change their occupation; they can do nothing else. They have increased in a ratio at variance with any principles of population, having nearly tripled in twenty years, from 22,000 to 62,000. They are for the most part out of employment, and can get none; 1,100 are crammed into the poor-house, five or six in a bed; 6,000 receive parochial relief. The parish is in debt; every day adds to the number of paupers and diminishes that of ratepayers. These are principally small shopkeepers, who are beggared by the rates. The district is in a complete state of insolvency and hopeless poverty, yet they multiply, and while the people look squalid and dejected, as if borne down by their wretchedness and destitution, the children thrive and are healthy. Government is ready to interpose with assistance, but what can Government do? We asked the man who came what could be done for them. He said ‘employment,’ and employment is impossible.

February 20th, 1832

Lord Grey was very much pleased with the result of his interview, and expresses unbounded reliance on Lord Harrowby’s honour. The ultras, of course, will give him no credit, and don’t believe he can command votes enough; ‘l’affaire marche, mais lentement,’ and the seceders (or those we hope will be so) will not declare themselves positively. There is no prevailing upon them. The Archbishop is with us one day, and then doubts, though I think we shall have him at last. A good deal of conversation passed between Grey and Harrowby, which the latter considers confidential and won’t repeat. It was about the details; the substance of the minute he feels at liberty to communicate. By way of an episode, news came last night of an insurrection of the slaves in Jamaica, in which fifty-two plantations had been destroyed. It was speedily suppressed by Willoughby Cotton, and the ringleaders were executed by martial law.

February 23rd, 1832

At Court yesterday; long conversation with Melbourne, and in the evening with Charles Wood and Richmond, who is more alarmed about the Peers. Melbourne had got an idea that Lord Harrowby’s letter, which had been reported if not shown to the Government, had done a great deal of harm, inasmuch as it set forth so strongly the same arguments to the Tories to show them the danger of letting Peers be made that Durham and Co. make use of as an argument for the same. I promised to show it him, and replied that they could not expect Lord Harrowby to do anything but employ the arguments that are most likely to take effect with these people, but they are not put in an offensive manner. Melbourne said that the King is more reconciled to the measure, i.e. that they have LORD HARROWBY’S LETTER. got the foolish, old man in town and can talk him over more readily. A discussion last night about the propriety of making a declaration to-day in the House of Lords, when the Duke of Rutland presents a petition against Reform. The Archbishop will not decide; there is no moving him. Curious that a Dr. Howley, the other day Canon of Christ Church, a very ordinary man, should have in his hands the virtual decision of one of the most momentous matters that ever occupied public attention. There is no doubt that his decision would decide the business so far. Up to this time certainly Harrowby and Wharncliffe have no certainty of a sufficient number for the second reading; but I think they will have enough at last.

February 24th, 1832

Harrowby and Wharncliffe agreed, if the Duke of Rutland on presenting his petition gave them a good opportunity, they would speak. It was a very good one, for the petition turned out to be one for a moderate Reform, more in their sense than in the Duke’s own; but the moment it was read Kenyon jumped up. Harrowby thought he was going to speak upon it, whereas he presented another; and I believe he was put up by the Duke to stop any discussion.

In the evening went to Lord Holland’s, when he and she asked me about the letter. Somebody had given abstracts of it, with the object of proving to Lord Grey that Harrowby had been uncandid, or something like it, and had held out to the Tories that if they would adopt his line they would turn out the Government. Holland and the rest fancied the letter had been written since the interview, but I told them it was three weeks before, and I endeavoured to explain that the abstracts must be taken in connection not only with the rest of the text, but with the argument. Holland said Lord Grey meant to ask Harrowby for the letter. From thence I went to Harrowby, and told him this. He said he would not show it, that Grey had no right to ask for a private letter written by him weeks before to one of his friends, and it was beneath him to answer for and explain anything he had thought fit to say. But he has done what will probably answer as well, for he has given Ebrington a copy of it for the express purpose of going to Lord Grey and explaining anything that appears ambiguous to him. As the business develops itself, and the time approaches, communication becomes more open and frequent; the Tories talk with great confidence of their majority, and the ultra-Whigs are quite ready to believe them; the two extreme ends are furious. Our list up to this day presents a result of forty-three votes to thirty-seven doubtful, out of which it is hard if a majority cannot be got. I have no doubt now that they will take a very early opportunity of making a declaration. Peel, in the other House, is doing what he can to inflame and divide, and repress any spirit of conciliation. Nothing is sure in his policy but that it revolves round himself as the centre, and is influenced by some view which he takes of his own future advantage, probably the rallying of the Conservative party (as they call themselves, though they are throwing away everything into confusion and sinking everything by their obstinacy) and his being at the head of it. He made a most furious and mischievous speech.

February 29th, 1832

Ebrington took Harrowby’s letter to Lord Grey, who was satisfied but not pleased; the date and the circumstances (which were explained) removed all bad impressions from his mind. Since this a garbled version (or rather extracts) has appeared in the ‘Times,’ which endeavours to make a great stir about it. Harrowby was very much annoyed, and thought of sending the letter itself to the ‘Times’ to be published at once; but Haddington and I both urged him not, and last night he put a contradiction in the ‘Globe.’ I have little doubt that this as well as the former extracts came from the shop of Durham and Co., and so Melbourne told me he thought likewise. There was a great breeze at the last Cabinet dinner between Durham and Richmond again on the old subject—the Peers. I believe they will now take their chance. Our list presents forty-seven sure votes besides the doubtful, but not many pledges. As to me, I am really puzzled what to wish for—that is, for the success of which party, being equally disgusted with the folly of both. VIOLENCE OF EXTREME PARTIES. My old aversion for the High Tories returns when I see their conduct on this occasion. The obstinacy of the Duke, the selfishness of Peel, the pert vulgarity of Croker, and the incapacity of the rest are set in constant juxtaposition with the goodness of the cause they are now defending, but which they will mar by their way of defending it. A man is wanting, a fresh man, with vigour enough to govern, and who will rally round him the temperate and the moderate of different parties—men unfettered by prejudices, connections, and above all by pledges, expressed or implied, and who can and will address themselves to the present state and real wants of the country, neither terrified into concession by the bullying of the press and the rant of public meetings and associations, nor fondly lingering over bygone systems of government and law. That the scattered materials exist is probable, but the heated passion of the times has produced so much repulsion among these various atoms that it is difficult to foresee when a cooler temperature may permit their cohesion into any efficient mass.

March 6th, 1842

The ultra-Whigs and ultra-Tories are both outrageous. Day after day the ‘Times’ puts forth paragraphs, evidently manufactured in the Durham shop, about Harrowby’s letter, and yesterday there was one which exhibited their mortification and rage so clearly as to be quite amusing, praising the Duke and the Tories, and abusing Harrowby and Wharncliffe and the moderates. In the meantime, while Lord Grey is negotiating with Harrowby for the express purpose of avoiding the necessity of making Peers, Durham, his colleague and son-in-law, in conjunction with Dover, is (or has been) going about with a paper for signature by Peers, being a requisition to Lord Grey to make new Peers, inviting everybody he could find to sign this by way of assisting that course of bullying and violence he has long pursued, but happily in vain. Lord Grey is, I believe, really disgusted with all these proceedings; he submits and does nothing. Richmond quarrels with Durham, Melbourne damns him, and the rest hate him. But there he is, frowning, sulking, bullying, and meddling, and doing all the harm he can. Never certainly was there such a Government as this, so constituted, so headed—a chief with an imposing exterior, a commanding eloquence, and a character[5] below contempt, seduced and governed by anybody who will minister to his vanity and presume upon his facility.

[5] By character I mean what the French call caractère, not that he is wanting in honour and honesty, nor in ability, but in resolution and strength of mind.

There has been nothing remarkable in either House of Parliament but an attack made by Londonderry on Plunket, who gave him so terrific a dressing that it required to be as pachydermatous as he is to stand it. He is, however, a glutton, for he took it all, and seemed to like it. I dined with Madame de Lieven a day or two ago, and was talking to her about politics and political events, and particularly about the memoirs, or journal, or whatever it be, that she has written. She said she had done so very irregularly, but that what she regretted was not having kept more exact records of the events and transactions of the Belgian question (which is not yet settled), that it was in its circumstances the most curious that could be, and exhibited more remarkable manifestations of character and ‘du cœur humain,’ as well as of politics generally, than any course of events she knew. I asked her why she did not give them now. She said it was impossible, that the ‘nuances’ were so delicate and so numerous, the details so nice and so varying, that unless caught at the moment they escaped, and it was impossible to collect them again.

March 9th, 1832

Went to Lord Holland’s the other night, and had a violent battle with him on politics. Nobody so violent as he, and curious as exhibiting the opinions of the ultras of the party. About making Peers—wanted to know what Harrowby’s real object was. I told him none but to prevent what he thought an enormous evil. What did it signify (he said) whether Peers were made now or later? that the present House of Lords never could go on with a Reformed Parliament, it being opposed to all the wants and wishes of the people, hating the abolition of tithes, the press, and the IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION. French Revolution, and that in order to make it harmonise with the Reformed Parliament it must be amended by an infusion of a more Liberal cast. This was the spirit of his harangue, which might have been easily answered, for it all goes upon the presumption that his party is that which harmonises with the popular feeling, and what he means by improving the character of the House is to add some fifty or sixty men who may be willing to accept peerages upon the condition of becoming a body-guard to this Government.

The ‘Times’ yesterday and the day before attacked Lord Grey with a virulence and indecency about the Peers that is too much even for those who take the same line, and he now sees where his subserviency to the press has conducted him. In the House of Commons the night before last, Ministers would have been beaten on the sugar duties if Baring Wall, who had got ten people to dinner, had chosen to go down in time.

The principal subject of discussion this last week has been the Education Board in Ireland, the object of which is to combine the education of Catholics and Protestants by an arrangement with regard to the religious part of their instruction that may be compatible with the doctrines and practice of both. This arrangement consists in there being only certain selections from the Bible, which are admitted generally, while particular days and hours are set apart for the separate religious exercises of each class. This will not do for the zealous Protestants, who bellow for the whole Bible as Reformers do for the whole Bill. While the whole system is crumbling to dust under their feet, while the Church is prostrate, property of all kind threatened, and robbery, murder, starvation, and agitation rioting over the land, these wise legislators are debating whether the brats at school shall read the whole Bible or only parts of it. They do nothing but rave of the barbarism and ignorance of the Catholics; they know that education alone can better their moral condition, and that their religious tenets prohibit the admission of any system of education (in which Protestants and Catholics can be joined) except such an one as this, and yet they would rather knock the system on the head, and prevent all the good that may flow from it, than consent to a departure from the good old rules of Orange ascendency and Popish subserviency and degradation, knowing too, above all, that those who are to read and be taught are equally indifferent to the whole Bible or to parts of it, that they comprehend it not, have no clear and definite ideas on the subject but as matter of debate, vehicle of dispute and dissension, and almost of religious hatred and disunion, and that when once they have escaped from the trammels of their school, not one in a hundred will trouble his head about the Bible at all, and not one in a thousand attend to its moral precepts.

March 10th, 1832

Yesterday morning Wharncliffe came to me to give me an account of the conversation the other day between him and Harrowby on one side and Lords Grey and Lansdowne on the other. Harrowby was headachy and out of sorts. However, it went off very satisfactorily; the list was laid before Grey, who was satisfied, and no Peers are to be made before the second reading; but he said that if the Bill should be carried by so small a majority as to prove that the details could not be carried in Committee, he must reserve the power of making Peers then. At this Harrowby winced, but Wharncliffe said he thought it fair; and in fact it is only in conformity with the protocol that was drawn up at the last conversation. They entered into the details, and Lord Grey said the stir that had been made about the metropolitan members might raise difficulties, and then asked would they agree to this, to give members to Marylebone and throw over the rest? To this Harrowby would not agree, greatly to Wharncliffe’s annoyance, who would have agreed, and I think he would have been in the right. It would have been as well to have nailed Grey to this, and if Harrowby had not had a headache I think he would have done so. With regard to the 10ℓ. clause, Wharncliffe thinks they will not object to a modification. Grey spoke of the press, and with just wrath and indignation of the attacks on himself. On the whole this was good. The capture of Vandamme was IRISH TITHES. the consequence of a bellyache, and the metropolitan representation depended on a headache. If the truth could be ascertained, perhaps many of the greatest events in history turned upon aches of one sort or another. Montaigne might have written an essay on it.

March 12th, 1832

Durham made another exhibition of temper at the Cabinet dinner last Wednesday. While Lord Grey was saying something he rudely interrupted him, as his custom is. Lord Grey said, ‘But, my dear Lambton, only hear what I was going to say,’ when the other jumped up and said, ‘Oh, if I am not to be allowed to speak I may as well go away,’ rang the bell, ordered his carriage, and marched off. Wharncliffe came to me yesterday morning to propose writing a pamphlet in answer to the ‘Quarterly Review,’ which has got an article against his party. I suggested instead that an attempt should be made by Sandon (who has been in some communication with the editor about this matter) to induce the ‘Morning Herald’ to support us, and make that paper the vehicle of our articles. This he agreed to, and was to propose it to Sandon last night. We have no advocate in the press; the Whig and Tory papers are equally violent against us. Yesterday I saw a letter which has been circulated among the Tories, written by young Lord Redesdale to Lord Bathurst, a sort of counter-argument to Lord Harrowby’s letter, although not an answer, as it was written before he had seen that document; there is very little in it.

March 16th, 1832

Lord Grey made an excellent speech in the House of Lords in reply to Aberdeen’s questions about Ancona, and Peel made another in the House of Commons on Irish Tithes, smashing Sheil, taking high ground and a strong position, but doing nothing towards settling the question. He forgets that the system is bad, resting on a false foundation, and that it has worked ill and been bolstered up by him and his party till now it can no longer be supported, and it threatens to carry away with it that which is good in itself. We owe these things to those who wilfully introduced a moral confusion of ideas into their political machinery, and, by destroying the essential distinction between right and wrong, have deprived the things which are right of the best part of their security. I have never been able to understand why our system should be made to rest on artificial props when it did not require them, nor the meaning of that strange paradox which a certain school of statesmen have always inculcated, that institutions of admitted excellence required to be conjoined with others which were founded in crime and error, and which could only be supported by power. This has brought about Reform; it would be easy to prove it. The Ancona affair will blow over. George Villiers writes me word that it was a little escapade of Périer’s, done in a hurry, a mistake, and yet he is a very able man. Talleyrand told me ‘c’est une bêtise.’ Nothing goes on well; the world is out of joint.

Fanny Kemble’s new tragedy came out last night with complete success, written when she was seventeen, an odd play for a girl to write. The heroine is tempted like Isabella in ‘Measure for Measure,’ but with a different result, which result is supposed to take place between the acts.

March 26th, 1832

Ten days since I have written anything here, but en revanche I have written a pamphlet. An article appeared in the ‘Quarterly,’ attacking Harrowby and his friends. Wharncliffe was so desirous it should be answered that I undertook the job, and it comes out to-day in a ‘Letter to Lockhart, in reply,’ &c. I don’t believe anybody read the last I wrote, but as I have published this at Ridgway’s, perhaps it may have a more extensive sale. The events have been the final passing of the Bill, after three nights’ debate, by a majority of 116, ended by a very fine speech from Peel, who has eminently distinguished himself through this fight. Stanley closed the debate at five o’clock in the morning, with what they say was a good and dexterous speech, but which contained a very unnecessary dissertation about the Peers. This, together with some words from Richmond and the cheerfulness of Holland, makes my mind misgive me that we shall still have them created for the Committee. The conduct of the ultra-Tories has been so bad and so silly that I cannot wish to bring them in, though I have a great desire to turn REFORM BILL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. the others out. As to a moderate party, it is a mere dream, for where is the moderation? This day Lord John Russell brings the Bill up to the House of Lords, and much indeed depends upon what passes there. Harrowby and Wharncliffe will make their speeches, and we shall, I conclude, have the Duke and Lord Grey. I expect, and I beg his pardon if I am wrong, that the Duke will make as mischievous a speech as he can, and try to provoke declarations and pledges against the Bill. The Ministers are exceedingly anxious that Harrowby should confine himself to generalities, which I hope too, for I am certain no good can, and much harm may, be done by going into details. Grey, Holland, and Richmond all three spoke to me about it last night, and I am going to see what can be done with them. I should not fear Harrowby but that he is petulant and sour; Wharncliffe is vain, and has been excited in all this business, though with very good and very disinterested motives, but he cannot bear patiently the abuse and the ridicule with which both the extreme ends endeavour to cover him, and he is uneasy under it, and what I dread is that in making attempts to set himself right, and to clear his character with a party who will never forgive him for what he has done, and to whom whatever he says will be words cast to the winds, he will flounder, and say something which will elicit from Lord Grey some declaration that may make matters worse than ever. What I hope and trust is that the Government and our people will confine themselves to civil generalities, and pledge themselves de part et d’autre to nothing, and that they will not be provoked by taunts from any quarter to depart from that prudent course.

There was another breeze in the House of Lords about Irish Education, the whole bench of bishops in a flame, and except Maltby, who spoke for, all declared against the plan—Phillpotts in a furious speech. What celestial influences have been at work I know not, but certain it is that the world seems going mad, individually and collectively. The town has been more occupied this week with Dudley’s extravagancies than the affairs of Europe. He, in fact, is mad, but is to be cupped and starved and disciplined sound again. It has been fine talk for the town. The public curiosity and love of news is as voracious and universal as the appetite of a shark, and, like it, loves best what is grossest and most disgusting; anything relating to personal distress, to crime, to passion, is greedily devoured by this monster, as Cowley calls it.

I see
The monster London laugh at me;
I would at thee, too, foolish City,
But thy estate I pity.
Should all the wicked men from out thee go,
And all the fools that crowd thee so,
Thou, who dost thy thousands boast,
Would be a wilderness almost.—Ode to Solitude.

But of all the examples of cant, hypocrisy, party violence, I have never seen any to be compared to the Irish Education business; and there was Rosslyn, an old Whig, voting against; Carnarvon stayed away, every Tory without exception going against the measure. As to madness, Dudley has gone mad in his own house, Perceval in the House of Commons, and John Montague in the Park, the two latter preaching, both Irvingites and believers in ‘the tongues.’ Dudley’s madness took an odd turn; he would make up all his quarrels with Lady Holland, to whom he has not spoken for sixteen years, and he called on her, and there were tears and embraces, and God knows what. Sydney Smith told her that she was bound in honour to set the quarrel up again when he comes to his senses, and put things into the status quo ante pacem. It would be hard upon him to find, on getting out of a strait waistcoat, that he had been robbed of all his hatreds and hostilities, and seduced into the house of his oldest foe.

March 27th, 1832

I did the Duke of Wellington an injustice. He spoke, but without any violence, in a fair and gentlemanlike manner, a speech creditable to himself, useful and becoming. If there was any disposition on the part of his followers to light a flame, he at once repressed it. The whole thing went off well; House very full; Harrowby began, and made an excellent speech, with the exception of one mistake. He dwelt too much on the difference between this Bill and the last, as if the difference of his own conduct resulted from that cause, and this I could see they were taking up in their DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. minds, and though he corrected the impression afterwards, it will be constantly brought up against him, I have no doubt. After him Carnarvon, who alone was violent, but short; then Wharncliffe (I am not sure which was first of these two), very short and rather embarrassed, expressing his concurrence with Lord Harrowby; then the Bishop of London, short also, but strong in his language, much more than Lord Harrowby; then Lord Grey, temperate and very general, harping a little too much on that confounded word efficiency, denying that what he said last year bore the interpretation that had been put upon it, and announcing that he would give his best consideration to any amendments, a very good speech; then the Duke, in a very handsome speech, acknowledging that he was not against all Reform, though he was against this Bill, because he did not think if it passed it would be possible to carry on the government of the country, but promising that if the Bill went into Committee he would give his constant attendance, and do all in his power to make it as safe a measure as possible. So finished this important evening, much to the satisfaction of the moderate, and to the disgust of the violent party. I asked Lord Holland if he was satisfied (in the House after the debate), and he said, ‘Yes, yes, very well, but the Bishop’s the man;’ and in the evening at Lord Grey’s I found they were all full of the Bishop. Lord Grey said to me, ‘Well, you will allow that I behaved very well?’ I said, ‘Yes, very, but the whole thing was satisfactory, I think.’ ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘on the whole, but they were a little too strong, too violent against the Bill,’ because Harrowby had declared that he felt the same objection to the measure he had felt before. Sefton was outrageous, talked a vast deal of amusing nonsense, ‘that he had never heard such twaddle,’ ‘but that the success was complete, and he looked on Harrowby and Wharncliffe as the two most enviable men in the kingdom.’ I have no doubt that all the ultras will be deeply mortified at the moderation of Lord Grey and of the Duke of Wellington, and at the success so far of ‘the Waverers.’

---

CHAPTER XVIII.

Debate in the House of Lords — Lord Harrowby’s Position — Hopes of a Compromise — Lord Melbourne’s View — Disturbances caused by the Cholera — The Disfranchisement Clause — The Number ‘56’ — Peers contemplated — The King’s Hesitation — ‘The Hunchback’ — Critical Position of the Waverers — Bill carried by Nine in the Lords — The Cholera in Paris — Moderate Speech of Lord Grey — End of the Secession — Conciliatory Overtures — Negotiations carried on at Newmarket — Hostile Division in the Lords — Lord Wharncliffe’s Account of his Failure — Lord Grey resigns — The Duke of Wellington attempts to form a Ministry — Peel declines — Hostility of the Court to the Whigs — A Change of Scene — The Duke fails — History of the Crisis — Lord Grey returns to Office — The King’s Excitement — The King writes to the Opposition Peers — Defeat and Disgrace of the Tories — Conversation of the Duke of Wellington — Louis XVIII. — Madame du Cayla — Weakness of the King — Mortality among Great Men — Petition against Lord W. Bentinck’s Prohibition of Suttee heard by the Privy Council — O’Connell and the Cholera — Irish Tithe Bill — Irish Difficulties — Mr. Stanley — Concluding Debates of the Parliament — Quarrel between Brougham and Sugden — Holland and Belgium — Brougham’s Revenge and Apology — Dinner at Holland House — Anecdotes of Johnson — Death of Mr. Greville’s Father — Madame de Flahaut’s Account of the Princess Charlotte — Prince Augustus of Prussia — Captain Hess — Hostilities in Holland and in Portugal — The Duchesse de Berri — Conversation with Lord Melbourne on the State of the Government.

---

March 28th, 1832

There appear to have been as many differences of opinion as of people on the discussion in the House of Lords when the Bill was brought up, and it seems paradoxical, but is true, that though it was on the whole satisfactory, nobody was satisfied. Lord Grey complained to me that Lord Harrowby was too stiff; Lord Harrowby complained that Lord Grey was always beating about the bush of compromise, but never would commit himself fairly to concession. Melbourne complained last night that what was done was done in LORD HARROWBY’S PATRIOTIC CONDUCT. such an ungracious manner, so niggardly, that he hated the man (Harrowby) who did it. The ultra-Tories are outrageous ‘that he gave up everything without reason or cause;’ the ultra-Whigs equally furious ‘that he had shown how little way he was disposed to go in Committee; his object was to turn out the Government;’ and what is comical, neither party will believe that Harrowby really is so obnoxious to the other as he is said to be. Each is convinced that he is acting in the interests of the other. What a position, what injustice, blindness, folly, obstinacy, brought together and exhibited! If ever there was a man whose conduct was exempt from the ordinary motives of ambition, and who made personal sacrifices in what he is doing, it is Lord Harrowby, and yet there is no reproach that is not cast upon him, no term of abuse that is not applied to him, no motive that is not ascribed to him. No wonder a man who has seen much of them is sick of politics and public life. Nothing now is thought of but the lists, and of course everybody has got one. The Tories still pretend to a majority of seven; the Government and Harrowby think they have one of from ten to twenty, and I suspect fifteen will be found about the mark. The unfortunate thing is that neither of our cocks is good for fighting, not from want of courage, but Harrowby is peevish, ungracious and unpopular, and Wharncliffe carries no great weight. To be sure neither of them pretends to make a party, but then their opponents insist upon it that they do, and men shrink from enlisting (or being supposed to enlist) under Wharncliffe’s banner. However, notwithstanding the violence of the noisy fools of the party, and of the women, there is a more rational disposition on the part of practical men, for Wharncliffe spoke to Ellenborough yesterday, and told him that though he knew he and Harrowby were regarded as traitors by all of them, he did hope that when the Bill came into Committee they would agree to consult together, and try and come to some understanding as to the best mode of dealing with the question, that it was absurd to be standing aloof at such a moment; to which Ellenborough replied that he perfectly agreed with him, was anxious to do so, and intended to advise his friends to take that course.

April 1st, 1832

Wharncliffe got Lord Grey to put off the second reading for a few days on account of the Quarter Sessions, which drew down a precious attack from Londonderry, and was in fact very foolish and unnecessary, as it looks like a concert between them, of which it is very desirable to avoid any appearance, as in fact none exists. The violence of the Tories continues unabated, and there is no effort they do not make to secure a majority, and they expect either to succeed or to bring it to a near thing. In the meantime the tone of the other party is changed. Dover, who makes lists, manages proxies, and does all the little jobbing, whipping-in, busy work of the party, makes out a clear majority, and told me he now thought the Bill would get through without Peers. The Government, however, are all agreed to make the Peers if it turns out to be necessary, and especially if the Bill should be thrown out, it seems clear that they would by no means go out, but make the Peers and bring it in again; so I gather from Richmond, and he who was the most violently opposed of the whole Cabinet to Peer-making, is now ready to make any number if necessary. There is, however, I hope, a disposition to concession, which, if matters are tolerably well managed, may lead to an arrangement. Still Wharncliffe, who must have a great deal to do in Committee, is neither prudent nor popular. The Tories are obstinate, sulky, and indisposed to agree to anything reasonable. It is the unity of object and the compactness of the party which give the Government strength. Charles Wood told me the other day that they were well disposed to a compromise on two special points, one the exclusion of town voters from the right of voting for counties, the other the metropolitan members. On the first he proposed that no man voting for a town in right of a 10ℓ. house should have a vote for the county in right of any freehold in that town. That would be half-way between Wharncliffe’s plan and the present. The second, that Marylebone should return two members, and Middlesex two more—very like CONVERSATION WITH LORD MELBOURNE. Grey’s proposition which Harrowby rejected—but I suggested keeping the whole and varying the qualification, to which he thought no objection would lie.

At the Duchesse de Dino’s ball the night before last I had a very anxious conversation with Melbourne about it all. He said that ‘he really believed there was no strong feeling in the country for the measure.’ We talked of the violence of the Tories, and their notion that they could get rid of the whole thing. I said the notion was absurd now, but that I fully agreed with him about the general feeling. ‘Why, then,’ said he, ‘might it not be thrown out?’—a consummation I really believe he would rejoice at, if it could be done. I said because there was a great party which would not let it, which would agitate again, and that the country wished ardently to have it settled; that if it could be disposed of for good and all, it would be a good thing indeed, but that this was now become impossible. I asked him if his colleagues were impressed as he was with this truth, and he said, ‘No.’ I told him he ought to do everything possible to enforce it, and to make them moderate, and induce them to concede, to which he replied, ‘What difficulty can they have in swallowing the rest after they have given up the rotten boroughs? That is, in fact, the essential part of the Bill, and the truth is I do not see how the Government is to be carried on without them. Some means may be found; a remedy may possibly present itself, and it may work in practice better than we now know of, but I am not aware of any, and I do not see how any Government can be carried on when these are swept away.’ This was, if not his exact words, the exact sense, and a pretty avowal for a man to make at the eleventh hour who has been a party concerned in this Bill during the other ten. I told him I agreed in every respect, but that it was too late to discuss this now, and that the rotten boroughs were past saving, that as to the minor points, the Waverers thought them of importance, looked upon them as securities, compensations, and moreover as what would save their own honour, and that the less their real importance was the more easily might they be conceded. We had a great deal more talk, but then it is all talk, and à quoi bon with a man who holds these opinions and acts as he does? Let it end as it may, the history of the Bill, and the means by which it has been conceived, brought forward, supported, and opposed, will be most curious and instructive. The division in the Lords must be very close indeed.

Orloff, who was looked for like the Messiah, at last made his appearance a few days ago, a great burly Russian, but no ratification yet.[1]

[1] [Of the Belgian Treaty.]

I have refrained for a long time from writing down anything about the cholera, because the subject is intolerably disgusting to me, and I have been bored past endurance by the perpetual questions of every fool about it. It is not, however, devoid of interest. In the first place, what has happened here proves that ‘the people’ of this enlightened, reading, thinking, reforming nation are not a whit less barbarous than the serfs in Russia, for precisely the same prejudices have been shown here that were found at St. Petersburg and at Berlin. The disease has undoubtedly appeared (hitherto) in this country in a milder shape than elsewhere, but the alarm at its name was so great that the Government could do no otherwise than take such precautions and means of safety as appeared best to avert the danger or mitigate its consequences. Here it came, and the immediate effect was a great inconvenience to trade and commerce, owing to restrictions, both those imposed by foreigners generally on this country and those we imposed ourselves between the healthy and unhealthy places. This begot complaints and disputes, and professional prejudices and jealousies urged a host of combatants into the field, to fight about the existence or non-existence of cholera, its contagiousness, and any collateral question. The disposition of the public was (and is) to believe that the whole thing was a humbug, and accordingly plenty of people were found to write in that sense, and the press lent itself to propagate the same idea. The disease, however, kept creeping on, the Boards of Health which were everywhere established immediately became odious, and the THE CHOLERA IN ENGLAND. vestries and parishes stoutly resisted all pecuniary demands for the purpose of carrying into effect the recommendations of the Central Board or the orders of the Privy Council. In this town the mob has taken the part of the anti-cholerites, and the most disgraceful scenes have occurred. The other day a Mr. Pope, head of the hospital in Marylebone (Cholera Hospital) came to the Council Office to complain that a patient who was being removed with his own consent had been taken out of his chair by the mob and carried back, the chair broken, and the bearers and surgeon hardly escaping with their lives. Furious contests have taken place about the burials, it having been recommended that bodies should be burned directly after death, and the most violent prejudice opposing itself to this recommendation; in short, there is no end to the scenes of uproar, violence, and brutal ignorance that have gone on, and this on the part of the lower orders, for whose especial benefit all the precautions are taken, and for whose relief large sums have been raised and all the resources of charity called into activity in every part of the town. The awful thing is the vast extent of misery and distress which prevails, and the evidence of the rotten foundation on which the whole fabric of this gorgeous society rests, for I call that rotten which exhibits thousands upon thousands of human beings reduced to the lowest stage of moral and physical degradation, with no more of the necessaries of life than serve to keep body and soul together, whole classes of artisans without the means of subsistence. However complicated and remote the causes of this state of things, the manifestations present themselves in a frightful presence and reality, and those whose ingenuity, and experience, and philosophical views may enable them accurately to point out the causes and the gradual increase of this distress are totally unable to suggest a remedy or to foresee an end to it. Can such a state of things permanently go on? can any reform ameliorate it? Is it possible for any country to be considered in a healthy condition when there is no such thing as a general diffusion of the comforts of life (varying of course with every variety of circumstance which can affect the prosperity of individuals or of classes), but when the extremes prevail of the most unbounded luxury and enjoyment and the most dreadful privation and suffering? To imagine a state of society in which everybody should be well off, or even tolerably well off, would be a mere vision, as long as there is a preponderance of vice and folly in the world. There will always be effects commensurate with their causes, but it has not always been, and it certainly need not be, that the majority of the population should be in great difficulty, struggling to keep themselves afloat, and, what is worse, in uncertainty and in doubt whether they can earn subsistence for themselves and their families. Such is the case at present, and I believe a general uncertainty pervades every class of society, from the highest to the lowest; nobody looks upon any institution as secure, or any interest as safe, and it is only because those universal feelings of alarm which are equally diffused throughout the mass but slightly affect each individual atom of it that we see the world go on as usual, eating, drinking, laughing, and dancing, and not insensible to the danger, though, apparently indifferent about it.

April 4th, 1832

Charles Wood[2] came to me yesterday, and brought a paper showing the various effects of a different qualification from 10ℓ. to 40ℓ. for the metropolitan districts, to talk over the list, but principally to get me to speak to Harrowby about a foreseen difficulty. The first clause in the Bill enacts that fifty-six boroughs be disfranchised. This gave great offence in the House of Commons, was feebly defended, but carried by the majority, which was always ready and required no reason; it was an egregious piece of folly and arrogance there, here it presents a real embarrassment. I told him I knew Harrowby had an invincible repugnance to it, and that the effect would be very bad if they split upon the first point. He said he should not defend it, that all reason was against it, but that there it was, and how was it to be got rid of? I suggested that it should be passed over, and that they should go at once to the boroughs A DIFFICULTY AT SCHEDULE A. seriatim. He said if that clause was omitted a suspicion would immediately arise that there was an intention of altering Schedule A, and nothing would avert that but getting through a great part of it before Easter, and that this might be difficult, as the longest time they could expect to sit would be three days in Passion Week. He talked a great deal about the country expecting this, and that they would not be satisfied if it was not done, and all the usual jargon of the Reformers, which it was not worth while to dispute, and it ended by my promising to talk to Lord Harrowby about it. This I did last night, and he instantly flew into a rage. He said ‘he would not be dragged through the mire by those scoundrels. It was an insolence that was not to be borne; let them make their Peers if they would, not Hell itself should make him vote for fifty-six; he would vote for sixty-six or any number but that, that he would not split with the Tories on the first vote; if indeed they would consent to fifty-six he would, or to anything else they would agree to, but if the Government brought this forward no consideration on earth should prevent his opposing it.’ We then discussed the whole matter, with the proposed amendments which Wood and I had talked over with reference to the metropolitan members and town and county voting, and I am to go to-day and propose that after the second reading is carried they should adjourn till after Easter, and give a little time for the excitement (which there must be) to subside, and to see how matters stand, and what probability there is of getting the thing through quietly.

[2] [Mr. Charles Wood, afterwards Viscount Halifax, but at this time private Secretary to Earl Grey, whose daughter he married.]

April 6th, 1832

I called on the Duke of Richmond on Wednesday morning, and told him what had passed between Wood and me, and Lord Harrowby and me afterwards. He was aware of the difficulty, and regretted it the more because he might have to defend it in the House of Lords. He wished me very much to go to Downing Street and see Lord Grey himself if possible before the levee, and he suggested that the words fifty-six might be left in blank by Lord Grey’s own motion, that this would be in conformity with the forms of the House. I set off, but calling at home on my way found Lord Harrowby at my door. He came in, and was anxious to know if I had said anything; he was more quiet than the night before, but still resolved not to agree to fifty-six, though anxious to have the matter compromised in some way. Lord Harrowby wanted to adjourn after the second reading, but owned that the best effect would be to get through Schedule A before Easter. Yesterday I saw Wood; he harped upon the difficulty and the old strain of the country. I suggested the point of form which Richmond had mentioned, but he said that could not be now in the Bill, as it was sent up from the Commons, that if they were beaten on fifty-six the country would consider it tantamount to throwing out Schedule A, and would highly approve of a creation of Peers, and that, in fact (if they wished it), it would be the best opportunity they could have. I told him that it would heap ridicule upon all the antecedent proceedings, and the pretext must be manifest, as it would appear in the course of the discussions what the real reason was. In the middle of our conversation Ellice came in, and directly asked if my friends would swallow fifty-six, to which I said, ‘No.’ We had then a vehement dispute, but at last Wood turned him out, and he and I resumed. We finally agreed that I should ask Lord Harrowby whether, if Lord Grey of his own accord proposed to leave out the words fifty-six, but with an expression of his opinion that this must be the number, he (Lord Harrowby) would meet him with a corresponding declaration that he objected to the specification of the number in the clause, without objecting to the extent of the disfranchisement, it being always understood that what passes between us is unauthorised talk, and to commit nobody—‘without prejudice,’ as the lawyers say.

I heard yesterday, however, from Keate, who is attending me (and who is the King’s surgeon, and sees him when he is in town), that he saw his Majesty after the levee on Wednesday, and that he was ill, out of sorts, and in considerable agitation; that he enquired of him about his health, when the King said he had much to annoy him, and that ‘many things passed there (pointing to the Cabinet, out of which he had just come) which were by no means agreeable, THE KING’S RELUCTANCE TO MAKE PEERS. and that he had had more than usual to occupy him that morning.’ Keate said he was very sure from his manner that something unpleasant had occurred. This was, I have since discovered, the question of a creation of Peers again brought forward, and to which the King’s aversion has returned so much so that it is doubtful if he will after all consent to a large one. It seems that unless the Peers are made (in the event of the necessity arising) Brougham and Althorp will resign; at least so they threaten. I have seen enough of threats, and doubts, and scruples, to be satisfied that there is no certainty that any of them will produce the anticipated effects, but I am resolved I will try, out of these various elements, if I cannot work out something which may be serviceable to the cause itself, though the materials I have to work with are scanty. The Ministers were all day yesterday settling who the new Peers shall be, so seriously are they preparing for the coup. They had already fixed upon Lords Molyneux, Blandford, Kennedy, Ebrington, Cavendish, Brabazon, and Charles Fox, Littleton, Portman, Frederick Lawley, Western, and many others, and this would be what Lord Holland calls assimilating the House of Lords to the spirit of the other House, and making it harmonise with the prevailing sense of the people.

April 8th, 1832

Lord Harrowby was out of town when I called there on Friday, so I wrote to him the substance of my conversation with Wood. Yesterday he returned. In the evening I met Wood at dinner at Lord Holland’s, when he told me that he found on the part of his friends more reluctance than he had expected to give up the fifty-six, that he had done all he could to persuade them, but they made great objections. Moreover he had had a conversation with Sandon which he did not quite like, as he talked so much of holding the party together. All this was to make me think they are stouter than they really are, for I am better informed than he thinks for.

Yesterday morning I got more correct information about what had passed with the King. Lord Grey went to him with a minute of Cabinet requiring that he should make Peers in case the second reading was thrown out.[3] To this he demurred, raised difficulties and doubts, which naturally enough alarm the Government very much. However, when he got back to Windsor he wrote two letters, explaining his sentiments, from which it appears that he has great reluctance, that he will do it, but will not give any pledge beforehand, that he objects to increasing the Peerage, and wants to call up eldest sons and make Irish and Scotch Peers, that he did not say positively he would make the Peers, but that he would be in the way, and come up when it was necessary. They think that he has some idea that his pledging himself beforehand (though in fact he did so two months ago) might be drawn into an improper precedent. However this may be, his reluctance is so strong that a great deal may be made of it, as it is probable (if he continues in the same mind, and is not turned by some violence of the Opposition) that he will resist still more making Peers when the Bill is in Committee to carry the details, some of which he himself wishes to see altered, but the difficulty is very great. It is impossible to communicate with the Tory leaders; they will not believe what you tell them, and if they learnt the King’s scruples they would immediately imagine that they might presume upon them to any extent, and stand out more obstinately than ever. I went to Harrowby last night, and imparted to him the state of things, which I shall do to nobody else. To Wharncliffe I dare not. He is not indisposed to Wood’s compromise, and I trust this will be settled, but he still leans to putting off the second reading till after Easter, and if the Tories also resolve upon that (which they are mightily disposed to do) he will not separate from them on that point, and they are sure to carry it. Unless this was accompanied with some declaration from them that they would be disposed to concede the great principles of the Bill, I think the Government would consider it such an indication of hostility as to call for an immediate creation ‘THE HUNCHBACK.’ of Peers, and I doubt whether the King could or would resist. There are many reasons why it would be desirable to make the second reading a resting-place, and adjourn then till after Easter, provided all parties consented, but it would be very unwise to make it the subject of a contest, and nobody would ever believe that the real reason was not to get rid of Schedule A by hook or by crook, or of a good deal of it. Harrowby will, I am sure, not divide against them on this, and they will not give it up; that there are means of resistance, if they were judiciously applied, I am sure, and if there were temper, discretion, and cordiality, the Bill might be licked into a very decent shape.

[3] [This Cabinet minute of the 3rd of April, 1832, and the King’s remarks upon it, have been printed in the ‘Correspondence of William IV. and Earl Grey,’ vol. ii. p. 307.]

I went to see Sheridan Knowles’ new play the other night, ‘The Hunchback.’ Very good, and a great success. Miss Fanny Kemble acted really well—for the first time, in my opinion, great acting. I have not seen anything since Mrs. Siddons (and perhaps Miss O’Neill) so good.

The Duke of Wellington made a very good speech on Irish affairs on Friday, one of his best, and he speaks admirably to points sometimes and on subjects he understands. I wish he had let alone that Irish Education—disgraceful humbug and cant. I don’t know that there is anything else particularly new. Orloff is made a great rout with, but he don’t ratify. The real truth is that the King of Holland holds out, and the other Powers delay till they see the result of our Reform Bill, thinking that the Duke of Wellington may return to power, and then they may make better terms for Holland and dictate to Belgium and to France. If the Reform Bill is carried, and Government stays in, they will ratify, and not till then. The cholera is disappearing here and in the country.

April 9th, 1832

Saw Lord Harrowby yesterday morning. He can’t make up his mind what is best to be done, whether to go into Committee or not. He rather wishes to get through Schedule A, but he won’t vote against the Tories if they divide on adjourning. Then went to Wood and told him there would be no difficulty about fifty-six. Lord Grey came in, and talked the whole thing over. He said he was ill—knocked up—that in his speech to-day he should be as moderate and tame as anybody could wish. From what Wood said, and he himself afterwards, I should think they wish to adjourn after the second reading, but to make a merit of it if they do. Duncannon, whom I saw afterwards, seemed to be of the same opinion, that it would be best not to sit in Passion Week. At night Wharncliffe came back from Yorkshire. He is all for getting into Schedule A, and making no difficulties about fifty-six or anything else, and Harrowby, now that he fancies the Government want to adjourn, rather wants not, suspecting some trick. Upon going all over the list, we make out the worst to give a majority of six, and the best of eighteen, but the Tories still count upon getting back some of our people. We had a grand hunt after Lord Gambier’s proxy; he sent it to Lord de Saumarez, who is laid up with the gout in Guernsey, and the difficulty was to get at Lord Gambier and procure another. At last I made Harrowby, who does not know him, write to him, and Wood sent a messenger after him, so we hope it will arrive in time.

April 11th, 1832

The day before yesterday Lord Grey introduced the Reform Bill in a speech of extreme moderation; as he promised, it was very ‘tame.’ The night’s debate was dull; yesterday was better. Lord Mansfield made a fine speech against the Bill; Harrowby spoke well, Wharncliffe ill. Nothing can equal the hot water we have been in—defections threatened on every side, expectations thwarted and doubts arising, betting nearly even. Even de Ros came to me in the morning and told me he doubted how he should vote; that neither Harrowby nor Wharncliffe had put the question on the proper ground, and his reason for seceding from the Opposition was the menaced creation of Peers. I wrote to Harrowby and begged him to say something to satisfy tender consciences, and moved heaven and earth to keep De Ros and Coventry (who was slippery) right, and I succeeded—at least I believe so, for it is not yet over. Nothing can equal the anxiety out of doors and the intensity of the interest in the town, but the debate is far less animated than that of REFORM BILL CARRIED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. last year. As to our business, it is ‘la mer à boire,’ with nobody to canvass or whip in, and not being a party. We shall, however, I believe, manage it, and but just.

I saw Keate this morning, who had been with the King. His Majesty talked in high terms of Ellenborough and of Mansfield. It is difficult to count upon such a man, but if the second reading is passed I do not believe he will make Peers to carry any points in Committee, unless it be the very vital ones, but it is very questionable if the Opposition will fight the battle then at all, or, if they do, fight in a way to secure a fair, practical result.

April 14th, 1832

The Reform Bill (second reading) was carried this morning at seven o’clock in the House of Lords by a majority of nine. The House did not sit yesterday. The night before Phillpotts, the Bishop of Exeter, made a grand speech against the Bill, full of fire and venom, very able. It would be an injury to compare this man with Laud; he more resembles Gardiner; had he lived in those days he would have been just such another, boiling with ambition, an ardent temperament, and great talents. He has a desperate and a dreadful countenance, and looks like the man he is. The two last days gave plenty of reports of changes either way, but the majority has always looked like from seven to ten. The House will adjourn on Wednesday, and go into Committee after Easter; and in the meantime what negotiations and what difficulties to get over! The Duke of Wellington and Lord Harrowby have had some good-humoured talk, and the former seems well disposed to join in amending the Bill, but the difficulty will be to bring these extreme and irritated parties to any agreement as to terms. The debate in the Lords, though not so good as last year, has been, as usual, much better than that in the Commons.

The accounts from Paris of the cholera are awful, very different from the disease here. Is it not owing to our superior cleanliness, draining, and precautions? There have been 1,300 sick in a day there, and for some days an average of 1,000; here we have never averaged above fifty, I think, and, except the squabbling in the newspapers, we have seen nothing of it whatever; there many of the upper classes have died of it. Casimir Périer and the Duke of Orleans went to the Hotel Dieu, and the former was seized afterwards, and has been very ill, though they doubt if it really was cholera, as he is subject to attacks with the same symptoms.

April 15th, 1832

The debate in the House of Lords was closed by a remarkable reply from Lord Grey, full of moderation, and such as to hold out the best hopes of an adjustment of the question—not that it pacified the ultra-Tories, who were furious. The speech was so ill reported at that late hour that it is not generally known what he did say, and many of those who heard it almost doubt their own accuracy, or suspect that he went further than he intended, so unlike was it to his former violent and unyielding language. He said, with regard to a creation of Peers, that nothing would justify him in recommending the exercise of that prerogative but a collision between the two Houses of Parliament, and that in such a case (he is reported to have said) he should deem it his duty first to recommend a dissolution, and to ascertain whether the feeling of the country was with the other House (these were not the words, but to this effect). If this be at all correct, it is clear that he cannot make Peers to carry the clauses, for, in fact, the collision between the two Houses will not have arrived unless the Commons should reject any amendments which may be made by the Lords. The tone, however, of the violent supporters of Government is totally changed; at Lord Holland’s last night they were singing in a very different note, and, now, if the councils of the Lords are guided by moderation and firmness, they may deal with the Bill almost as they please; but they must swallow Schedule A. The difficulties, however, are great; the High Tories are exasperated and vindictive, and will fiercely fight against any union with the seceders. The Duke is moderate in his tone, ready to act cordially with all parties, but he owes the seceders a grudge, is anxious to preserve his influence with the Tories, and will probably insist upon mutilating the Bill more than will be prudent and feasible. The Harrowby and Wharncliffe party, now that the second LORD WHARNCLIFFE AND LORD HARROWBY. reading is over, ceases to be a party. It was a patched-up, miscellaneous concern at best, of men who were half reasoned, half frightened over, who could not bear separating from the Duke, long to return to him, and, besides, are ashamed of Wharncliffe as a chief. There never was such a ‘chef de circonstance.’ He is a very honest man, with a right view of things and a fair and unprejudiced understanding, vain and imprudent, without authority, commanding no respect, and in a false position as the ephemeral leader he is, marching in that capacity pari passu with Harrowby, who is infinitely more looked up to, but whose bilious complexion prevents his mixing with society and engaging and persuading others to follow his opinions; nor has he (Lord Harrowby) any plan or design beyond the object of the moment. He has no thought of mixing again in public life, he does not propose to communicate with anybody on anything further than the middle course to be adopted now, and few people are disposed to sever the ties on which their future political existence depends for the sake of cultivating this short-lived connection. If the Government, therefore, looks to the seceders who have carried the question for them to carry other points, they will find it won’t do, for their followers will melt into the mass of the anti-Reformers, who, though they will still frown upon the chiefs, will gladly take back the rank and file. A fortnight will elapse, in the course of which opportunities will be found of ascertaining the disposition of the great party and the probability of an arrangement.

The debate was good on Friday, but very inferior to the last. Phillpotts got a terrific dressing from Lord Grey, and was handled not very delicately by Goderich and Durham, though the latter was too coarse. He had laid himself very open, and, able as he is, he has adopted a tone and style inconsistent with his lawn sleeves, and unusual on the Episcopal Bench. He is carried away by his ambition and his alarm, and horrifies his brethren, who feel all the danger (in these times) of such a colleague. The episode of which he was the object was, of course, the most amusing part of the whole.

Newmarket, April 22nd, 1832

Ill and laid up with the gout for this week past. Came here on Friday, the 20th. The carrying of the second reading of the Bill seems to have produced no effect. Everybody is gone out of town, the Tories in high dudgeon. The Duke of Wellington has entered a protest with all the usual objections, which has been signed by a whole rabble of Peers, but not by Lyndhurst, Ellenborough, or Carnarvon, who monopolise the brains of the party; they declined. In the meantime things look better. Wharncliffe, Harrowby, and Haddington have had two interviews with Lyndhurst and Ellenborough, and though they did not go into particulars the result was satisfactory, and a strong disposition evinced to co-operation and moderation. It was agreed they should meet again next week, and see what could be arranged. On Friday Palmerston sent to Wharncliffe and desired to see him. They met, and Palmerston told him that he came from Lord Grey, who was desirous of having an interview with him, adding that Lord Grey had now become convinced that he might make much more extensive concessions than he had ever yet contemplated. He added that Lord Grey would rather see Wharncliffe alone, without Harrowby, whose manner was so snappish and unpleasant that he could not talk so much at his ease as he would to Wharncliffe alone. Wharncliffe replied that he could have no objection to see Lord Grey, but that he must fairly tell him his situation was no longer the same, having put himself in amicable communication with Lyndhurst and Ellenborough; that the concurrence of the Tories was indispensable to him and his friends to effect the alterations they contemplated, and he could not do anything which might have to them the appearance of underhand dealing; that he could tell Lyndhurst and Ellenborough, and if they made no objection he would see Lord Grey. Ellenborough was gone out of town, but he went to Lyndhurst, who immediately advised him to see Lord Grey, and said it was most desirable they should be made acquainted with the MEETING OF LORD GREY AND LORD WHARNCLIFFE. views and disposition of Government, and he undertook to write word to the Duke of Wellington of all that had passed. Lord Grey was unable to leave Sheen yesterday, so it was arranged that the meeting should be delayed till Wharncliffe’s return to London. The Duke of Richmond has, however, got a letter of four sides from Grey, empowering him to treat here with Wharncliffe, and Stanley and Graham being expected, it is very likely some progress may be made. Nothing can promise better, and if the chiefs of the Tories can be brought to moderation the stupid obstinacy of the mass will not matter, and I do not think they will dare hold out, for when a negotiation on such a conciliatory basis is proposed, a terrible case would be made hereafter against those who should refuse to listen to it. The advantages are so clear that nothing would make them persist in the line of uncompromising opposition but an unconquerable repugnance to afford a triumph to the Waverers, which a successful termination would do; not that they would profit by it, for they are so few, and those who will have been wrong so many, that clamour will silence justice, and a thousand excuses and pretences will be found to deprive them of their rightful credit. It is a long time—not probably since the days of Charles II.—that this place (Newmarket) has been the theatre of a political negotiation, and, conceding the importance of the subject, the actors are amusing—Richmond, Graham, Wharncliffe, and myself. By-the-bye it is perfectly true that (if I have not mentioned it before) the Royal carriages were all ready the morning of the decision of the second reading to take the King to the House of Lords to prorogue Parliament, and on Tuesday the Peers would have appeared in the ‘Gazette.’

London, May 12th, 1832

Nothing written for a long time, nor had I anything to write till a few days ago. From the time of Wharncliffe’s departure I heard nothing, and I bitterly regret now not having been in town last week.[4] The Committee stood for Monday; on Friday se’nnight last I was at Buckenham, when the Duke of Rutland told me he was going to London, that they meant to divide on Monday on a proposal to postpone Schedules A and B till after C and D, and expected to beat the Government; I wrote by that post to Lady Harrowby, saying I hoped this was not true, and that if it was it appeared to me most injudicious. On Tuesday I received by the post a letter from Wharncliffe, saying that they had been in frequent communication with Ellenborough and Lyndhurst, that the Opposition were prepared to make great and satisfactory concessions, and he thought all would go off well. The only difficulty he apprehended was from the postponement of the disfranchising clause, which the Tories insisted on, and to which he and Harrowby had thought it right to agree. The next day I received a second letter, with an account of the debate and its consequences, to which I wrote him a trimming reply, and another to Lady Harrowby, expressing my sentiments on their conduct on the occasion. Before all this happened Wharncliffe had had to encounter abuse of every kind, and he has certainly continued to play his cards in such a way, from first to last, as to quarrel with Whigs and Tories in succession. With very good intentions, and very honest, he has exposed himself to every reproach of insincerity, intrigue, and double-dealing.

[4] [It was on the 7th of May that the Lords went into Committee on the Bill, and Lord Lyndhurst’s motion to postpone the disfranchising clauses until after the enfranchising clauses had been agreed to was carried by a majority of thirty-five against the Government. The seventeen Peers who had assisted to carry the second reading on the 11th of April relapsed into the Conservative ranks, and the result was, for the moment, such as to stop the progress of the Bill and turn out the Government.]

On arriving in town I found a note from him, desiring I would see him and hear his defence of himself before I expressed elsewhere the opinion I had given to him. Accordingly I went to Boodle’s, where I found him, and he immediately began his case. He said that on his return to town he saw Lord Grey, who said that he wished to know what were the intentions of his party, and how far they were disposed to go, and what concessions they looked for. He replied that Lord Grey must understand that he now DEFEAT OF GOVERNMENT IN COMMITTEE. stood in a very different position, and that, reunited as he was with the Tories, he must act with them—much, in short, what he had before said to Palmerston. They then discussed the question, and he said that there was one point for which Lord Grey ought to be prepared, and that he knew the Tories were much bent upon proposing the postponement of Schedules A and B. Lord Grey said this would be productive of the greatest embarrassment, that it would be a thing they could not agree to, and he hoped he would do all in his power to prevent it. Wharncliffe said that he would endeavour, but he believed they were very eager about it, and he added that Lord Grey might be sure he would support nothing calculated to interfere with the essential provisions of the Bill. After this his and Harrowby’s communications with Ellenborough and his friends continued, and on the Saturday (I think) Lyndhurst told him that the Tories were so irrevocably bent upon this, and that they were so difficult to manage and so disposed to fly off, that it was absolutely necessary to give way to them, and it must be proposed, though he would gladly have waived it, but that was impossible; upon which Harrowby and Wharncliffe gave in and agreed to support it. One of them (Haddington, I think) suggested that Wharncliffe ought to communicate this intention to Lord Grey, to which, however, Lyndhurst objected, said that the Tories were suspicious, had already taken umbrage at the communications between Wharncliffe and Grey, and that it must not be. To this prohibition Wharncliffe fatally submitted, and accordingly not a word was said by anybody till the afternoon of the debate, when just before it began Wharncliffe told the Duke of Richmond, who of course told Lord Grey. Wharncliffe at the same time had some conversation with John Russell and Stanley, who strongly deprecated this intention, but it was too late to arrange or compromise anything then. The debate came on; the proposition was made in a very aggravating speech by Lyndhurst, and on its being carried Lord Grey threw up the Bill and the Government in a passion. It is the more remarkable that they should have taken this course at once, because they certainly had very strong reason to doubt whether the King would consent to a creation of Peers, though they probably thought he might be bullied upon an occasion which they fancied they could turn to great account; but he was stout and would not hear of it.

The day after the debate Grey and Brougham went down to Windsor and proposed to the King to make fifty Peers. They took with them a minute of Cabinet signed by all the members except the Duke of Richmond. Palmerston proposed it in Cabinet, and Melbourne made no objection. His Majesty took till the next day to consider, when he accepted their resignations, which was the alternative they gave him. At the levee the same day nothing occurred; the King hardly spoke to the Duke, but he afterwards saw Lyndhurst (having sent for him). I do not know what passed between them, but the Duke of Wellington was soon sent for. The Duke and Lyndhurst endeavoured to prevail on Peel to take the Government upon himself, and the former offered to act in any capacity in which he could be useful, but Peel would not. Some communication also took place between Lyndhurst and Harrowby, but the latter declared at once he would support the new Government, but not take office. When Peel finally declined, the Duke accepted, and yesterday at three o’clock he went to St. James’s. The King saw Peel and the Speaker. Nothing is known of the formation of the Cabinet, but the reports were first that Alexander Baring was to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, and since that he has refused on account of his health, and that Lyndhurst is to go to the King’s Bench, Tenterden to retire, and the Great Seal to be put in commission.

The first act of the Duke was to advise the King to reject the address of the Birmingham Union, which he did, and said he knew of no such body. All very proper. In the morning I called upon Wood at the Treasury, to explain to him that I had never been cognisant of the late proceedings in the House of Lords, and that I was far from approving the conduct of my old associates. He said he had never believed POSITION OF PARTIES. that I was any party to it, and regretted that I had not been in town, when it was just possible I might have persuaded them of the unworthiness of the course they were taking. He said that I did not know how bad it was, for that Wharncliffe had distinctly said that if such a thing was proposed he should oppose it, and that Palmerston was present when he said so. This Wharncliffe positively denies, and yesterday he went to Palmerston to endeavour to explain, taking with him a minute which he said he had drawn up at the time of all that passed, but which he had never before shown or submitted for correction, and which Palmerston told him was incorrect, inasmuch, as it omitted that engagement. They are at issue as to the fact. The position of the respective parties is curious. The Waverers undertook a task of great difficulty with slender means, and they accomplished it with complete success. All turned out as they expected and desired, but, after having been in confidential communication with both parties, they have contrived mortally to offend both, and to expose themselves to odium from every quarter, and to an universal imputation of insincerity and double-dealing, and this without any other fault than mismanagement and the false position in which they found themselves, without influence or power, between two mighty parties. The Tories, who have exhibited nothing but obstinacy and unreasonableness, and who thwarted the Waverers by every means they could devise, have reaped all the benefit of their efforts, and that without admitting that they were right or thanking them for bringing matters to this pass. They are triumphant, in spite of all they did to prevent their own triumph, and have had all the spiteful pleasure of abuse and obloquy, all the glory of consistency, and the satisfaction of pertinacity, with all the advantages that an opposite line of conduct promised to give them. [Their triumph was of short duration, and nothing so complete as their final discomfiture.]

The King took leave of his Ministers with a great effusion of tenderness, particularly to Richmond, whom he entreated to remain in office; but I take it that he easily consoles himself, and does not care much more for one Minister than another.

The debate in the House of Commons was not so violent as might have been expected, and the Tories were greatly elated with the divisions on Ebrington’s motion, because there was a majority less by fifty-six than on a similar motion when the Bill was rejected in October. The circumstances were, however, different, and some would not vote because they disapprove of creating Peers, which this vote would have committed them to approve of. There is so much of wonder, and curiosity, and expectation abroad that there is less of abuse and exasperation than might have been expected, but it will all burst forth. The town is fearfully quiet. What is odd enough is that the King was hissed as he left London the other day, and the Duke cheered as he came out of the Palace. There have been some meetings, with resolutions to support the Bill, to express approbation of the Ministers, and to protest against the payment of taxes, and there will probably be a good deal of bustle and bluster here and elsewhere; but I do not believe in real tumults, particularly when the rabble and the unions know that there is a Government which will not stand such things, and that they will not be able to bandy compliments with the Duke as they did with Althorp and John Russell, not but what much dissatisfaction and much disquietude must prevail. The funds have not fallen, which is a sign that there is no alarm in the City. At this early period of the business it is difficult to form any opinion of what will happen; the present Government in opposition will again be formidable, but I am disposed to think things will go on and right themselves; we shall avoid a creation of Peers, but we must have a Reform Bill of some sort, and perhaps a harmless one after all, and if the elements of disorder can be resolved into tranquillity and order again, we must not quarrel with the means that have been employed, nor the quantum of moral injustice that has been perpetrated.

The Tories are very indignant with Peel for not taking office, and if, as it is supposed, he is to support Government PEEL REFUSES TO TAKE OFFICE. and the Bill out of office, and when all is over come in, it is hardly worth while for such a farce to deprive the King and the country of his services in the way that they could be most useful, but he is still smarting under Catholic question reminiscences, while the Duke is more thick-skinned. After he had carried the Catholic question the world was prepared for a good deal of versatility on his part, but it was in mere derision that (after his speech on Reform in 1830) it used to be said that he would very likely be found proposing a Bill of Reform, and here he is coming into office for the express purpose of carrying on this very Bill against which the other day he entered a protest which must stare him in the face through the whole progress of it, or, if not, to bring in another of the same character, and probably nearly of the same dimensions. Pretexts are, however, not wanting, and the necessity of supporting the King is made paramount to every other consideration. The Duke’s worshippers (a numerous class) call this the finest action of his life, though it is difficult to perceive in what the grandeur of it consists, or the magnitude of the sacrifice. However, it is fair to wait a little, and hear from his own lips his exposition of the mode in which he intends to deal with this measure, and how he will reconcile what he has hitherto said with what he is now about to do. Talleyrand is of course in a state of great consternation, which will be communicated like an electrical shock to the Powers specially favoured and protected by the late Government—Leopold and Don Pedro, for instance. It will be a difficult thing for the Duke to deal with some of the questions on which he has committed himself pretty considerably while in opposition, both with respect to foreign politics and especially Irish Education.

Monday, May 14th, 1832

Nothing more was known yesterday, but everybody was congregated at the clubs, asking, discussing, and wondering. There was a great meeting at Apsley House, when it was supposed everything was settled. The Household went yesterday to St. James’s to resign their sticks and badges; amongst the rest Lord Foley. The King was very civil to him; made him sit down and said, ‘Lord Foley, you are a young man.’ ‘Sir, I am afraid I cannot flatter myself that I have any right to that appellation.’ ‘Oh, yes; you are a young man—at all events in comparison with me—and you will probably come into office again; but I am an old man, and I am afraid I shall not have the pleasure of seeing you there.’ It is supposed that this coup has been preparing for some time. All the Royal Family, bastards and all, have been incessantly at the King, and he has probably had more difficulty in the long run in resisting the constant importunity of his entourage, and of his womankind particularly, than the dictates of his Ministers; and between this gradual but powerful impression, and his real opinion and fears, he was not sorry to seize the first good opportunity of shaking off the Whigs. When Lord Anglesey went to take leave of him at Windsor he was struck with the change in his sentiments, and told Lady Anglesey so, who repeated it to my brother.

It is gratifying to find that those with whom I used to dispute, and who would hear of nothing but rejecting the second reading, now admit that my view was the correct one, and Vesey Fitzgerald, with whom I had more than one discussion, complimented me very handsomely upon the justification of my view of the question which the event had afforded. The High Tories, of course, will never admit that they could have been wrong, and have no other resource but to insist boldly that the King never would have made Peers at all.[5]

[5] [Everyone knows how short-lived were the expectations caused by the temporary resignation of Lord Grey’s Government. It will be seen in the following pages how soon the vision passed away; but the foregoing passages are retained precisely because they contain a vivid and faithful picture of the state of opinion at the moment.]

London, May 17th, 1832

The events of the last few days have passed with a rapidity which hardly left time to think upon them—such sudden changes and transitions from rage to triumph on one side, and from foolish exultation to mortification and despair on the other. The first impression was that the Duke of Wellington would succeed in forming a Government, with or without Peel. The first thing he did was to try WELLINGTON’S EFFORTS TO FORM A MINISTRY. and prevail upon Peel to be Prime Minister, but he was inexorable. He then turned to Baring,[6] who, after much hesitation, agreed to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. The work went on, but with difficulty, for neither Peel, Goulburn, nor Croker would take office. They then tried the Speaker, who was mightily tempted to become Secretary of State, but still doubting and fearing, and requiring time to make up his mind. At an interview with the Duke and Lyndhurst at Apsley House he declared his sentiments on the existing state of affairs in a speech of three hours, to the unutterable disgust of Lyndhurst, who returned home, flung himself into a chair, and said that ‘he could not endure to have anything to do with such a damned tiresome old bitch.’ After these three hours of oratory Manners Sutton desired to have till the next morning (Monday) to make up his mind, which he again begged might be extended till the evening. On that evening (Monday) ensued the memorable night in the House of Commons, which everybody agrees was such a scene of violence and excitement as never had been exhibited within those walls. Tavistock told me he had never heard anything at all like it, and to his dying day should not forget it. The House was crammed to suffocation; every violent sentiment and vituperative expression was received with shouts of approbation, yet the violent speakers were listened to with the greatest attention.[7] Tom Duncombe made one of his blustering Radical harangues, full of every sort of impertinence, which was received with immense applause, but which contrasted with an admirable speech, full of dignity, but also of sarcasm and severity, from John Russell—the best he ever made. The conduct of the Duke of Wellington in taking office to carry the Bill, which was not denied, but which his friends feebly attempted to justify, was assailed with the most merciless severity, and (what made the greatest impression) was condemned (though in more measured terms) by moderate men and Tories, such as Inglis and Davies Gilbert. Baring, who spoke four times, at last proposed that there should be a compromise, and that the ex-Ministers should resume their seats and carry the Bill. This extraordinary proposition was drawn from him by the state of the House, and the impossibility he at once saw of forming a new Government, and without any previous concert with the Duke, who, however, entirely approved of what he said. After the debate Baring and Sutton went to Apsley House, and related to the Duke what had taken place, the former saying he would face a thousand devils rather than such a House of Commons. From that moment the whole thing was at an end, and the next morning (Tuesday) the Duke repaired to the King, and told him that he could not form an Administration. This communication, for which the debate of the previous night had prepared everybody, was speedily known, and the joy and triumph of the Whigs were complete.

[6] [Alexander Baring, afterwards Lord Ashburton.]

[7] [The debate arose on a petition of the City of London, praying that the House would refuse supplies until the Reform Bill had become law.]

The King desired the Duke and Lyndhurst (for they went together) to advise him what he should do. They advised him to write to Lord Grey (which he did), informing him that the Duke had given up the commission to form a Government, that he had heard of what had fallen from Mr. Baring in the House of Commons the night before on the subject of a compromise, and that he wished Lord Grey to return and resume the Government upon that principle. Lord Grey sent an answer full of the usual expressions of zeal and respect, but saying that he could give no answer until he had consulted his colleagues. He assembled his Cabinet, and at five o’clock the answer was sent.[8]

[8] [These communications have been published in the ‘Correspondence of Earl Grey with William IV.,’ vol. ii. pp. 406-411.]

Yesterday morning Lord Grey saw the King; but up to last night nothing was finally settled, everything turning upon the terms to be exacted, some of the violent of the party desiring they should avail themselves of this opportunity to make Peers, both to show their power and increase their strength; the more moderate, including Lord Grey himself and many of the old Peer-makers, were for sparing the King’s feelings and using their victory with moderation, TRIUMPH OF THE WHIGS. all, however, agreeing that the only condition on which they could return was the certainty of carrying the Reform Bill unaltered, either by a creation of Peers or by the secession of its opponents. Up to the present moment the matter stands thus: the King at the mercy of the Whigs, just as averse as ever to make Peers, the violent wishing to press him, the moderate wishing to spare him, all parties railing at each other, the Tories broken and discomfited, and meditating no further resistance to the Reform Bill. The Duke is to make his exposé to-night.

Peel, who has kept himself out of the scrape, is strongly suspected of being anything but sorry for the dilemma into which the Duke has got himself, and they think that he secretly encouraged him to persevere, with promises of present support and future co-operation, with a shrewd anticipation of the fate that awaited him. I am by no means indisposed to give credit to this, for I well remember the wrath of Peel when the Duke’s Government was broken up in 1830, and the various instances of secret dislike and want of real cordiality which have peeped from under a decent appearance of union and friendship. Nothing can be more certain than that he is in high spirits in the midst of it all, and talks with great complacency of its being very well as it is, and that the salvation of character is everything; and this from him, who fancies he has saved his own, and addressed to those who have forfeited theirs, is amusing.

The joy of the King at what he thought was to be his deliverance from the Whigs was unbounded. He lost no time in putting the Duke of Wellington in possession of everything that had taken place between him and them upon the subject of Reform, and with regard to the creation of Peers, admitting that he had consented, but saying he had been subjected to every species of persecution. His ignorance, weakness, and levity put him in a miserable light, and prove him to be one of the silliest old gentlemen in his dominions; but I believe he is mad, for yesterday he gave a great dinner to the Jockey Club, at which (notwithstanding his cares) he seemed in excellent spirits; and after dinner he made a number of speeches, so ridiculous and nonsensical, beyond all belief but to those who heard them, rambling from one subject to another, repeating the same thing over and over again, and altogether such a mass of confusion, trash, and imbecility as made one laugh and blush at the same time.

As soon as the Duke had agreed to try and form a Government he applied to the Tories, who nearly all agreed to support him, and were prepared to go to all lengths, even to that of swallowing the whole Bill if necessary; the Duke of Newcastle particularly would do anything. These were the men who were so squeamish that they could not be brought to support amendments even, unless they were permitted to turn the schedules upside-down, straining at gnats out of office and swallowing camels in. It is remarkable that after the sacrifice Wharncliffe made to re-ingratiate himself with the Tories, incurring the detestation and abuse of the Whigs, and their reproach of bad faith, the former have utterly neglected him, taking no notice of him whatever during the whole of their proceedings from the moment of the division, leaving him in ignorance of their plans and intentions, never inviting him to any of their meetings, and although a communication was made by Lyndhurst to Harrowby (they wanted Harrowby to be Prime Minister), the latter was not at liberty to impart it to Wharncliffe. It is not possible to be more deeply mortified than he is at the treatment he has experienced from these allies after having so committed himself. From the account of the King’s levity throughout these proceedings, I strongly suspect that (if he lives) he will go mad. While the Duke and Lyndhurst were with him, at one of the most critical moments (I forget now at which) he said, ‘I have been thinking that something is wanting with regard to Hanover. Duke, you are now my Minister, and I beg you will think of this; I should like to have a slice of Belgium, which would be a convenient addition to Hanover. Pray remember this,’ and then resumed the subject they were upon.

May 19th, 1832

The night before last the Duke made his statement. It was extremely clear, but very bald, and left THE KING’S LETTER TO THE PEERS. his case just where it was, as he did not say anything that everybody did not know before. His friends, however, extolled it as a masterpiece of eloquence and a complete vindication of himself. The Tory Lords who spoke after him bedaubed him with praise, and vied with each other in expressions of admiration. These were Carnarvon, Winchelsea, and Haddington. There was not one word from the Duke (nor from the others) indicative of an intention to secede, which was what the Government expected. His speech contained a sort of covert attack upon Peel; in fact, he could not defend himself without attacking Peel, for if the one was in the right in taking office the other must have been in the wrong in refusing to join him. There was nothing, however, which was meant as a reproach, though out of the House the Duke’s friends do not conceal their anger that Peel would not embark with him in his desperate enterprise.

Lyndhurst was exceedingly able, highly excited, very eloquent, and contrived to make his case a good one. It was a fine display and very short. Carnarvon and Mansfield were outrageously violent, but both in their way clever, and parts of the speech of the latter were eloquent. Lord Grey was excellent, short, very temperate and judicious, exactly what was requisite and nothing more. Nobody else spoke on his side, except Mulgrave at the end.

The debate, however interesting, left the whole matter in uncertainty; and the next day the old question began again. What was to be done—Peers or no Peers? A Cabinet sat nearly all day, and Lord Grey went once or twice to the King. He, poor man, was at his wits’ end, and tried an experiment (not a very constitutional one) of his own by writing to a number of Peers, entreating them to withdraw their opposition to the Bill. These letters were written (I think) before the debate. On Thursday nothing was settled, and at another meeting of the Cabinet a minute was drawn up agreeing to offer again the same advice to the King. Before this was acted upon Richmond, who had been absent, arrived, and he prevailed upon his colleagues to cancel it. In the meantime the Duke of Wellington, Lyndhurst, and other Peers had given the desired assurances to the King, which he communicated to Lord Grey. These were accepted as sufficient securities, and declarations made accordingly in both Houses of Parliament. If the Ministers had again gone to the King with this advice, it is impossible to say how it would have ended, for he had already been obstinate, and might have continued so on this point, and he told Lord Verulam that he thought it would be contrary to his coronation oath to make Peers. Our princes have strange notions of the obligations imposed by their coronation oath.

On Thursday in the House of Commons Peel made his statement, in which, with great civility and many expressions of esteem and admiration of the Duke, he pronounced as bitter a censure of his conduct, while apparently confining himself to the defence of his own, as it was possible to do, and as such it was taken. I have not the least doubt that he did it con amore, and that he is doubly rejoiced to be out of the scrape himself and to leave others in it.

May 31st, 1832

Since I came back from Newmarket there has not been much to write about. A calm has succeeded the storm. Last night Schedules A and B were galloped through the Committee, and they finished the business. On Thursday next the Bill will probably be read a third time. In the House of Lords some dozen Tories and Waverers have continued to keep up a little skirmish, and a good deal of violent language has been bandied about, in which the Whigs, being the winners, have shown the best temper. In society the excitement has ceased, but the bitterness remains. The Tories are, however, so utterly defeated, and the victory of their opponents is so complete, that the latter can afford to be moderate and decorous in their tone and manner; and the former are exceedingly sulky, cockering up each other with much self-gratulation and praise, but aware that in the opinion of the mass of mankind they are covered with odium, ridicule, and disgrace. Peel and the Duke are ostensibly great friends, and the ridiculous farce is still kept up of each admiring what he would not do himself, but what the other did.

June 1st, 1832

FAVOURITES OF LOUIS XVIII. Met the Duke of Wellington at dinner yesterday, and afterwards had a long talk with him, not on politics. I never see and converse with him without reproaching myself for the sort of hostility I feel and express towards his political conduct, for there are a simplicity, a gaiety, and natural urbanity and good-humour in him, which are remarkably captivating in so great a man. We talked of Dumont’s book and Louis XVIII.’s ‘Memoirs.’ I said I thought the ‘Memoirs’ were not genuine. He said he was sure they were, that they bore the strongest internal evidence of being so, particularly in their accuracy as to dates, that he was the best chronologist in the world, and that he knew the day of the week of every event of importance. He once asked the Duke when he was born, and when he told him the day of the month and year, he at once said it was on a Tuesday; that he (the Duke) had remembered that throughout the book the day of the week was always mentioned, and many of the anecdotes he had himself heard the King tell. He then talked of him, and I was surprised to hear him say that Charles X. was a cleverer man, as far as knowledge of the world went, though Louis XVIII. was much better informed—a most curious remark, considering the history and end of each. [Nothing could be more mistaken and untrue than this opinion.] That Louis XVIII. was always governed, and a favourite indispensable to him. At the Congress of Vienna the Duke was deputed to speak to M. de Blacas, his then favourite, and tell him that his unpopularity was so great in France that it was desirable he should not return there. Blacas replied, ‘You don’t know the King; he must have a favourite, and he had better have me than another. I shall go; he will have another, and you should take pains to put a gentleman in that situation, for he is capable of taking the first person that finds access to him and the opportunity of pleasing him.’ He added that he should not wonder if he took Fouché. He did not take Fouché, who was not aware of the part he might have played, but he took De Cazes, who governed him entirely. This continued till the Royal Family determined to get rid of him, and by threatening to make an esclandre and leave the château they at last succeeded, and De Cazes was sent as Ambassador to London. Then the King wrote to him constantly, sending him verses and literary scraps. The place remained vacant till accident threw Madame du Cayla in his way.[9] She was the daughter of Talon, who had been concerned in the affair of the Marquis de Favras, and she sent to the King to say she had some papers of her father’s relating to that affair, which she should like to give into his own hands. He saw her and was pleased with her. The Royal Family encouraged this new taste, in order to get rid entirely of De Cazes, and even the Duchesse d’Angoulême promoted her success. It was the same thing to him to have a woman as a man, and there was no sexual question in the matter, as what he wanted was merely some one to whom he could tell everything, consult with on all occasions, and with whom he could bandy literary trifles. Madame du Cayla, who was clever, was speedily installed, and he directly gave up De Cazes. He told the Duke that he was brouillé with De Cazes, who had behaved very ill to him, but he had nothing specific to allege against him, except that his manner to him was not what it ought to have been. The Ministers paid assiduous court to Madame du Cayla, imparted everything to her, and got her to say what they wanted said to the King; she acted all the part of a mistress, except the essential, of which there never was any question. She got great sums of money from him and very valuable presents.

[9] [This lady has already been noticed in a previous portion of these Memoirs, when she visited England. See vol. i. p. 215 [July 10th, 1829].]

June 18th, 1832

Breakfasted on Thursday with Rogers, and yesterday at the Athenæum with Henry Taylor, and met Mr. Charles Austin, a lawyer, clever man, and Radical. The Bills are jogging on and there is a comparative calm. The Whigs swear that the Reformed Parliament will be the most aristocratic we have ever seen, and Ellice told me that they cannot hear of a single improper person likely to be elected for any of the new places. [Their choice did not correspond with this statement of their disposition.] The metropolitan districts CHARACTER OF WILLIAM IV. want rank and talent. The Government and their people have now found out what a fool the King is, and it is very amusing to hear them on the subject. Formerly, when they thought they had him fast, he was very honest and rather wise; now they find him rather shuffling and exceedingly silly. When Normanby went to take leave of him on going to Jamaica, he pronounced a harangue in favour of the slave trade, of which he has always been a great admirer, and expressed sentiments for which his subjects would tear him to pieces if they heard them. It is one of the great evils of the recent convulsion that the King’s imbecility has been exposed to the world, and in his person the regal authority has fallen into contempt; his own personal unpopularity is not of much consequence as long as it does not degrade his office; that of George IV. never did, so little so that he could always as King cancel the bad impressions which he made in his individual capacity, and he frequently did so. Walter Scott is arrived here, dying. A great mortality among great men; Goethe, Périer, Champollion, Cuvier, Scott, Grant, Mackintosh, all died within a few weeks of each other.

June 25th, 1832

At Fern Hill all last week; a great party, nothing but racing and gambling; then to Shepperton, and to town on Saturday. The event of the races was the King’s having his head knocked with a stone. It made very little sensation on the spot, for he was not hurt, and the fellow was a miserable-looking ragamuffin. It, however, produced a great burst of loyalty in both Houses, and their Majesties were loudly cheered at Ascot. The Duke of Wellington, who had been the day before mobbed in London, also reaped a little harvest of returning popularity from the assault, and so far the outrages have done rather good than harm.

July 12th, 1832

The suttee case was decided at the Privy Council on Saturday last, and was not uninteresting. The Chancellor, Lord President, Graham, John Russell and Grant, Sir Edward East, the Master of Rolls, Vice-Chancellor, Lord Amherst, and Lord Wellesley were present (the latter not the last day). Lushington was for the appeal, and Home and Starkie against. The former made two very able and ingenious speeches; when the counsel withdrew the Lords gave their opinions seriatim. Leach made a very short and very neat speech, condemning the order[10] of the Governor-General, but admitting the danger of rescinding it, and recommending, therefore, that the execution of it should be suspended. Sir Edward East, in a long, diffusive harangue, likewise condemned the order, but was against suspension; Sir James Graham was against the order, but against suspension; Lord Amherst the same. The rest approved of the order altogether. John Russell gave his opinion very well. The Chancellor was prolix and confused; he hit upon a bit of metaphysics in one of the cases on which he took pleasure in dilating. The result was that the petition was dismissed.

[10] The order was a decree of the Governor-General of India abolishing the practice of suttee, against which certain Hindoos appealed to the King in Council. Another party, however, were in favour of the order, and the Rajah Rammohun Roy is acting in this country as their agent.

I know nothing of politics for some time past. The Reform fever having subsided, people are principally occupied with speculations on the next elections. At present there is every appearance of the return of a House of Commons very favourable to the present Government, but the Tory party keeps together in the House of Lords, and they are animated with vague hopes of being able to turn out the Ministry, more from a spirit of hatred and revenge than from any clear view of the practicability of their carrying on the Government. I conceive, however, that as soon as Parliament is up there will be a creation of Peers. In the House of Commons the Irish Tithe question has been the great subject of interest and discussion. O’Connell and the Irish members debate and adjourn just as they please, and Althorp is obliged to give way to them. When Stanley moved for leave to bring in his Bill, he detailed his plan in a speech of two hours. They thought fit to oppose this, which is quite unusual, and O’Connell did not arrive till after Stanley had sat down. Not having heard his speech he could not answer him, and he therefore moved the adjournment. O’CONNELL’S DREAD OF CHOLERA. Upon a former occasion, during the Reform Bill, when the Tories moved an adjournment after many hours’ debate, the Government opposed it, and voted on through the night till seven o’clock in the morning; now the Tories were ready to support Government against the Irish members, but they would not treat the Radicals as they did the Tories, and then on a subsequent occasion they submitted to have the debate adjourned.

O’Connell is supposed to be horridly afraid of the cholera. He has dodged about between London and Dublin, as the disease appeared first at one and then the other place, and now that it is everywhere he shirks the House of Commons from fear of the heat and the atmosphere. The cholera is here, and diffuses a certain degree of alarm. Some servants of people well known have died, and that frightens all other servants out of their wits, and they frighten their masters; the death of any one person they are acquainted with terrifies people much more than that of twenty of whom they knew nothing. As long as they read daily returns of a parcel of deaths here and there of A, B, and C they do not mind, but when they hear that Lady such a one’s nurse or Sir somebody’s footman is dead, they fancy they see the disease actually at their own door.

July 15th, 1832

I had a good deal of conversation yesterday with Lord Duncannon and Lord John Russell about Ireland. The debate the night before lasted till four o’clock. O’Connell made a furious speech, and Dawson the other evening another, talking of resistance and of his readiness to join in it. This drew up Peel, who had spoken before, and who, when attacked with cries of ‘Spoke!’ said, ‘Yes, I have spoken, but I will say that no party considerations shall prevent my supporting Government in this measure, and giving them my cordial support.’ He was furious with Dawson, and got up in order to throw him over, though he did not address himself to him, or to anything he had said expressly. John Russell spoke out what ought to have been said long ago, that the Church could not stand, but that the present clergyman must be paid. Both he and Duncannon are aware of the false position in which the Government is placed, pretending to legislate with a knowledge that their laws cannot be enforced, and the latter said that, whatever might be done, the Irish would take nothing at the hands of Stanley. It is unfortunate that his attachment to the Church makes him the unfittest man in the country to manage Irish affairs, and he has contrived to make himself so personally unpopular that with the best intentions he could not give satisfaction. Under these circumstances his remaining there is impossible, but what is to be done with him? He is of such importance in the House of Commons that they cannot part with him. I asked John Russell why they did not send Hobhouse to Ireland and make Stanley Secretary of War. He said would he consent to exchange? that he was tired of office, and would be glad to be out. I said I could not suppose in such an emergency that he would allow any personal considerations to influence him, and that he would consent to whatever arrangement would be most beneficial to the Government and conducive to the settlement of Irish affairs. The truth is (as I told him) that they are, with respect to Ireland, in the situation of a man who has got an old house in which he can no longer live, not tenable; various architects propose this and that alteration, to build a room here and pull down one there, but at last they find that all these alterations will only serve to make the house habitable a little while longer, that the dry rot is in it, and that they had better begin, as they will be obliged to end, by pulling it down and building up a new one. He owned this was true, but said that here another difficulty presented itself with regard to Stanley—whether he would, as a leading member of the Cabinet, consent to any measures which might go so much further than he would be disposed to do. I said that I could not imagine (whatever might be his predilections) that his mind was not awakened to the necessity of giving way to the state of things, and that he might consent to measures which he felt he was not a fit person to introduce and recommend. He assented to this. He then talked of the views of the Protestants, of the Lefroys, &c., that they began to admit the necessity of IRISH TITHES. a change, but by no means would consent to the alienation of Church property from Protestant uses, that they were willing where there was a large parish consisting entirely of Catholics that the tithes should be taken from the rector of such parish and given to one who had a large Protestant flock—an arrangement which would disgust the Catholics as much as or more than any other, and be considered a perfect mockery. The fact is we may shift and change and wriggle about as much as we will, we may examine and report and make laws, but tithe, the tithe system is at an end. The people will not pay them, and there are no means of compelling them. The march of events is just as certain as that of the seasons. The question which is said to be beset with difficulties is in fact very easy—that is, its difficulties arise from conflicting interests and passions, and not from the uncertainty of its operation and end. Those conflicting passions are certainly very great and very embarrassing, and it is no easy matter to deal with them, but it seems to me that the wisest policy is to keep our eyes steadfastly fixed on the end, and, admitting the inevitable conclusion, labour to bring it about with the smallest amount of individual loss, the greatest general benefit, and the best chance of permanence and stability. By casting lingering looks at the old system, and endeavouring to save something here and there, by allowing the Church to remain in the rags and tatters of its old supremacy, we shall foster those hostile feelings which it is essential to put down for ever, and leave the seeds of grievance and hatred to spring up in a future harvest of agitation and confusion.

July 25th, 1832

Nothing of moment has occurred lately; the dread of cholera absorbs everybody. Mrs. Smith, young and beautiful, was dressed to go to church on Sunday morning, when she was seized with the disorder, never had a chance of rallying, and died at eleven at night. This event, shocking enough in itself from its suddenness and the youth and beauty of the person, has created a terrible alarm; many people have taken flight, and others are suspended between their hopes of safety in country air and their dread of being removed from metropolitan aid. The disease spreads gradually in all directions in town and country, but without appearing like an epidemic; it is scattered and uncertain; it brings to light horrible distress. We, who live on the smooth and plausible surface, know little of the frightful appearance of the bowels of society.

Don Pedro has never been heard of since he landed, and nobody seems much to care whether he or Miguel succeed. The Tories are for the latter and the Whigs for the former. In a fourth debate on the Russian Dutch Loan Ministers got a good finale, a large division, and a brilliant speech from Stanley, totally unprepared and prodigiously successful. Nothing could be worse in point of tactics than renewing this contest, neither party having, in fact, a good case. Parliament is going to separate soon, and the cholera will accelerate the prorogation; not a step has been made towards an approximation between the rival parties, who appear to be animated against each other with unabated virulence. The moderate Tories talk of their desire to see the Government discard their Radical friends, but the great body give them no encouragement to do so by evincing any diminished hostility to them as a party. Opinions are so different as to the probable composition of the next Parliament, that it is difficult to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion about it. The Tories evidently expect that they shall reappear in very formidable strength, though in particular places the Tory party is entirely crushed; the sooner it is so altogether the better, for no good can be expected from it, and it would be far better to erect a Conservative party upon a new and broader basis than to try and bolster up this worn-out, prejudiced, obstinate faction. But the times are difficult and men are wanting; the middle classes are pressing on, and there are men enough there of fortune, energy, activity, zeal, and ambition—no Cannings perhaps or Broughams, but a host of fellows of the calibre of the actors in the old French Constituent Assembly.

July 29th, 1832

There has been a great breeze between the Chancellor and Sugden, abusing and retorting upon each QUARREL BETWEEN BROUGHAM AND SUGDEN. other from their respective Houses of Parliament. As all personal matters excite greater interest than any others, so has this. Scott, Lord Eldon’s son, died, and his places became vacant. Brougham had recommended their abolition long ago in his evidence before the House of Commons, and both publicly and privately. Some days ago Sugden gave notice to Horne (Solicitor-General) that he meant to put a question to him in the House of Commons as to whether these appointments were to be filled up or not, but before he did so (at four o’clock in the morning) the writ was moved for James Brougham, who had been put by the Chancellor in Scott’s place. Accordingly the next day Sugden attacked the appointment in the House of Commons, and though he was by way of only asking a question, he in fact made a long vituperative speech. Nobody was there to reply. Althorp said he knew nothing of the matter, and various speeches were made, all expressive of a desire that the appointment should only be temporary. Horne (it seems) had never told the Chancellor what Sugden said, and Denman, who had no authority from him, did not dare get up and say that it was not to be permanent. Later in the day, having received instructions from the Chancellor, he did get up and say so. The next day Brougham introduced the subject in the House of Lords, and attacked Sugden with all the sarcasm and contumely which he could heap upon him, comparing him to ‘a crawling reptile,’ &c. Not one of his Tory friends said a word, and, what is curious, the Duke of Wellington praised Brougham for his disinterestedness, and old Eldon defended the place. The following day (Friday) Sugden again brought the matter before the House of Commons, complained bitterly of the Chancellor’s speech, was called to order by Stanley, when the Speaker interfered, and, dexterously turning Sugden’s attack upon the newspaper report, enabled him to go on. A violent discussion followed, rather awkward for the Chancellor, whose friends endeavoured to soften the thing down by denying the accuracy of the report. After much acrimonious debate the matter ended. Yesterday the ‘Times,’ throwing over Brougham and Sugden, asserted the accuracy of its own reporter, and declared that whether the Chancellor was right or wrong to have uttered them, the words were spoken by him exactly as they had been reported. Both parties are furious, but on the whole the Chancellor seems at present to have the worst of it, for it is worse for a man in his station to be in the wrong, and more indecent to be scurrilous, than for an individual who is nothing. Sugden now declares he will bring on a motion he has long meditated on the subject of the Court of Chancery, in which he will exhibit to the world the whole conduct of Brougham since he has held the Great Seal, his early haste and precipitation, his recent carelessness and delay, his ignorance, inattention, and incompetence for the office he holds. In this he expects to be supported by Wetherell, Knight, and Pemberton, three of the most eminent Chancery lawyers, while Brougham has nobody but Horne (of the profession) to defend him. If this should occur he may thank himself, for he would put Horne there.

Sir Charles Bagot called on me yesterday; told me that he thought the Belgian question was at last on the point of being settled, that the King of Holland had made ‘the great concession,’ and that the rest must soon follow, that he had never passed two such years amidst such difficulties, the King so obstinate. His view was that by holding out and maintaining a large army events would produce war, and that he would be able to sell himself to some one of the contending parties, getting back Belgium as the price of his aid, that he now only gave in because not a hope was left, that the difficulties were so great that it was not the fault of this Government that matters were not settled before. I asked him how the Dutch had contrived to make such an exertion. He said it was very creditable to them, but that they were very rich and very frugal, and had lugged out their hoards. They had saddled themselves with a debt the interest of which amounts to about 700,000ℓ. a year—a good deal for two millions of people.

August 1st, 1832

Here is an anecdote exhibiting the character of Brougham, hot, passionate, and precipitate. He is preparing BROUGHAM’S RESENTMENT. his Bill for the amendment of the Court of Chancery, by which the patronage is to be done away with. Compensation was to be given to the present interests, but upon this recent affair between Sugden and him, to revenge himself upon men who are all or mostly of Sugden’s party, he ordered the compensation clauses to be struck out. Sefton (who is a sort of Sancho to him) came up to dinner quite elated at having heard the order given. ‘I wish,’ said he, ‘you had heard a man treated as I did in the Chancellor’s room. He came in to ask him about the Bill he was drawing up. “I suppose the compensation clauses are to be put in?” “Compensation?” said Brougham. “No, by God; no compensation. Leave them out, if you please. They chose to attack me, and they shall have enough of it.”’ And what will be the end of all this—that the Chancellor shows his spite and commits himself, shows that he is influenced in legislation by personal feelings, and incurs the suspicion that because he cannot get a compensation for his brother he is resolved nobody else shall have any? Althorp’s speech about the pensions on Monday set at rest the question of compensation, and if these offices are abolished the Chancellor cannot prevent their getting it. In the House of Lords the eternal Russian Dutch Loan came on again. The Duke made a speech and Wynford made a speech, and they were opposed to each other; the Duke hit the right nail on the head, and took that course which he frequently does, and which is such a redeeming quality in his political character—addressed himself to the question itself, to the real merits of it, without making it a mere vehicle for annoying the Government. Aberdeen sneered, but when the Duke throws over his people they can do nothing.

August 8th, 1832

Pedro’s expedition, which always has hobbled along, and never exhibited any of that dash which is essential to the success of such efforts, may be considered hopeless; Palmella arrived here a day or two ago, very low, and the Regency scrip has fallen four per cent. Nobody joins them, and it seems pretty clear that, one coquin for another, the Portuguese think they may as well have Miguel. The Dutch affair is not yet settled, but on the point of it; for the fiftieth time a ‘little hitch’ has again arisen. Last night, in the House of Lords, the Chancellor, in one of his most bungling ways, made what he meant to be a sort of amende to Sugden, making the matter rather worse than it was before, at least for his own credit, for he said that ‘he had never intended to give pain, which he of all things abhorred,’ and that he had not been at all in a passion—both false, and the latter being in fact his only excuse. I sat next to Melbourne at dinner, who concurred in the judgment of the world on the whole transaction, and said, ‘The real truth is, he was in a great rage, for he had forgotten all his own evidence and his own speeches, and he meant to have kept the place.’ This evidence from his own colleague and friend is conclusive, and will be a nice morsel for the future biographer of Brougham.

I dined at Holland House yesterday; a good many people, and the Chancellor came in after dinner, looking like an old clothes man and dirty as the ground. We had a true Holland House dinner, two more people arriving (Melbourne and Tom Duncombe) than there was room for, so that Lady Holland had the pleasure of a couple of general squeezes, and of seeing our arms prettily pinioned. Lord Holland sits at table, but does not dine. He proposed to retire (not from the room), but was not allowed, for that would have given us all space and ease. Lord Holland told some stories of Johnson and Garrick which he had heard from Kemble. Johnson loved to bully Garrick, from a recollection of Garrick’s former impertinence. When Garrick was in the zenith of his popularity, and grown rich, and lived with the great, and while Johnson was yet obscure, the Doctor used to drink tea with him, and he would say, ‘Davy, I do not envy you your money nor your fine acquaintance, but I envy you your power of drinking such tea as this.’ ‘Yes,’ said Garrick, ‘it is very good tea, but it is not my best, nor that which I give to my Lord this and Sir somebody t’other.’

Johnson liked Fox because he defended his pension, and said it was only to blame in not being large enough. CHARACTER OF MACAULAY. ‘Fox,’ he said, ‘is a liberal man; he would always be “aut Cæsar aut nullus;” whenever I have seen him he has been nullus.’ Lord Holland said Fox made it a rule never to talk in Johnson’s presence, because he knew all his conversations were recorded for publication, and he did not choose to figure in them.

August 12th, 1832

The House of Commons has finished (or nearly) its business. Althorp ended with a blunder. He brought in a Bill to extend the time for payment of rates and for voters under the new Bill, and because it was opposed he abandoned it suddenly; his friends are disgusted. Robarts told me that the Bank Committee had executed their laborious duties in a spirit of great cordiality, and with a general disposition to lay aside all political differences and concur in accomplishing the best results; a good thing, for it is in such transactions as these, which afford an opportunity for laying aside the bitterness of party and the rancorous feelings which animate men against each other, that the only chance can be found of a future amalgamation of public men. He told me that the evidence all went to prove that little improvement could be made in the management of the Bank.

Dined yesterday at Holland House; the Chancellor, Lord Grey, Luttrell, Palmerston, and Macaulay. The Chancellor was sleepy and would not talk; he uttered nothing but yawns and grunts. Macaulay and Allen disputed history, particularly the character of the Emperor Frederick II., and Allen declared himself a Guelph and Macaulay a Ghibelline. Macaulay is a most extraordinary man, and his astonishing knowledge is every moment exhibited, but (as far as I have yet seen of him, which is not sufficient to judge) he is not agreeable. His propositions and his allusions are rather too abrupt; he starts topics not altogether naturally; then he has none of the graces of conversation, none of that exquisite tact and refinement which are the result of a felicitous intuition or a long acquaintance with good society, or more probably a mixture of both. The mighty mass of his knowledge is not animated by that subtle spirit of taste and discretion which alone can give it the qualities of lightness and elasticity, and without which, though he may have the power of instructing and astonishing, he never will attain that of delighting and captivating his hearers. The dinner was agreeable, and enlivened by a squabble between Lady Holland and Allen, at which we were all ready to die of laughing. He jeered at something she said as brutal, and chuckled at his own wit.

Shepperton, August 31st, 1832

I came here last Sunday to see my father, who (my mother wrote me word) had been unwell for a day or two. I got here at four o’clock (having called on Madame de Lieven at Richmond on the way), and when I arrived I found my father at the point of death. He was attacked as he had often been before; medicines afforded him no relief, and nothing would stay on his stomach. On Saturday violent spasms came on, which occasioned him dreadful pain; they continued intermittingly till Sunday afternoon, when as they took him out of bed to put him in a warm bath, he fainted. From this state of insensibility he never recovered, and at half-past twelve o’clock he expired. My brothers were both here. I sent an express for my sister, who was at Malvern, and she arrived on Tuesday morning. Dr. Dowdeswell was in the house, and he stayed on with us and did all that was required. This morning he was buried in the church of this village, close to the house, in the simplest manner, and was followed to the grave by my brothers and brother-in-law, Dowdeswell, Ives, the doctor who attended him, and the servants. He had long been ailing, and at his age (nearly 70 years) this event was not extraordinary, but it was shocking, because so sudden and unexpected, and no idea of danger was entertained by himself or those about him. My father had some faults and many foibles, but he was exposed to great disadvantages in early youth; his education was neglected and his disposition was spoilt. His father was useless, and worse than useless, as a parent, and his mother (a woman of extraordinary capacity and merit) died while he was a young man, having been previously separated from her husband, and having ANECDOTES OF PRINCESS CHARLOTTE. retired from the world.[11] The circumstances of his marriage, and the incidents of his life, would be interesting to none but his own family, and need not be recorded by me. He was a man of a kind, amiable, and liberal disposition, and what is remarkable, as he advanced in years his temper grew less irritable and more indulgent; he was cheerful, hospitable, and unselfish. He had at all times been a lively companion, and without much instruction, extensive information, or a vigorous understanding, his knowledge of the world in the midst of which he had passed his life, his taste and turn for humour, and his good-nature made him a very agreeable man. He had a few intimate friends to whom he was warmly attached, a host of acquaintance, and I do not know that he had a single enemy. He was an affectionate father, and ready to make any sacrifices for the happiness and welfare of his children—in short, he was amiable and blameless in the various relations of life, and he deserved that his memory should be cherished as it is by us with sincere and affectionate regret.

[11] [Mr. Charles Greville, senior, was the fifth son of Fulk Greville of Wilbury, by Frances Macartney, a lady of some literary reputation as the authoress of an ‘Ode to Indifference.’ She was the daughter of General Macartney. Horace Walpole speaks of her as one of the beauties of his time. She died in 1789. Mr. Greville may have inherited from her his strong literary tastes.]

September 18th, 1832

I have been in London, at Shepperton, and twice at Brighton to see Henry de Ros; came back yesterday. The world is half asleep. Lord Howe returns to the Queen as her Chamberlain, and that makes a sensation. I met at Brighton Lady Keith [Madame de Flahaut], who told us a great deal about French politics, which, as she is a partisan, was not worth much, but she also gave us rather an amusing account of the early days of the Princess Charlotte, at the time of her escape from Warwick House in a hackney coach and taking refuge with her mother, and of the earlier affair of Captain Hess. The former escapade arose from her determination to break off her marriage with the Prince of Orange, and that from her falling suddenly in love with Prince Augustus of Prussia, and her resolving to marry him and nobody else, not knowing that he was already married de la main gauche in Prussia. It seems that she speedily made known her sentiments to the Prince, and he (notwithstanding his marriage) followed the thing up, and had two interviews with her at her own house, which were contrived by Miss Knight, her governess. During one of these Miss Mercer arrived, and Miss Knight told her that Prince Augustus was with the Princess in her room, and what a fright she (Miss Knight) was in. Miss Mercer, who evidently had no mind anybody should conduct such an affair for the Princess but herself, pressed Miss Knight to go and interrupt them, which on her declining she did herself. The King (Regent as he was then) somehow heard of these meetings, and measures of coercion were threatened, and it was just when an approaching visit from him had been announced to the Princess that she went off. Miss Mercer was in the house at the time, and the Regent, when he came, found her there. He accused her of being a party to the Princess’s flight, but afterwards either did or pretended to believe her denial, and sent her to fetch the Princess back, which after many pourparlers and the intervention of the Dukes of York and Sussex, Brougham, and the Bishop of Salisbury, her preceptor, was accomplished at two in the morning.

Hess’s affair was an atrocity of the Princess of Wales. She employed him to convey letters to her daughter while she used to ride in Windsor Park, which he contrived to deliver, and occasionally to converse with her; and on one occasion, at Kensington, the Princess of Wales brought them together in her own room. The Princess afterwards wrote him some letters, not containing much harm, but idle and improper. When the Duke of York’s affair with Mrs. Clark came out, and all the correspondence, she became very much alarmed, told Miss Mercer the whole story, and employed her to get back her letters to Hess. She accordingly wrote to Hess (who was then in Spain), but he evinced a disinclination to give them up. On his return to England she saw him, and on his still demurring she threatened to put the affair into the Duke of York’s hands, which frightened him, and then he surrendered them, and signed a paper declaring BELGIUM, SPAIN, FRANCE. he had given up everything. The King afterwards heard of this affair, and questioning the Princess, she told him everything. He sent for Miss Mercer, and desired to see the letters, and then to keep them. This she refused. This Captain Hess was a short, plump, vulgar-looking man, afterwards lover to the Queen of Naples, mother of the present King, an amour that was carried on under the auspices of the Margravine at her villa in the Strada Nova at Naples. It was, however, detected, and Hess was sent away from Naples, and never allowed to return. I remember finding him at Turin (married), when he was lamenting his hard fate in being excluded from that Paradiso Naples.

September 28th, 1832

At Stoke from the 22nd to the 26th, then to the Grove, and returned yesterday; at the former place Madame de Lieven, Alvanley, Melbourne; tolerably pleasant; question of war again. The Dutch King makes a stir, and threatens to bombard the town of Antwerp; the French offered to march, and put their troops in motion, but Leopold begged they would not, and chose rather to await the effect of more conferences, which began with great vigour a few days ago. What they find to say to each other for eight or ten hours a day for several consecutive days it is hard to guess, as the question is of the simplest kind. The King of Holland will not give up the citadel of Antwerp, nor consent to the free navigation of the Scheldt; the Belgians insist on these concessions; the Conference says they shall be granted, but Russia, Prussia, and Austria will not coerce the Dutchman; England and France will, if the others don’t object. A French army is in motion, and a French fleet is off Spithead; so probably something will come of it. Nothing has damaged this Government more than these protracted and abortive conferences.

Four days ago there was a report that the King of Spain was dead, accompanied with a good many particulars, and all the world began speculating as to the succession, but yesterday came news that he was not dead, but better. Pedro and Miguel are fighting at Oporto with some appearance of spirit; Miguel is the favourite. The French Government is represented to be in a wretched state, squabbling and feeble, and nobody is inclined to be Minister. Dupin was very near it, but refused because Louis Philippe would not make him President of the Council. The King is determined to be his own Minister, and can get nobody to take office on these terms. They think it will end in Dupin. The present Government declares it cannot meet the Chambers until Antwerp is evacuated by the Dutch and the Duchesse de Berri departed out of France or taken. This heroine, much to the annoyance of her family, is dodging about in La Vendée and doing rather harm than good to her cause. The Dauphiness passed through London, when our Queen very politely went to visit her. She has not a shadow of doubt of the restoration of her nephew, and thinks nothing questionable but the time. She told Madame de Lieven this. I talked to Madame de Lieven about war, and added that if any did break out it would be the war of opinion which Canning had predicted. She said yes, and that the monarchical principle (as she calls the absolute principle) would then crush the other.

I came up with Melbourne to London. He is uneasy about the state of the country—about the desire for change and the general restlessness that prevails. We discussed the different members of the Government, and he agreed that John Russell had acted unwarrantably in making the speech he did the other day at Torquay about the Ballot, which, though hypothetical, was nothing but an invitation to the advocates of Ballot to agitate for it; this, too, from a Cabinet Minister! Then comes an awkward sort of explanation, that what he said was in his individual capacity, as if he had any right so to speak. Melbourne spoke of Brougham, who he said was tossed about in perpetual caprices, that he was fanciful and sensitive, and actuated by all sorts of littlenesses, even with regard to people so insignificant that it is difficult to conceive how he can ever think about them; that he is conservative, but under the influence of his old connexions, particularly of the Saints. His friends are so often changed that it is not easy to follow him in this respect. CONVERSATION WITH LORD MELBOURNE. Durham used to be one; now he hates him; he has a high opinion of Sefton! of his judgment!! What is talent, what are great abilities, when one sees the gigantic intellect of Brougham so at fault? Not only does the world manage to go on when little wisdom guides it, but how ill it may go on with a great deal of talent, which, however, is different from wisdom. He asked me what I thought of Richmond, and I told him that he was ignorant and narrow-minded, but a good sort of fellow, only appearing to me, who had known him all my life, in an odd place as a Cabinet Minister. He said he was sharp, quick, the King liked him, and he stood up to Durham more than any other man in the Cabinet, and that altogether he was not unimportant; so that the ingredients of this Cabinet seem to be put there to neutralise one another, and to be good for nothing else; because Durham has an overbearing temper, and his father-in-law is weak, there must be a man without any other merit than spirit to curb that temper. He talked of Ireland, and the difficulty of settling the question there, that the Archbishop of Canterbury was willing to reform the Church, but not to alienate any of its revenues. ‘Not,’ I asked, ‘for the payment of a Catholic clergy?’ ‘No, not from Protestant uses.’ I told him there was nothing to be done but to pull down the edifice and rebuild it. He said you would have all the Protestants against you, but he did not appear to differ. To this things must come at last. Melbourne is exceedingly anxious to keep Lord Hill and Fitzroy Somerset at the head of the army, from which the violent of his party would gladly oust them, but he evidently contemplates the possibility of having occasion for the army, and does not wish to tamper with the service or play any tricks with it. It is curious to see the working and counterworking of his real opinions and principles with his false position, and the mixture of bluntness, facility and shrewdness, discretion, levity and seriousness, which, colouring his mind and character by turns, make up the strange compound of his thoughts and his actions.

---

CHAPTER XIX.

Foreign Difficulties — Conduct of Peel on the Resignation of Lord Grey — Manners Sutton proposed as Tory Premier — Coolness between Peel and the Duke — Embargo on Dutch Ships — Death of Lord Tenterden — Denman made Lord Chief Justice — Tableau of Holland House — The Speakership — Horne and Campbell Attorney- and Solicitor-General — The Court at Brighton — Lord Howe and the Queen — Elections under the Reform Act — Mr. Gully — Petworth — Lord Egremont — Attempt to reinstate Lord Howe — Namik Pacha — Lord Lyndhurst’s Version of what occurred on the Resignation of Lord Grey — Lord Denbigh appointed Chamberlain to the Queen — Brougham’s Privy Council Bill — Talleyrand’s Relations with Fox and Pitt — Negro Emancipation Bill — State of the West Indies — The Reformed Parliament meets — Russian Intrigues — Four Days’ Debate on the Address — Peel’s Political Career.

---

London, October 7th, 1832

I went to Newmarket on the 30th of September, to Panshanger on the 5th, and came to town on the 6th. Great fears entertained of war; the obstinacy of the Dutch King, the appointment of Soult to be Prime Minister of France, and the ambiguous conduct of the Allied Courts look like war. Miguel has attacked Oporto without success; but, as he nearly destroyed the English and French battalions, he will probably soon get possession of the city. It is clear that all Portugal is for him, which we may be sorry for, but so it is. The iniquity of his cause does not appear to affect it.

October 12th, 1832

Lady Cowper told me at Panshanger that Palmerston said all the difficulties of the Belgian question came from Matuscewitz, who was insolent and obstinate, and astute in making objections; that it was the more provoking as he had been recalled some time ago (the Greek business being settled, for which he came), and Palmerston and some of the others had asked the Emperor to allow him to stay here, TORY ATTEMPTS TO FORM A MINISTRY. on account of his usefulness in drawing up the minutes of the proceedings of the Conference; that Lieven had by no means wished him to stay, but could not object when the others desired it. Accordingly he remained, and now he annoys Palmerston to death. All this she wrote to Madame de Lieven, who replied that it was not the fault of Matuscewitz, and that he and Lieven agreed perfectly. She talked, however, rather more pacific language. This clever, intriguing, agreeable diplomatess has renewed her friendship with the Duke of Wellington, to which he does not object, though she will hardly ever efface the impression her former conduct made upon him. My journal is getting intolerably stupid, and entirely barren of events. I would take to miscellaneous and private matters if any fell in my way, but what can I make out of such animals as I herd with and such occupations as I am engaged in?

Euston, October 26th, 1832

Went to Downham on Sunday last; the Duke of Rutland, the Walewskis, Lord Burghersh, and Hope. Came here on Wednesday morning; the usual party. At Downham I picked up a good deal from Arbuthnot (who was very garrulous) of a miscellaneous description, of which the most curious and important was the entire confirmation of (what I before suspected) the ill blood that exists between the Duke of Wellington and Peel; though the interests of party keep them on decent terms, they dislike one another, and the Duke’s friends detest Peel still more than the Duke does himself. He told me all that had passed at the time of the blow-up of the present Government, which I have partly recorded from a former conversation with him, and his story certainly proves that the Duke (though I think he committed an enormous error in judgment) was not influenced by any motives of personal ambition.

As soon as the King sent for Lyndhurst the latter went to the Duke, who (as is known) agreed to form a Government, never doubting that he was to be himself Prime Minister. Lyndhurst went to Peel, who declined to take office, and he then went to Baring. Lyndhurst and Arbuthnot sent for Baring out of the House of Commons, and took him to old Bankes’ house in Palace Yard, where they had their conversation with him. He begged for time to consider of it, and to be allowed to consult Peel, to which they assented. He afterwards agreed, but on condition that Manners Sutton should also be in the Cabinet. Lyndhurst had about the same time made overtures to Manners Sutton, and though nothing was finally settled it was understood he would accept them. So matters stood, when one day (it must have been the Wednesday or Thursday) Vesey Fitzgerald called on the Arbuthnots, and in a conversation about the different arrangements he intimated that Manners Sutton expected to be Prime Minister, and on asking him more particularly they found that this was also his own impression. The next morning Arbuthnot went off to Lyndhurst’s house, where he arrived before Lyndhurst was dressed, and told him what had fallen from Fitzgerald, and asked what it could mean. Lyndhurst answered very evasively, but promised to have the matter cleared up. Arbuthnot, not satisfied, went to the Duke and told him what had passed, and added his conviction that there was some such project on foot (to make Sutton Premier) of which he was not aware. The Duke said he did not care a farthing who was Premier, and that if it was thought desirable that Sutton should be he had not the smallest objection, and was by no means anxious to fill the post himself. I asked whether the Duke would have taken office if Sutton had been Minister, and was told that nothing was settled, but probably not.

The same day there was a meeting at Apsley House, at which the Duke, Lyndhurst, Baring, Ellenborough, and (I think) Rosslyn or Aberdeen, or both, were present, and to which Sutton came, and held forth for nearly four hours upon the position of their affairs and his coming into office. He talked such incredible nonsense (as I have before related) that when he was gone they all lifted up their hands and with one voice pronounced the impossibility of forming any Government under such a head. Baring was then asked why he had made Sutton’s coming into office MANNERS SUTTON PROPOSED AS PREMIER. the condition of his own acceptance, and why he had wished him to be Prime Minister. He said that he had never desired any such thing himself, and had hardly any acquaintance with Sutton, except that as speaker he was civil to him, and he dined with him once a year, but that when he had gone to consult Peel, Peel had advised him to insist upon having Sutton, and to put him at the head of the Government. This avowal led to further examination into what had passed, and it came out that when Lyndhurst went to Peel, Peel pressed Manners Sutton upon him, refusing to take office himself, but promising to support the new Government, and urging Lyndhurst to offer the Premiership to Sutton. At the same time he put Sutton up to this, and desired him to refuse every office except that of Premier. Accordingly, when Lyndhurst went to Sutton, the latter said he would be Prime Minister or nothing, and Lyndhurst had the folly to promise it to him. Thus matters stood when Lady Cowley, who was living at Apsley House, and got hold of what was passing, went and told it to her brother, Lord Salisbury, who lost no time in imparting it to some of the other High Tory Lords, who all agreed that it would not do to have Sutton at the head of the Government, and that the Duke was the only man for them. On Saturday the great dinner at the Conservative Club took place, at which a number of Tories, principally Peers, with the Duke and Peel, were present. A great many speeches were made, all full of enthusiasm for the Duke, and expressing a determination to support his Government. Peel was in very ill humour and said little; the Duke spoke much in honour of Peel, applauding his conduct and saying that the difference of their positions justified each in his different line. The next day some of the Duke’s friends met, and agreed that the unanimous desire for the Duke’s being at the head of the Government which had been expressed at that dinner, together with the unfitness of Sutton, proved the absolute necessity of the Duke’s being Premier, and it was resolved that a communication to this effect should be made to Peel. Aberdeen charged himself with it and went to Peel’s house, where Sutton was at the time. Peel came to Aberdeen in a very bad humour, said he saw from what had passed at the dinner that nobody was thought of but the Duke, and he should wash his hands of the whole business; that he had already declined having anything to do with the Government, and to that determination he should adhere. The following Monday the whole thing was at an end.

I am not sure that I have stated these occurrences exactly as they were told me. There may be errors in the order of the interviews and pourparlers, and in the verbal details, but the substance is correct, and may be summed up to this effect: that Peel, full of ambition, but of caution, animated by deep dislike and jealousy of the Duke (which policy induced him to conceal, but which temper betrayed), thought to make Manners Sutton play the part of Addington, while he was to be another Pitt; he fancied that he could gain in political character, by an opposite line of conduct, all that the Duke would lose; and he resolved that a Government should be formed the existence of which should depend upon himself. Manners Sutton was to be his creature; he would have dictated every measure of Government; he would have been their protector in the House of Commons; and, as soon as the fitting moment arrived, he would have dissolved this miserable Ministry and placed himself at the head of affairs. All these deep-laid schemes, and constant regard of self, form a strong contrast to the simplicity and heartiness of the Duke’s conduct, and make the two men appear in a very different light from that in which they did at first. Peel acted right from bad motives, the Duke wrong from good ones. The Duke put himself forward, and encountered all the obloquy and reproach to which he knew he exposed himself, and having done so, cheerfully offered to resign the power to another. Peel endeavoured to seize the power, but to shield himself from responsibility and danger. It is a melancholy proof of the dearth of talent and the great capacity of the man that, notwithstanding the detection of his practices and his motives, the Tories are compelled still to keep well with EMBARGO ON DUTCH SHIPS. him and to accept him for their leader. No cordiality, however, can exist again between him and the Duke and his friends, and, should the Whig Government be expelled, the animosity and disunion engendered by these circumstances will make it extremely difficult to form a Tory Administration. [In a short time it was all made up—forgiven, if not forgotten.]

November 7th, 1832

Came to town on Sunday. The answer of the Dutch King to the demand of England and France that he should give up Antwerp was anxiously expected. It arrived on Monday afternoon, and was a refusal. Accordingly a Council met yesterday, at which an order was made for laying an embargo on Dutch merchant ships, which are to be sequestrated, but not confiscated. The French army marches forthwith, and Palmerston told me they expected two or three days of bombardment would suffice for the capture of the citadel, after which the French would retire within their own frontier. The combined fleets will remain at the Downs, for they can do nothing on the coast of Holland at this season of the year. There is a good deal of jealousy and no friendly spirit between the English and French sailors; and the Duke of Richmond told me yesterday that the Deal pilots desired nothing so much as to get the French ships into a scrape. Great excitement prevails about this Dutch question, which is so complicated that at this moment I do not understand its merits. Matuscewitz, however, who is opposed totis viribus to the policy of England and France, told me that nobody could have behaved worse than the King of Holland has done, shuffling and tricking throughout; but they say he is so situated at home that he could not give way if he would. A few days must now decide the question of war or peace. All the Ministers, except Brougham, Lord Holland, Grant, and Carlisle, were at the Council yesterday—the Archbishop of Canterbury for a prayer (for we omit no opportunity of offering supplications or returning thanks to Heaven), and the new Lord Chief Justice to be sworn a Privy Councillor.

Lord Tenterden died on Sunday night, and no time was lost in appointing Denman as his successor. Coming as he does after four of the greatest lawyers who ever sat upon the Bench, this choice will not escape severe censure; for the reputation of Denman as a lawyer is not high, and he has been one of the most inefficient Attorneys-General who ever filled the office. It has been a constant matter of complaint on the part of the Government and their friends that the law officers of the Crown gave them no assistance, but, on the contrary, got them into scrapes. Denman is an honourable man, and has been a consistent politician; latterly, of course, a Radical of considerable vehemence, if not of violence. The other men who were mentioned as successors to Tenterden were Lyndhurst, Scarlett, and James Parke. The latter is the best of the puisne judges, and might have been selected if all political considerations and political connexions had been disregarded. Lyndhurst will be overwhelmed with anguish and disappointment at finding himself for ever excluded from the great object of his ambition, and in which his professional claims are so immeasurably superior to those of his successful competitor; nor has he lost it by any sacrifice of interest to honour, but merely from the unfortunate issue of his political speculations. When he was made Chief Baron a regular compact was made, a secret article, that he should succeed on Tenterden’s death to the Chief Justiceship; which bargain was of course cancelled by his declaration of war on the Reform question and his consequent breach with Lord Grey; though by far the fittest man, he was now out of the question. It will be the more grating as he has just evinced his high capabilities by pronouncing in the Court of Exchequer one of the ablest judgments (in Small v. Attwood) that were ever delivered. [It was afterwards reversed by the House of Lords.] Scarlett, who had been a Whig for forty years, and who has long occupied the first place in the Court of King’s Bench, would have been the man if his political dissociation from his old connexions, and his recent hostility to them, had not also cancelled his claims; so that every rival being set aside from one cause or another, Denman, by one of the most extraordinary pieces DENMAN LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. of good fortune that ever happened to man, finds himself elevated to this great office, the highest object of a lawyer’s ambition, and, in my opinion, one of the most enviable stations an Englishman can attain. It is said that as a Common Serjeant he displayed the qualities of a good judge, and his friends confidently assert that he will make a very good Chief Justice; but his legal qualifications are admitted to be very inferior to those of his predecessors. [He made a very bad one, but was personally popular and generally respected for his high, and honourable moral character.]

Tenterden was a remarkable man, and his elevation did great credit to the judgment which selected him, and which probably was Eldon’s. He had never led a cause, but he was a profound lawyer, and appears to have had a mind fraught with the spirit and genius of the law, and not narrowed and trammelled by its subtleties and technicalities. In spite of his low birth, want of oratorical power, and of personal dignity, he was greatly revered and dreaded on the Bench. He was an austere, but not an ill-humoured judge; his manners were remarkably plain and unpolished, though not vulgar. He was an elegant scholar, and cultivated classical literature to the last. Brougham, whose congenial tastes delighted in his classical attainments, used to bandy Latin and Greek with him from the Bar to the Bench; and he has more than once told me of his sending Tenterden Greek verses of John Williams’, of which the next day Tenterden gave him a translation in Latin verse. He is supposed to have died very rich. Denman was taken into the King’s closet before the Council, when he was sworn in; the King took no particular notice of him, and the appointment is not, probably, very palatable to his Majesty.

November 15th, 1832

Sheriff business at the Exchequer Court on Monday; saw Lyndhurst and Denman meet and shake hands with much politeness and grimace.

November 20th, 1832

Dined at Holland House the day before yesterday; Lady Holland is unwell, fancies she must dine at five o’clock, and exerts her power over society by making everybody go out there at that hour, though nothing can be more inconvenient than thus shortening the day, and nothing more tiresome than such lengthening of the evening. Rogers and Luttrell were staying there. The tableau of the house is this:—Before dinner, Lady Holland affecting illness and almost dissolution, but with a very respectable appetite, and after dinner in high force and vigour; Lord Holland, with his chalkstones and unable to walk, lying on his couch in very good spirits and talking away; Luttrell and Rogers walking about, ever and anon looking despairingly at the clock and making short excursions from the drawing-room; Allen surly and disputatious, poring over the newspapers, and replying in monosyllables (generally negative) to whatever is said to him. The grand topic of interest, far exceeding the Belgian or Portuguese questions, was the illness of Lady Holland’s page, who has got a tumour in his thigh. This ‘little creature,’ as Lady Holland calls a great hulking fellow of about twenty, is called ‘Edgar,’ his real name being Tom or Jack, which he changed on being elevated to his present dignity, as the Popes do when they are elected to the tiara. More rout is made about him than other people are permitted to make about their children, and the inmates of Holland House are invited and compelled to go and sit with and amuse him. Such is the social despotism of this strange house, which presents an odd mixture of luxury and constraint, of enjoyment physical and intellectual, with an alloy of small désagréments. Talleyrand generally comes at ten or eleven o’clock, and stays as long as they will let him. Though everybody who goes there finds something to abuse or to ridicule in the mistress of the house, or its ways, all continue to go; all like it more or less; and whenever, by the death of either, it shall come to an end, a vacuum will be made in society which nothing will supply. It is the house of all Europe; the world will suffer by the loss; and it may with truth be said that it will ‘eclipse the gaiety of nations.’

November 27th, 1832

At Roehampton from Saturday till Monday. The Chancellor had been there a few days before, from whom Lord Dover had picked up the gossip of the Government. THE SPEAKERSHIP. There had been a fresh breeze with Durham, who it seems has returned from Russia more odious than ever. His violence and insolence, as usual, were vented on Lord Grey, and the rest of the Cabinet, as heretofore, are obliged to submit. I have since heard from the Duke of Richmond that the cause of this last storm was something relating to Church Reform, and that he had been forced to knock under. I fancy he wanted to go much further than the others, probably to unfrock the Bishop of Durham and Bishop Phillpotts, the former because he is a greater man in the county than himself, and the latter from old and inextinguishable hatred and animosity.

There has been another dispute about the Speakership. All the Cabinet except Althorp want to put Abercromby in the chair, and Althorp insists on having Littleton. The former is in all respects the best choice, and the man whom they ought, from his long connexion with the Whigs and his consistency and respectability, to propose, but Althorp thought fit to commit himself in some way to Littleton, who has no claims to be compared with those of Abercromby (having been half his life in opposition to the present Government), and he obstinately insists upon the expectations held out to him being realised. Lord Grey, though very anxious for Abercromby, thinks it necessary to defer to the leader of the House of Commons, and the consequence is a very disagreeable dispute on the subject. Abercromby is greatly mortified at being postponed to Littleton, and not the less as Althorp has always been his friend. The language of Dover, who is a sort of jackal to Brougham, clearly indicates the desire of that worthy to get rid of Lord Grey and put himself in his place. All these little squabbles elicit some disparaging remarks on Lord Grey’s weakness, folly, or cupidity. Hæret lateri—the offer of the Attorney-Generalship, and the day of vengeance is intended to come.[1]

[1] [This refers to Lord Grey’s having offered the Attorney-Generalship to Brougham when Government was formed.]

After considerable delay Horne and Campbell were appointed Attorney- and Solicitor-General; the delay was occasioned by ineffectual attempts to dispose of Horne elsewhere. They wanted to get some puisne judge to resign, and to put Horne on the Bench, but they could not make any such arrangement, so Horne is Attorney. Pepys was to have been Solicitor if the thing could have been managed. I don’t think I picked up anything else, except that the King was very averse to the French attack upon Antwerp, and consented to the hand-in-hand arrangement between France and England with considerable reluctance. The fact is he hates this Government so much that he dislikes all they do.

Lord Lansdowne is just come from Paris, and gives a flourishing account of the prospects of King Louis Philippe and his Government, but as he is the Duc de Broglie’s intimate friend his opinion may be prejudiced. The King appears certainly to have rather gained than not by the attack which was made on him, from the coolness and courage he evinced, and it is a great point to have proved that he is not a coward.

Brighton, December 14th, 1832

Came here last Wednesday week; Council on the Monday for the dissolution; place very full, bustling, gay, and amusing. I am staying in De Ros’s house with Alvanley; Chesterfields, Howes, Lievens, Cowpers, all at Brighton, and plenty of occupation in visiting, gossiping, dawdling, riding, and driving; a very idle life, and impossible to do anything. The Court very active, vulgar, and hospitable; King, Queen, Princes, Princesses, bastards, and attendants constantly trotting about in every direction: the election noisy and dull—the Court candidate beaten and two Radicals elected. Everybody talking of the siege of Antwerp and the elections. So, with plenty of animation, and discussion, and curiosity, I like it very well. Lord Howe is devoted to the Queen, and never away from her. She receives his attentions, but demonstrates nothing in return; he is like a boy in love with this frightful spotted Majesty, while his delightful wife is laid up (with a sprained ancle and dislocated joint) on her couch.

Brighton, December 17th, 1832

On Sunday I heard Anderson preach. He does not write his sermons, but preaches from MR. GULLY. notes; very eloquent, voice and manner perfect, one of the best I ever heard, both preacher and reader.

The borough elections are nearly over, and have satisfied the Government. They do not seem to be bad on the whole; the metropolitans have sent good men enough, and there was no tumult in the town. At Hertford Duncombe was routed by Salisbury’s long purse. He hired such a numerous mob besides that he carried all before him. Some very bad characters have been returned; among the worst, Faithful here; Gronow at Stafford; Gully, Pontefract; Cobbett, Oldham; though I am glad that Cobbett is in Parliament. Gully’s history is extraordinary. He was taken out of prison twenty-five or thirty years ago by Mellish to fight Pierce, surnamed the ‘Game Chicken,’ being then a butcher’s apprentice; he fought him and was beaten. He afterwards fought Belcher (I believe), and Gresson twice, and left the prize-ring with the reputation of being the best man in it. He then took to the turf, was successful, established himself at Newmarket, where he kept a hell, and began a system of corruption of trainers, jockeys, and boys, which put the secrets of all Newmarket at his disposal, and in a few years made him rich. At the same time he connected himself with Mr. Watt in the north, by betting for him, and this being at the time when Watt’s stable was very successful, he won large sums of money by his horses. Having become rich he embarked in a great coal speculation, which answered beyond his hopes, and his shares soon yielded immense profits. His wife, who was a coarse, vulgar woman, in the meantime died, and he afterwards married the daughter of an innkeeper, who proved as gentlewomanlike as the other had been the reverse, and who is very pretty besides. He now gradually withdrew from the betting ring as a regular blackleg, still keeping horses, and betting occasionally in large sums, and about a year or two ago, having previously sold the Hare Park to Sir Mark Wood, where he lived for two or three years, he bought a property near Pontefract, and settled down (at Ackworth Park) as John Gully, Esq., a gentleman of fortune. At the Reform dissolution he was pressed to come forward as candidate for Pontefract, but after some hesitation he declined. Latterly he has taken great interest in politics, and has been an ardent Reformer and a liberal subscriber for the advancement of the cause. When Parliament was about to be dissolved, he was again invited to stand for Pontefract by a numerous deputation; he again hesitated, but finally accepted; Lord Mexborough withdrew, and he was elected without opposition. In person he is tall and finely formed, full of strength and grace, with delicate hands and feet, his face coarse and with a bad expression, his head set well on his shoulders, and remarkably graceful and even dignified in his actions and manners; totally without education, he has strong sense, discretion, reserve, and a species of good taste which has prevented, in the height of his fortunes, his behaviour from ever transgressing the bounds of modesty and respect, and he has gradually separated himself from the rabble of bettors and blackguards of whom he was once the most conspicuous, and tacitly asserted his own independence and acquired gentility without ever presuming towards those whom he has been accustomed to regard with deference. His position is now more anomalous than ever, for a member of Parliament is a great man, though there appear no reasons why the suffrages of the blackguards of Pontefract should place him in different social relations towards us than those in which we mutually stood before.

Petworth, December 20th, 1832

Came here yesterday. It is a very grand place; house magnificent and full of fine objects, both ancient and modern; the Sir Joshuas and Vandykes particularly interesting, and a great deal of all sorts that is worth seeing. Lord Egremont was eighty-one the day before yesterday, and is still healthy, with faculties and memory apparently unimpaired. He has reigned here for sixty years with great authority and influence. He is shrewd, eccentric, and benevolent, and has always been munificent and charitable in his own way; he patronises the arts and fosters rising genius. Painters and sculptors find employment and welcome in his house; he has built a gallery which is full of EARL OF EGREMONT. pictures and statues, some of which are very fine, and the pictures scattered through the house are interesting and curious. Lord Egremont hates ceremony, and can’t bear to be personally meddled with; he likes people to come and go as it suits them, and say nothing about it, never to take leave of him. The party here consists of the Cowpers, his own family, a Lady E. Romney, two nieces, Mrs. Tredcroft a neighbour, Ridsdale a parson, Wynne, Turner, the great landscape painter, and a young artist of the name of Lucas, whom Lord Egremont is bringing into notice, and who will owe his fortune (if he makes it) to him. Lord Egremont is enormously rich, and lives with an abundant though not very refined hospitality. The house wants modern comforts, and the servants are rustic and uncouth; but everything is good, and it all bears an air of solid and aristocratic grandeur. The stud groom told me there are 300 horses of different sorts here. His course, however, is nearly run, and he has the mortification of feeling that, though surrounded with children and grandchildren, he is almost the last of his race, and that his family is about to be extinct. Two old brothers and one childless nephew are all that are left of the Wyndhams, and the latter has been many years married. All his own children are illegitimate, but he has everything in his power, though nobody has any notion of the manner in which he will dispose of his property. It is impossible not to reflect upon the prodigious wealth of the Earls of Northumberland, and of the proud Duke of Somerset who married the last heiress of that house, the betrothed of three husbands. All that Lord Egremont has, all the Duke of Northumberland’s property, and the Duke of Rutland’s Cambridgeshire estate belonged to them, which together is probably equivalent to between 200,000ℓ. and 300,000ℓ. a year. Banks told me that the Northumberland property, when settled on Sir H. Smithson, was not above 12,000ℓ. a year.[2]

[2] [The eleventh Earl of Northumberland, Joscelyn Percy, died in 1670, leaving an only daughter, who married Charles Seymour, ninth Duke of Somerset. This lady is described as ‘the betrothed of three husbands,’ because she was married at fourteen to Henry Cavendish, son of the Duke of Newcastle, who died in the following year. She was then affianced to Thomas Thynne of Longleat, who was assassinated in 1682; and at last married to the Duke of Somerset. The eldest son of this marriage, Algernon Seymour, who succeeded to the Dukedom of Somerset in 1748, was created Earl of Northumberland on the 2nd of October, 1749, and Earl of Egremont on the following day, with remainder (as regards the latter title) to his nephew Sir Charles Wyndham, who succeeded him in February 1750. The Earldom of Northumberland passed at the same time to Sir Hugh Smithson, son-in-law of Duke Algernon, who was created Duke of Northumberland in 1766. The titles and the vast property of the Duke of Somerset, Earl of Northumberland, thus came to be divided.

George O’Brien Wyndham, third Earl of Egremont, to whom Mr. Greville paid this visit, was born on the 18th of December, 1751. He was therefore eighty-two years old at this time; but he lived five years longer, and died in 1837, famous and beloved for his splendid hospitality and for his liberal and judicious patronage of the arts, and likewise of the turf.]

Brighton, December 31st, 1832

Lady Howe gave me an account of the offer of the Chamberlainship to her husband again. They added the condition that he should not oppose Government, but was not to be obliged to support them. This he refused, and he regarded the proposal as an insult; so the Queen was not conciliated the more. She likewise told me that the cause of her former wrath when he was dismissed was that neither the King nor Lord Grey told her of it, and that if they had she would have consented to the sacrifice at once with a good grace; but in the way it was done she thought herself grossly ill-used. It is impossible to ascertain the exact nature of this connexion. Howe conducts himself towards her like a young ardent lover; he never is out of the Pavilion, dines there almost every day, or goes every evening, rides with her, never quitting her side, and never takes his eyes off her. She does nothing, but she admits his attentions and acquiesces in his devotion; at the same time there is not the smallest evidence that she treats him as a lover. If she did it would be soon known, for she is surrounded by enemies. All the Fitzclarences dislike her, and treat her more or less disrespectfully. She is aware of it, but takes no notice. She is very civil and good-humoured to them all; and as long as they keep within the bounds of decency, and do not break out into actual impertinence, she probably will continue so.

NAMIK PACHA. Two nights ago there was a great assembly after a dinner for the reception of the Turkish Ambassador, Namik Pacha. He was brought down by Palmerston and introduced before dinner to the King and Queen. He is twenty-eight years old, speaks French well, and has good manners; his dress very simple—a red cap, black vest, trousers and boots, a gold chain and medal round his neck. He did not take out any lady to dinner, but was placed next the Queen. After dinner the King made him a ridiculous speech, with abundant flourishes about the Sultan and his friendship for him, which is the more droll from his having been High Admiral at the time of the battle of Navarino, to which the Pacha replied in a sonorous voice. He admired everything, and conversed with great ease. All the stupid, vulgar Englishwomen followed him about as a lion with offensive curiosity.

---