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