CHAPTER XXX.
The Case of Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter—Death of Lord Alvanley—The Session opened—State of Parties—Clouds arise—The Greek Affair—The Ceylon Committee—The Removal of Lord Roden—The Pacifico Affair—Lord Clarendon arrives—The Dolly's Brae Debate—The Irish Encumbered Estates Act—The Greek Affair—Conversation with Sir Robert Peel—The Roden Affair—The Queen's View of Lord Palmerston's Foreign Policy—Debate on Mr. Disraeli's Motion—Mr. Gladstone's Equivocal Position—Grillon's Club—Precarious Position of the Government—The Gorham Judgement—The African Squadron—Ministerial Troubles—The Greek Dispute—Lord Campbell Lord Chief Justice—Negotiation between the Branches of the House of Bourbon—The French Ambassador recalled from London—Lord Palmerston's Prevarications—The Case of the French Government—Intention to remove Lord Palmerston from the Foreign Office—First Speech of Mr. Stanley—Sir James Graham's Schemes of Reform—Debate in the Lords on the Greek Dispute—Effects of the Division—Lord Palmerston's great Speech.
THE GORHAM CASE.
London, January 16th, 1850.—Since I first began to keep a journal I do not believe so long an interval has ever elapsed as between the last time I wrote anything and now. Without there having been any matter of great importance, there have been fifty small things I might have recorded at least as interesting as one half that these books contain; but I know not why, I have never felt the least inclination, but, on the contrary, a considerable aversion, to the occupation. I have over and over again resolved to recommence writing, and as often have failed from an inexplicable repugnance to execute my purpose. I am at last induced to take up my pen to put down what has taken place in the case of Gorham and the Bishop of Exeter, because this is a matter which excites great interest, which will not speedily be forgotten, and on which it is desirable there should be some authentic account, especially in respect to those parts of the proceedings which are not publicly known. The details of the case itself are to be found in a hundred publications, and I shall therefore confine myself to what passed behind the curtain. Jenner[104] having given judgement in the Court of Arches in favour of the Bishop, Gorham appealed to the Privy Council. We first had to consider what steps we should take to form a competent Court. It was immediately settled that the two Archbishops and the Bishop of London[105] should be invited to attend, and I wrote them letters, setting forth the clause in the Privy Council Act by which the Queen was authorised to summon them, telling them they could not vote, but signifying the desire of the Lord President they would attend to give their opinions to the Judicial Committee. The two Archbishops wrote answers that they would come; the Bishop of London sent no answer, and I found out afterwards that he would have preferred the attendance of the prelates being dispensed with. We then considered whom we should get to form the Court, and after a consultation with Lord Lansdowne, it was settled that the whole of the Judicial Committee should be summoned, but with an intimation that while it had been considered advisable to send a summons to every member of the Court on account of the importance of the question, their attendance was not imperative. It was also deemed very desirable to have at least one Common Law Judge there. In the Court of Delegates a Common Law Judge was always indispensable, and Baron Parke had often pronounced a strong opinion that one ought always to be present in those Appeals to the Judicial Committee which formerly went to the Delegates. We had, however, great difficulty in getting one; neither Wilde nor Pollock would consent to attend, and Parke had made an engagement to go into the country. At length, finding that unless Parke agreed to come we should have no Common Law Judge, I wrote him a strong and pressing letter, urging him to attend; and having got the Lord President to back me up, he agreed to give up his engagement and assist at the hearing of the case. The Court was finally composed of Lords Langdale and Campbell, Baron Parke, Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, Dr. Lushington, and Mr. Pemberton Leigh. Lord Lansdowne came the first day and opened the proceedings; made a short speech, stating that Her Majesty had been advised to summon the prelates in so important a case, and that he himself did not contemplate attending throughout the hearing, as he did not consider himself competent to act as a Judge in that Court, though always ready to render his assistance in arranging their proceedings, and then having fairly launched them he went away. The cause was very elaborately and very ably argued by Turner for Gorham, and Baddeley for the Bishop. The Court was crammed full almost every day, and the interest very great. It was conducted with great moderation and decorum on all sides, with one exception. At the end of his speech Baddeley very injudiciously and very indecently made a personal attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury. He charged him with having given a living to a man holding Gorham's opinions, and therefore being prejudiced in this case. The Prelate, with some emotion, but very mildly, explained that he had given the living to the clergyman in question before he had published the book in which these opinions were said to be enunciated, and that he knew nothing about them. Baddeley made a sort of apology, and Campbell rebuked him with some severity, but at the same time acknowledged the ability of his speech, and, with this exception, its moderation and becoming tone. When the arguments were over, the Lords remained in discussion for some time. The Prelates all said they should like to take time to consider their opinions, and then to give them in writing. It was therefore agreed that they should meet again on the 15th, when they would read their written opinions to the Judicial Committee; and it was also settled that Lord Langdale should draw up the Report. There was not much discussion, but it was evident from what passed that the judgement would be reversed. Yesterday afternoon they assembled again. The Archbishop of Canterbury began. His paper was excellent. He showed that opinions, if not identical with, yet very like, those of Gorham had been held by a host of great and good Churchmen, and he was strongly of opinion that the Bishop was not justified in refusing to induct him. The Archbishop of York followed. He gave the same opinion, but in a much less able paper. Then came the Bishop of London. He said he entirely agreed with the two Archbishops, so far as they had gone; intimated that his first impression had been the same as theirs, but in looking more closely into Gorham's doctrine he had arrived at the conclusion that he had gone considerably beyond what had ever been held by any of the eminent persons whom the Archbishop had quoted, and that he had distinctly laid down positions wholly inconsistent with the efficacy of the Baptismal Sacrament, and that this he could not get over. He therefore gave an opinion, though it did not seem to be a very decided one, against Gorham. The Lords thanked the Prelates, and begged for copies of their several papers, and then they proceeded very briefly to state their own views. Lord Langdale said a very few words against the judgement of the Court below. Baron Parke said he had written his opinion, and they begged him to read it. It was a very good argument, of which, however, he did not read the whole, and he agreed with Lord Langdale. Campbell neither made a speech nor read a paper, but took a similar view. Lushington said he had written out his opinion, but had not brought his paper with him. He made, however, a short speech, very good indeed, in which he pronounced a strong opinion against the Bishop, commenting in severe terms upon the nature of the examination, and setting forth the great danger to the peace of the Church which would result from a judicial declaration on their part that Gorham's opinions were clearly proved to be heretical. After him came Knight Bruce, who read a paper of moderate length, but strongly condemnatory of Gorham, and for affirming the judgement of the Court below. Pemberton Leigh was the last. He said he had not been prepared to express any opinion, having conceived that they were only to meet to hear those of the Prelates; but he made a very short speech, in which he gave a very decided opinion for reversing the judgement; and he showed very clearly that if there were some answers of Gorham's which appeared to bear out the Bishop of London's view of the matter, there were others by which they were neutralised, and in which he gave his unqualified assent and consent to those doctrines of the Church which the Bishops alleged that he rejected. Some conversation, all very amicable, then ensued, and the question was settled. Lord Langdale undertook to prepare the judgement. The Bishop of London said he hoped nothing would be said in it condemnatory of the Bishop of Exeter's doctrine, at which they all exclaimed that they would take care nothing of the kind was done; they would steer as clear as possible of any declaration of opinion as to doctrine, and found their judgement on this, that it had not been proved to them that Gorham had put forth any doctrine so clearly and undoubtedly at variance with the Articles and formularies as to warrant the Bishop's refusal to induct him. Lushington said he had the greatest difficulty in making out what Gorham's doctrine really was, and he was much struck with the fact that in no part of the Bishop's pleadings did he say explicitly with what he charged him. They then separated, no time having been fixed for giving judgement. But for Knight Bruce it would be unanimous; but he will never give way, and this will prevent their declaring that they are unanimous.
OPINIONS ON THE GORHAM CASE.
DEATH OF LORD ALVANLEY.
January 23rd.—If I had not been too lazy to write about anybody or anything, I should not have suffered the death of Lord Alvanley to pass without some notice. The world, however, has no time to think of people who are out of its sight, and a long illness which had confined him entirely, and limited his society to a few old friends, caused him to be forgotten, and his departure out of life to be almost unobserved. There was a time when it would have been very different, during those many years when his constant spirits and good humour, together with his marvellous wit and drollery, made him the delight and ornament of society. I know no description of him so appropriate as the character of Biron in 'Love's Labour's Lost':—
...A merrier man, Within the limit of becoming mirth, I never spent an hour's talk withal: His eye begets occasion for his wit, For every object that the one doth catch The other turns to a mirth-moving jest, Which his fair tongue (conceit's expositor) Delivers in such apt and gracious words, That aged ears play truant at his tales, And younger hearings are quite ravished; So sweet and voluble is his discourse.
He was originally in the army, came early into the world, and at once plunged into every sort of dissipation and extravagance. He was the most distinguished of that set of roués and spendthrifts who were at the height of the fashion for some years—consisting of Brummel, Sir H. Mildmay, Lord Sidney Osborne, Foley, John Payne, Scrope Davies, and several others, and when all of them were ruined and dispersed (most of them never to recover), Alvanley still survived, invulnerable in his person, from being a Peer, and with the means of existence in consequence of the provident arrangement of his uncle, who left him a considerable property in the hand of trustees, and thus preserved from the grasp of his creditors. He was naturally of a kind and affectionate disposition, good-natured, obliging, and inclined to be generous; but he was to the last degree reckless and profligate about money; he cared not what debts he incurred, and he made nothing of violating every sort of pecuniary engagement or obligation. He left the friends who assisted him in the lurch without remorse, and such was the bonhomie of his character, and the irresistible attraction of his society, that they invariably forgave him, and after exhausting their indignation in complaints and reproaches, they became more intimate with him than before. Many a person has been astonished, after hearing the tale of Alvanley's abominable dishonesty and deceit, to see the plaintiff and the culprit the dearest of friends in the world. He was a great example how true it is that—
L'agrément couvre tout, il rend tout légitime; Aujourd'hui dans le monde il n'y a qu'un seul crime, C'est l'ennui: pour le fuir tous les moyens sont bons.
When I recollect his constant treacheries, and the never-failing placability of his dupes, I always think of the story of Manon L'Escaut, of whom he appears to me to have been a male prototype. It would be very difficult to convey any idea of the sort of agreeableness which was so captivating in him. He did not often say very witty things; it was not uproarious mirth, and jokes exciting fits of laughter like Sydney Smith; he was unlike any of the great luminaries of his own or of bygone times; but he was delightful. He was so gay, so natural, so irresistibly comical, he diffused such cheerfulness around him, he was never ill-natured; if he quizzed anybody and bantered them, he made them neither angry nor unhappy; he had an even and constant flow of spirits, and till his health became impaired you were sure of him in society. He was vain, but it was a harmless and amusing vanity, which those who knew him well understood and laughed at. He had rioted in all the dissipations of play and wine and women, and for many years (a liaison which began when neither were very young, and was the réchauffé of an earlier affair, before she was married) he was the notorious and avowed lover of Lady ——. What Burke says with a sort of mock modesty of himself, was true of Alvanley—he had 'read the book of life for a long time, and other books a little!' For the first years of his life he was too entirely plunged in dissipation and debauchery to repair in any way the deficiencies of a neglected education; later, he read a good deal in a desultory way, and acquired a good store of miscellaneous information. At one period he addicted himself to politics, but he never made any figure in the House of Lords, having no parliamentary experience, no oratorical genius, and no foundation of knowledge. But it was during this period that he signalised his courage in his duel with young O'Connell. Before that event, for no particular reason but that he was only known as a voluptuary, no very high idea was entertained of his personal bravery; but on this occasion it shone forth with great lustre, for no man ever exhibited more resolution or indifference to danger. For the last four years of his life he was afflicted with painful diseases, and his sufferings were incessant and intense. He bore them all with a fortitude and a cheerfulness which never failed him, and which excited universal sympathy and admiration.
OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.
February 2nd.—The Session opened on Thursday,[106] and Ministers got a great victory in the House of Lords the same night, and yesterday another in the House of Commons so signal and decisive as to leave no uncertainty in respect to the agricultural questions, or the stability of the Government. After all the sound and fury which have pervaded the country, and the formidable attitude they assumed, they entered on the parliamentary contest in a very feeble and apparently undecided, if not disunited manner. And nothing could be more shocking than the contrast between the rage and fury, the denunciations and determinations of the Protectionists all over the country for months past, and the moderate language and abstinences from all specific demands on the part of the leaders in both Houses. Stanley, who has never said or written a syllable during the recess, and kept aloof from all agitation, made a very reasonable speech, disclaiming any wish to interrupt the experiment, which he was sure would fail, and only requiring that if it did fail, we should retrace our steps. This was very different from Richmond, who was coarse and violent, and declared he wanted to turn out the Government, and restore Protection at once. In the other House, Disraeli was very bad, and there was no possibility of making out what he meant or was driving at. Cobden was very good, and had much the best of him. All this disunion and weakness ended in good divisions, an exposure of the weakness and inefficiency of the Tory party, and apparently putting the Government at their ease and into smooth water.
But in the midst of all this apparent prosperity many people (of whom I am one) are far from easy at the state of affairs. The Opposition are rabid, and bent on annoying and damaging the Government in every way they can. The Radicals are lying in wait to take advantage of their resentment and turn it to their own purposes. It is impossible not to feel that the Free Trade 'experiment,' as it is called, is a fearful and a doubtful one; and even supposing it to succeed (as I think it will in the long run), there are so many weak and vulnerable landlords and tenants, that there will be a great deal of intermediate havoc and distress; and the farmers have been so terrified and excited by their leaders and orators, that there is good reason to fear, when they find Protection cannot be had, that they will become financial reformers, break through all the old patriarchal ties, and go to any lengths which they may fancy they can make instrumental to their relief. The Protectionists have had the folly to poison and pervert their minds, and to raise a spirit they will find it difficult either to manage or subdue. In short, the country is in a greater state of fermentation and uncertainty than I have ever known it, and its conservative qualities, and faculty of righting itself, and resisting extreme dangers, will be put to a severe test.
LORD PALMERSTON AND LORD GREY.
February 10th.—The brightness of the Ministerial prospect was very soon clouded over, and last week their disasters began. There was first of all the Greek affair, and then the case of the Ceylon witnesses—matters affecting Lord Palmerston and Lord Grey. The Greek case will probably be settled, thanks to French mediation, but it was a bad and discreditable affair, and has done more harm to Palmerston than any of his greater enormities.[107] The other Ministers are extremely annoyed at it, and at the sensation it has produced. The disgust felt at these bullying and paltry operations is great and universal, and it will of course tend to make us still more odious abroad. As far as Palmerston himself is concerned, he will as usual escape unscathed, quite ready to plunge into any fresh scrape to-morrow, uncorrected and unchecked; he bears a charmed life in politics, he is so popular and so dexterous that he is never at a loss, nor afraid, nor discomposed. He is supported by his own party; the Peelites will not attack him for fear of hurting the Government; and he is the pet of the Radicals, to whom he pays continual court, giving them sops in the shape of Liberal speeches, Hungarian sympathies, and claptrap—unmeaning verbiage of different sorts.
Very different is the case of Grey. He is as unpopular as the other is popular. The House of Commons swarms with his bitter enemies, and he commands very few friends. Notwithstanding his great and undeniable abilities, he committed blunders, which proceed from his contempt for the opinion of others, and the tenacity with which he clings to his own; and while those who know him are aware that a man more high-minded, more honourable and conscientious does not exist, he has contrived to make himself pass for a Minister whose word cannot be relied on. This last affair of the Ceylon witnesses is indeed well calculated to confirm such an impression, and to heap additional odium on his head. It is wholly without excuse, damaging to him, damaging to the Government, and will animate and embitter the personal hostility with which he is pursued to a degree that will probably bring him to grief in the course of this Session, and perhaps the whole Cabinet with him.[108] The Government was only saved from a defeat on Wednesday morning by the bad tactics of Disraeli, who moved so strong a resolution that few would support it. Bright then moved one more moderate, and was only beaten by nine; had the more moderate one been moved at first, it would have been carried. These two incidents have been vexatious and injurious, and were not improved by an angry personal squabble between Horsman on one side and John Russell and Sir George Grey on the other, in which, however, the former is undoubtedly in the wrong.
Lord Stanley has taken up Lord Roden's cause,[109] and is going to attack the Irish Government, much to my surprise, for he told me himself at Newmarket that he thought Roden quite wrong, and that Clarendon could not help dismissing him. But what he may have said or thought all goes for nothing when he can find an opportunity of making an assault on the Government, or 'giving them a gallop,' as he told Clanricarde he was going to do, when he gave notice of his motion.
THE PACIFICO CASE.
February 14th.—There has been a grand discussion whether Clarendon should come over to meet Stanley and Roden on Monday next. He was greatly against coming, and so were several of his friends; but John Russell, George Grey, and Lord Lansdowne all thought he had better come, and he acquiesced, though reluctantly, and retaining his opinion that it was not expedient. Stanley told Granville yesterday that he was not going to defend Orange processions, and had only taken up the matter for the purpose of preventing personal matters between Clarendon and Roden being mixed up with the discussion on the Processions Act, and to have those personal matters settled beforehand; au reste, that he had at first thought Clarendon had been quite in the right, but since he had seen all the evidence and read the papers he had changed his opinion, and thought Roden and the other Peers had been hardly treated. Clarendon himself wrote me word he was convinced Stanley only brought forward this matter to satisfy his Irish adherents, who had been urging him to do it. It is most probable that he finds himself in a scrape with his party, who must be excessively disappointed and disgusted at his very lukewarm advocacy of Protection in his speech on the first night of the Session, and indeed at the way he has kept aloof from all their agitation; and he finds it necessary to do something to satisfy them in other ways. So he will take every opportunity he can find of attacking the Government, and try to excite and assure his party by such field-days as Dolly's Brae, and by working the Greek question and anything else he can lay his hands on.
This Greek question is the worst scrape into which Palmerston has ever got himself and his colleagues. The disgust at it here is universal with those who think at all about foreign matters; it is past all doubt that it has produced the strongest feelings of indignation against this country all over Europe, and the Ministers themselves are conscious what a disgraceful figure they cut, and are ashamed of it. Labouchere came into my room yesterday and let loose about it without reserve. He said it admitted of no excuse, and that John Russell, who alone could have prevented it, was inexcusable for not having done so; that it ought to have been brought regularly and formally before the Cabinet, who ought all to have known precisely what it was Palmerston proposed to do. Papers indeed were sent round in boxes, and Palmerston defended himself on this ground, and asked why they did not read them; but (said Labouchere) how was it possible for men who had large departments with a vast deal of business of their own, to read all the papers which were brought round in circulation? They neither did nor could. It was quite clear from all this that the Greek affair was not a measure well considered, discussed, and agreed on by the Cabinet, but done in the true Palmerstonian style, offhand, partly and casually communicated to his colleagues, but so managed as to be his own act, to which they indeed became parties, completely implicated, but in which they were not really consulted, and which passed under their eyes without entering into their serious thoughts. Now that the whole magnitude of the scrape is revealed to them they are full of resentment and mortification. Graham told Arbuthnot the other day that he thought the breaking down of the Government would be the greatest of evils, and he would do anything to support them, but that it was impossible for them to go on with two such men as Grey and Palmerston.
February 17th.—I breakfasted with Senior yesterday, to meet Macaulay, Hallam, and Van de Weyer, and I had some talk with the latter about Greece. Of course, he expressed himself with reserve, but he owned it was a very bad affair, and could not end either creditably or well. He said he thought there was a good chance of patching up the quarrel with Spain, which was in the hands of his King. After the breakfast I went to Kent House, where I found Clarendon arrived the night before in very good spirits. He gave me an outline of his case, and told me several facts, very important and available, and I am sanguine as to his coming well out of it, if he can manage his materials adroitly. On the other hand, the Stanleians and Rodentes give out that they have a great case, the first on constitutional, and the last on personal, grounds; but both profess an intention to be moderate in their mode of pressing it. Lord Grey has had a success in the Ceylon Committee in the evidence of Captain Watson, who proved the proclamation attributed to him to be a forgery; and he threw so much discredit on Baillie's evidence that Graham told me he thought it would be fatal to his case.
THE DOLLY'S BRAE AFFAIR.
February 19th.—Stanley brought on the Dolly's Brae affair last night in a long, clever, and artful speech, delivered in his best style. But it was the speech of a clever nisi prius advocate, and consisted principally of an ingenious dissection of Berwick's report and the evidence, and a bitter attack upon him. The useless and unmeaning character of this display was very apparent when he announced his intention of doing nothing, and asking no opinion of the House. Clarendon rose after him. He made a very good case, his points told remarkably well, and, on the whole, he acquitted himself successfully, and to the satisfaction of his friends; but, coming after Stanley's practised and brilliant declamation, his style appeared tame and feeble. It was easy to see that he was no debater, and that his parliamentary inexperience diminished his force and efficacy. For a little while I was in great alarm for him, and thought he was going to break down; but he recovered, and got through his speech very well. If he had had more artistic power, he would have made his excellent materials much more effective than they were. In such hands as Stanley's they would have been crushing; they would have been very powerful if Lord Lansdowne had had them; but as it was, it was well enough. There was no personality introduced into the debate; the rival speeches were very civil and complimentary to each other; and Roden, throughout his dull and inaudible harangue, called Clarendon his noble friend, to which Clarendon of course responded in his short second speech. Before it began Stanley and Clarendon rushed to each other across the House, and shook hands very cordially, like a couple of boxers before setting to.
February 20th.—Clarendon called on me yesterday, very happy at his success the night before. There is a pretty general opinion that he made out a very good case, and that Stanley's was a failure. The latter made one or two great mistakes, and was detected in one very discreditable attempt. He quoted from an Act of Parliament, reading an extract from it, but stopping short at that part of the clause which would have upset his own argument. By a great piece of good luck, the Chancellor Brady had anticipated the possibility of this Act being alluded to, and had sent it over to Clarendon, pointing out this clause, and Clarendon only received it two hours before the debate came on.
Clarendon told me he expected the Encumbered Estates Act would prove the regeneration of Ireland, and that this measure was entirely done by himself. When he was here last year he saw Peel, who said he would give up his own scheme if Clarendon could accomplish something of this kind. Clarendon spoke to John Russell about it, who said legal reforms were impossible; the lawyers never would carry them out. Clarendon replied, 'Only lend me your Solicitor-General, and I will do it all.' Romilly went over to Dublin, the Chancellor was cajoled, the Irish Attorney-and Solicitor-General were frightened into acquiescence, and Romilly drew the Bill with their concurrence, which was passed last Session, and is now working with extraordinary effect. The Lord-Lieutenancy is to be abolished on January 1, 1851, and the Bill to be brought in this Session. Clarendon will then be Secretary of State for Ireland.
We had some talk about our foreign affairs, especially Greece, of which he had himself only heard a little. I had heard that Palmerston had been making some fresh proposal to the Cabinet, at which they had kicked, and I now learned what it was. So little disposed is he, notwithstanding all the feelings and opinions that have been manifested, to recede, that he proposed that instructions should be sent to Wyse to insist that the French Minister at Athens (or agent of the bons offices, whoever he may be) should be obliged to require of the Greek Government an immediate compliance with the whole of our demands. This the Cabinet refused to do, but Lord Lansdowne owned to Clarendon that he was by no means sure that they were apprised of all the instructions that had been sent, or that this requisition might not have gone out, though the Cabinet had refused its consent to it. Clarendon told Lord Lansdowne that he hoped he was not insensible to the state of public opinion on this matter, and he said he was fully aware of it.
SIR ROBERT PEEL ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
February 22nd.—On Wednesday, as I was crossing the Park, I fell in with Sir Robert Peel, and turned back with him to Charles Wood's, where he was going, after which we went towards his home, and walked up and down behind Whitehall for half an hour or more, talking of all sorts of things. He began about the Roden affair, on which he thought there was no case against Clarendon, but that he might have made more clearly known to Lord Roden his dislike to the procession, and considering the friendly terms they had been on, that there was some want of courtesy in making no communication to him before the notice of dismissal, particularly after Roden had offered to resign if it would be of any use to him that he should do so. I explained all these matters to him, and showed him that Clarendon had said and done all he could, and that no blame attached to him. He said he had known nothing of the matter but what Jocelyn had told him.
He then spoke of foreign affairs, and did not spare Palmerston. He reviewed the general course of our proceedings, and especially the Greek affair, which he thought very bad; but what was still worse, was our having sent our fleet into the Dardanelles, having no right to do so, and then asserting we were driven there by stress of weather, which was a pretence and a falsehood. This was very disgraceful, and the use to which our fleet had been put very shameful. That Palmerston had met with nothing but failures from Lisbon, where he first sent the fleet, and where his enemy Cabral had been ever since in power down to the present occasion. Brunnow had spoken to him the other day, and talked very good sense. He said the Emperor of Russia would not quarrel on this matter, not having done so on our fleet going to the Dardanelles; he would not on account of two uninhabited islets, but he would feel it. He alluded to the Emperor's sarcastic remark on the story of our fleet being compelled to take shelter in the Dardanelles; that 'he had always understood our fleets were most ably and powerfully manned, their tactics very superior, and that Sir William Parker was a very skilful officer; but that his fleet, though lying in that sea for many months, had never found itself under any such necessity.' Brunnow said it was a great pity that somebody could not represent to Palmerston the impolicy of the course he had been pursuing all over Europe; that it was evident his real motive and intention in the Greek affair had been to bring about a revolution there, and that he had expected, when his fleet appeared, there would be a rising against Otho, who would be expelled; that when Europe was only just emerging from a state of general revolution, and order was only lately restored, what folly it was to provoke a fresh revolution, and to reopen an important question, the settlement of which might lead to the greatest difficulties! Brunnow always defends Palmerston, and affects to make light of all the accidents that arise, but he speaks his real sentiments to Peel and Aberdeen. Peel said he had seen a letter from an officer in Parker's fleet, representing that the Admiral was exceedingly disgusted at the business put into his hands. We occupied so much time in discussing Ireland and Greece, that there was none to go into other matters, though I should have liked to hear his opinion of the state and prospects of the country.
Last night I met Clarendon at dinner at Bath House, when I told him what had passed between Peel and me. He told me also that Roden had behaved shabbily to him, when he quoted in the House of Lords the letter he had written, offering to resign the magistracy, but concealing the latter part of the same letter in which he said that he hoped he would not accept it if he thought it would be any triumph to the Catholics, for they had now got them down, and they should be able to keep them down. This, Clarendon said, he felt tempted to read himself, as Roden chose to read the first part, but he abstained.
PRINCE ALBERT ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
He then gave me an account of what had passed between the Queen and Prince and himself. He dined at the Palace on Tuesday. I told him they were sure to talk to him on foreign affairs, but he said he should avoid it. However, he could not avoid it. The moment he came into the drawing-room after dinner the Queen exploded, and went with the utmost vehemence and bitterness into the whole of Palmerston's conduct, all the effects produced all over the world, and all her own feelings and sentiments about it. He could only listen and profess his own almost entire ignorance of the details. After she had done Prince Albert began, but not finding time and opportunity to say all he wished, he asked him to call on him the next day. He went and had a conversation of two hours and a half, in the course of which he went into every detail, and poured forth without stint or reserve all the pent-up indignation, resentment, and bitterness with which the Queen and himself have been boiling for a long time past. He commented on Palmerston's policy and conduct much in the same terms in which the 'Times' does, and as I and others do. But what he enlarged upon with the strongest feeling was the humiliating position in which the Queen was placed in the eyes of the whole world. The remonstrances and complaints, the sentiments and resentments of other Sovereigns—of the King of Naples, and of the Emperor of Russia, for instance—directly affected her dignity as the Sovereign and Representative of this Nation; and the consciousness that these Sovereigns and all the world knew that she utterly disapproved of all that was done in her name, but that she was powerless to prevent it, was inconceivably mortifying and degrading. Prince Albert said he knew well enough the Constitutional position of the Sovereign of this country, and that it was the policy and measures which the nation desired and approved which the Government must carry out; but that the nation disapproved of Palmerston's proceedings, and so did his own colleagues, Lord Lansdowne particularly; yet by their weak connivance he was allowed to set at defiance the Sovereign, the Government, and public opinion, while the Queen could get neither redress nor support from John Russell, and was forced to submit to such degradation. He then mentioned various instances in which the Queen's remonstrances and suggestions had been disregarded. Minutes submitted to her in one form and changed by Palmerston into other forms; the refusal of Austria to send any Ambassador here, because he could not transact business with her Secretary of State. Clarendon asked him if he had ever endeavoured to influence Palmerston himself, and remonstrated with him on those matters which had justly excited the strong feelings of the Queen and himself. He said that he had done so repeatedly, and for a long time; that he always found him easy, good-humoured, very pleasant to talk to, but that it was utterly impossible to turn him from his purposes, or to place the least reliance on anything he said or engaged to do, and that at length the conviction which had been forced upon him of the uselessness of speaking to him had caused him entirely to leave it off, and for above a year past neither the Queen nor he had ever said one word to him; that it was in vain they had appealed to John Russell. He supposed it was the etiquette for Cabinet Ministers never to admit there was anything censurable in the conduct of each other, for though he was certain many things were done of which John Russell could not approve, and for which he was unable to make any defence, he never would admit that what had been done had been wrong; that the consequence of this had been to impair considerably the relations of confidence and openness which ought to exist between the Queen and her Prime Minister, and to place her in an unsatisfactory position vis-à-vis of him. After dilating at great length on this topic, he said something from which Clarendon inferred that his object was to make him a channel of communication with John Russell, and thus to make their sentiments known to him more clearly and unreservedly than they could do themselves, and he means to tell Lord John all that passed. He said the Prince talked very sensibly and very calmly, very strong, but without excitement of manner. I shall be curious to hear what Lord John says to it all; but though it can hardly fail somewhat to disturb his mind, I don't believe it will make the least alteration in his conduct, or change an iota of the 'unconquerable will and study of revenge' of Palmerston, or prevent his doing just what he pleases in spite of all the world. Peel told me he understood we were sending to Leghorn to make demands of some sort there, which he concluded was done to annoy Austria.
DEBATE ON THE POOR LAWS.
February 23rd.—The division in the House of Commons on Thursday night was hailed with vociferous cheers by the Protectionists, who considered it a great victory and the harbinger of future success.[110] Everybody was taken by surprise, for though it was known that the Opposition would muster strong, nobody imagined there would be so small a majority as twenty, the Government expected about forty. Graham spoke very well, and so did Gladstone in reply to him, the part the latter took exciting a considerable sensation. Disraeli was good, both in his opening speech and reply. Graham told me he was much improved, and his taste and tone far better than formerly. Peel was long and heavy, talked of himself too much, and made one of those defences of his former conduct which he might as well let alone, for they are superfluous with one half of the House and country, and useless with the other. He had much better, as Disraeli told him, do like Cosmo de Medici, and leave his character to posterity; he unwisely enough noticed a very warm and unjust attack which Henry Bentinck had made upon him at some public meeting. Henry Bentinck, like a true member of his family and own brother to George, instead of recanting or apologising, insinuated his disbelief in what Peel said, and was as offensive as the clamour and displeasure of the House and his own inarticulateness allowed him to be. In the afternoon yesterday Graham called on me to speak about the Australian Bill which was to have come on next Monday, and on which he said Government would infallibly be beaten, which following up the quasi defeat of Thursday would be very awkward. I suggested, after talking the matter over, that he and Peel might give them some help, which he said they would do, but must know what Government thereupon meant to do. I undertook to find out, but in the meantime John Russell put off the Bill.
February 28th.—Before Clarendon left town he saw John Russell, and told him all that had passed between him and the Prince, and that he was quite certain it had been said to him for the express purpose of its being repeated to Lord John. He also told him that it was fit he should understand the strong and unusual feeling that existed on this subject, assuring him that he had not met with one single individual of any party or condition who did not regard it with disgust and displeasure. He then adjured him, whatever else he might do, to cultivate better personal feelings, and more confidential relations with the Queen and Prince, to be more open with them, and to enter into their feelings, and this Lord John, who seems to have taken what he said in very good part, promised he would not fail to do.
GRILLON'S CLUB.
Clarendon had also long conversations with Peel and Graham, who were both very complimentary and satisfactory about his case in the House of Lords, and Peel talked to him a great deal about affairs, both English and Irish. He was as confident as ever in the impossibility of the restoration of Protection, and the disastrous, and in the end abortive, effects of any attempt to do so by a Stanley and Disraeli Government, if by any possibility they could force themselves into office. He is evidently much disgusted with Gladstone and Goulburn, who have given indubitable signs of forsaking him, and advancing towards the Protectionists, and Graham said Stanley would now be able to offer the Queen a list, which would not be an insult. But Gladstone, though he has twice voted with the Opposition, loudly declares that he has not changed an iota of his Free Trade opinions, and has no thoughts of joining the other party, though they think they can have him whenever they may vouchsafe to take him. There is a considerably prevailing opinion of the diminished vigour as well as of the diminished influence of Peel. His speech the other night was laboured and heavy, and not judicious. Then the House was much struck by the unusual spectacle of Peel and Graham both rising to speak together, and both persisting to await the Speaker's call instead of Graham's giving way to Peel, as he would have done formerly. It was probably the first time Peel ever rose in the House of Commons to speak, and had to give way to another speaker. The House called for the one as much as for the other, and Graham made incomparably the best speech of the two. Ever since their large minority, the Protectionists have been in a very rampant and excited state, overflowing with pugnacity and confidence; but they made a great mistake in opposing very furiously and factiously the Irish Voters Bill, and the Government think that night was exceedingly serviceable to them, by rallying back a great many of the Irish Members, who were out of humour, and disposed to go against them in the matter of protection and relief.
I was last night elected at Grillon's Club, much to my surprise, for I did not know I was a candidate.
March 8th.—I dined on Wednesday at Grillon's, and was received with vast civility and cordiality. A large party, much larger than usual—amongst them Harrowby, Granville, Graham, Sir Thomas Fremantle, Rutherford, Pusey, Sir Thomas Acland, &c. Sat next to Graham, and had much talk on affairs. I told him that Labouchere had said to me a day or two before that John Russell was uneasy about the House of Commons, and expected that he should be beaten on more than one item in the financial accounts; that people told him he must expect to be beaten; but he replied that repeated defeats on such details materially impaired his influence and authority in the House, and made it difficult to carry on the business. Graham said this was very true, and that he probably would be beaten. He thought the position of the Government unsatisfactory and precarious; they had got into some scrapes about both Army and Naval estimates, unnecessarily and injudiciously. Then there were the questions of the African squadron and the Greek business behind. Stanley is very bitter and active, and eager to fight. He thinks Gladstone, Goulburn, and Aberdeen would all join Stanley in taking office. I asked him how it was possible. He said the Protectionists would make some concessions, and for various reasons and on different pretexts they would be easily satisfied. He congratulated himself on his foresight in refusing to take office. This Greek question was just one of those cases in which he must have refused to obey the orders of the Foreign Office, very different now from Lord Grey's time. Then when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, he used to be every day at the Foreign Office, and Lord Grey was paramount, allowing nothing to be done without his full knowledge and assent, and constantly altering Palmerston's despatches as a tutor might a boy's exercise. He talked a good deal about the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, of which he approves, but said the arrangement of the details, especially about the Chancellor, would be very difficult. Arbuthnot told me the other day that the Protectionists are doing all they can to disgust the Yeomanry with the service, and to induce them to resign, not without success. This is their patriotism.
I met Brunnow a few days ago coming from Palmerston, where he had been (though he did not say so) to present the Emperor's indignant note. He was laughing as he always does when he speaks of Palmerston; said of this affair, 'que c'était une bêtise; qu'il ne pouvait pas faire comprendre à Palmerston l'humiliation de l'affaire.' So far from acknowledging this, or evincing the least sign of regret or shame, when Hume asked him a question in the House the other night, he replied with the utmost effrontery, and with rather more than his usual insolence and audacity. As on every occasion, the House laughed and nobody said a word. All that relates to him, his character, conduct, and career, will hereafter form one of the most curious passages in history and the most astounding and unaccountable.
THE GORHAM JUDGEMENT.
March 9th.—Yesterday judgement was given in Gorham's case at the Council Office. The crowd was enormous, the crush and squeeze awful. I accommodated my friends with seats in court, and there were Wiseman and Bunsen sitting cheek by jowl, probably the antipodes of theological opinions. The Lords met an hour before. They made some alterations in the judgement, and some judicious omissions. The Bishop of London, after much vacillation, half assenting and half dissenting, being on and off, by turns against Gorham and against the Bishop, disagreeing with everybody and everything, finally sent his determination through Lushington, and announcing (as was said in the judgement) that he could not concur. He did not, however, concur in the statement of Gorham's doctrine as gathered by the Lords, a difference of construction which shows how impossible it would have been to condemn Gorham on the score of heterodox, if not heretical, opinions, when a number of very able men, laymen and clergymen, after careful examination, could not agree what his opinions really were. Knight Bruce dissented altogether, wrote to Lord Langdale to that effect, and declined coming. The Archbishop agreed in both judgement and reasons. There was a preliminary discussion about costs. Langdale, Campbell, and Lushington were for giving Gorham costs in the Court below; Pemberton Leigh was against it; and the three eventually yielded to the one, and it was agreed to say nothing about costs. Langdale read the judgement well, and the people who heard it (at least those I talked to) thought it able and judicious; but of course all the highflyers and Puseyites will be angry and provoked, and talk of schisms and secessions, which will be, I am firmly convinced, bruta fulmina.
Reeve received yesterday afternoon from Paris the Russian Note—not the Note itself, but the whole substance of it, textual evidently, and copied from the note.[111]
March 19th.—Last Friday Aberdeen and Stanley had determined to bring on the Greek affair in the House of Lords, and Stanley gave notice to Lord Lansdowne he would ask for information. Lord Lansdowne, however, before Stanley rose, got up and begged he would not discuss a question which was in course of negotiation, and Stanley was obliged to acquiesce. They were both of them provoked and disappointed, but there was no help for it. Stanley then contented himself with asking for the date of the orders to Parker to stop coercive measures, and it turned out that Palmerston had delayed sending them for a week upon miserable pretexts. Lord Lansdowne, as usual, attempted some lame excuses, and there the matter ended.
To-night comes on the question of the African squadron, on which the Government have acted a very unwise part.[112] They have determined (of course in obedience to Palmerston's will and pleasure) not only to make it a Government question, but to stake their existence on it; and they have been moving heaven and earth to obtain support and avert the defeat with which they were threatened. Their representations and appeals will probably succeed, but I have already seen several people who are excessively disgusted at being compelled to vote against their clear and strong convictions, and support what they think wrong and foolish in order to bolster up the Government and carry them through the difficulty in which they have been involved by their own perverseness and obstinacy.
LORD JOHN THREATENS TO RESIGN.
March 20th.—John Russell convoked a meeting in Downing Street yesterday, and made them a speech which gave equal offence in manner and in matter. He told them if he was beaten on Hutt's motion he should resign. Palmerston made another speech, and announced the same intention. The people came away furious and indignant, and several came into my room complaining of the hardship of being compelled to vote against their conscientious opinions on such a question, and on the unjustifiable conduct of the Government in threatening to resign at it. It seems to me that John Russell is demented at taking this violent course in reference to so unpopular a question, and one so entirely fallen into disrepute. He has given deep offence and prepared great difficulties for himself hereafter. Baring Wall told me he sent Labouchere to him the night before to remonstrate, but he made no impression, and his reply was too ridiculous; that he could not abandon the course pursued by Mr. Fox and all the great men of the time, who had striven to put down slavery. He succeeded in cajoling or frightening people into submission, and after a debate in which few people spoke, and Palmerston not at all, leaving it all to Lord John, Hutt's motion was rejected by a majority of seventy. A great many were absent, not expecting a division, most of whom would have voted with Hutt. I never saw anything like the surprise of some people and the indignation of others at the course which John Russell took.
April 23rd.—More than a month without a single line. The Government are supposed to have been going on badly, having been left in minorities on several occasions, but it is of no real consequence. The most serious affair was the Stamp Bill, but it has been partly compromised and partly patched up, and Charles Wood does not seem to care.[113] I saw him the other day, when he said that he thought they should not be placed in any more difficulties, for some were ashamed and some were sorry for having deserted the Government already. They have made up their minds not to stand repetitions of this fast and loose treatment on the part of their friends and soi-disant supporters. Wood is uneasy about the continued low price of corn, and owned to me that it has continued much longer and had fallen lower than he had ever contemplated or at all liked. All the accounts represent that the farmers are behaving well, paying their rents, and employing the people; but there is a strong feeling of dissatisfaction and disaffection amongst them.
The Greek affair has dragged on, and wears rather a sinister appearance. Drouyn de Lhuys[114] fell in with Reeve on Sunday, took him into his house, and opened to him largely and bitterly on the subject. Yesterday Reeve dined with him, when he again renewed the discussion—two remarkable conversations. He complained in strong terms of Palmerston's conduct, said that France had exerted herself with great sincerity to arrange the affair, but had been met in no corresponding spirit here. He intimated that his Government would publish to the whole world what had taken place, and that the matter was assuming a very grave character towards both Russia and France. Instructions had, indeed, gone out to Athens, agreed upon between Palmerston and himself, but he seemed to regard it as very doubtful whether they would arrive in time—that is, before Gros had returned home and Parker resumed hostilities. He repeated what Van de Weyer had said of the 'universal execration' in which we were held, and that no country could excite such a feeling with impunity. It is pretty clear that if this matter is not now settled there will be an explosion on the subject at Paris, and some very disagreeable passages between us and both France and Russia. My own conviction has all along been that Palmerston never intended anything but to hoodwink his colleagues, bamboozle the French, and gain time. By accepting the French mediation he prevented all discussion in Parliament; and as he took care to furnish no instructions to Wyse such as might enable him and Gros to come to terms, the affair could not fail to drag on, and every day that it did so was fraught with disastrous consequences to the Greeks. This was what he wanted; not to back out of it as decently as he could have done, not to defer to the wishes, opinions, and good offices of France, but by obstinacy and deceit to gain all his ends—to terrify and bully Greece into complete surrender, baffle Russia, and make France ridiculous. Drouyn de Lhuys told Reeve that he and Brunnow were in constant communication and acting in concert, the latter as usual doing all in his power to pacify the Emperor at Petersburg, and to get Palmerston to be reasonable here.
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE CAMPBELL.
April 28th.—Charles Wood has got into a scrape with his Stamps Bill, not being able to frame his measure so as to work satisfactorily. Financial blunders are always injurious, and affect the credit and authority of a Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it does not really signify, for the Government cannot be shaken. John Russell made a slashing attack in reply on Disraeli on Friday, well enough done, with spirit and effect.
On Wednesday, Campbell gave judgement in the Court of Queen's Bench in the Gorham case, on the rule moved for by Sir Fitzroy Kelly. The rule was refused unanimously. Campbell's judgement was very good, and much admired; he is doing exceedingly well in his Court.[115] Martin told me he never heard anything better than the way in which he disposed of a variety of cases, motions for rules mostly, which were before him on Monday last. Baron Parke, too, who did not smile on the appointment, said he was doing very well. He is not popular, and he is wanting in taste and refinement, but he is an able lawyer; and already he appears to great advantage in contrast with the dignified incompetence of Denman, who was an honourable, high-minded gentleman, but no lawyer, and one of the feeblest Chief Justices who ever presided over the Court of Queen's Bench.
We may at last expect the Greek question to be settled, I suppose. The decision and alacrity of Palmerston last Saturday week form a curious contrast with his dilatory motions a few weeks ago. Then he could not manage to frame an instruction and despatch it in less than a week or more; but when matters were getting serious, and he found that he must finish the affair, he was quick enough. On Saturday morning he received the despatches announcing the difficulties at Athens. He sent for Drouyn de Lhuys, concerted with him what was to be done, wrote his instructions, laid them before the Cabinet, got all the forms through, and sent them off the same evening. The plain meaning of all this is that in the first instance his object was delay, and in the second his object was expedition.
POLICY OF THE ORLEANS FAMILY.
May 14th.—I have written nothing here for many weeks, but no great loss, for I have not had much to say, if anything. I am tempted to resume my pen to record rather a curious event. I have heard this morning of a mission from Paris to Louis Philippe, and the result of it. The leaders of the Conservative party there, all except Thiers, have come to a resolution that the only chance of restoring the Monarchy is by a reconciliation of the elder and the Orleans branches, by the recognition of Henri V., and by persuading Louis Philippe and his family to accept this solution of the dynastic question. They have accordingly sent over M. Malac to Claremont to communicate their sentiments to the King. He was authorised to tell him that the Legitimists were willing to acknowledge his title and his reign, and even the benefits that France had derived from his government. The King entered into the subject with great frankness, treating with indifference the offers which were personal to himself, saying he had no need of any recognition of his reign, of which history would bear sufficient record. He, however, acquiesced in the views of the party who sent M. Malac, and declared himself ready to agree to their terms, but he said that the women of his family would be the most strenuous opponents of such a compromise. He assembled a sort of conseil de famille, consisting of the Queen and the Princes (not the Duchess of Orleans), and laid before them the proposal that had been made to him. The Queen declared against it, the Princes were all for it, and finally the Queen said she would defer to the opinion of the King. He then proposed to the Ambassador to go and talk to the Duchess of Orleans, from whom the greatest obstacles were to be expected. He declined to speak to her on the subject, but said he would go and see her, which he did. She received him, talked of all other subjects, but not a word about the succession. On repeating to His Majesty what had passed, he said he would send for her and talk to her, and after having done so, he desired M. Malac to return and she would enter on the affair. He went to her again and spoke to her with great frankness, representing that the Orleans party was by far the weakest in France, and that her religion would always make the people more or less, and the clergy entirely, hostile to her. She was much startled and discomposed at hearing language to which she seemed not to have been accustomed; but though she did not avow it she was not unmoved by his representations. He described various other meetings and conversations which had occurred in which the Queen of the Belgians took part (strongly adverse to the proposal), and finally he departed, without indeed any formal acceptance of the overtures, but carrying back such expressions of opinion and disposition on the part of the family as amounted to a virtual acceptance, and leave no doubt that the bargain will be concluded. It is not intended to draw up any compact, nor to take any immediate steps in consequence. They have no intention of waging war with the Republic, and only contemplate waiting for the course of events in the hope that the evils of the country will eventually drive the masses to seek a remedy for them in the restoration of the Monarchy, and for this contingency to be prepared by merging the differences of the two branches and uniting the strength of both to re-establish the principle. It was Reeve who told me all this, having had it from M. Malac himself. He also brought over a letter from Guizot to Reeve in which Guizot alluded rather mysteriously to another combination that was possible, and that would be auxiliary to this scheme. This is a transaction with the President and Changarnier. Both of the latter are aware that Louis Napoleon has no chance of perpetuating his own power either as President or Emperor.[116] He is overwhelmed with debts which he cannot pay, and the whole of his private fortune is sunk. In no case, therefore, could he retire to any other country, and he may naturally be willing to make terms for himself which, in the event of the Monarchy being restored, would place him in a position of ease and comfort. Besides his own political nullity, his family entourage presents an inseparable bar to the revival of the Empire in his person. He is, indeed, himself by far the best of his family, being well-meaning and a gentleman; but all the rest are only a worthless set of canaille, altogether destitute of merit, and without a title to public consideration and respect.
RECALL OF THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR.
May 17th.—This has been a day of agitation. On Wednesday night all London was excited by the announcement at Devonshire House (where there was a great rout) that Drouyn de Lhuys had been recalled and was gone to Paris, and that neither Brunnow nor Cetto had been present at Palmerston's birthday dinner. Everybody was talking yesterday in the two Houses of these things and of the cause of them, which of course had to do with Greece. Questions were put to Lord Lansdowne and to Palmerston, when both of them said that the French Government had desired the presence of Drouyn de Lhuys at Paris in order to explain matters, and they both said what was tantamount to a denial of his having been recalled. At the very moment that they were making these statements in Parliament, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs was reading in the tribune of the National Assembly the formal letter of recall which had been sent to their Ambassador, which he was instructed to communicate, and which he read to Palmerston on the preceding day, and he was at the same time explaining that the Ambassador had been recalled on account of the manner in which the English Government had behaved to that of France, which rendered it incompatible with the dignity of the Republic to leave any longer an Ambassador in London. The report of what had passed appeared in all the papers this morning, and Brougham again addressed an interpellation to Lord Lansdowne on the subject, while a Member did the same to John Russell in the House of Commons, Palmerston not having chosen to be present. Both made what must be called shuffling, prevaricating answers, endeavouring by some clumsy and sophistical pretences to make out that the letter of recall was not a letter of recall. All this is very pitiable. After a series of blunders and a long course of impolitic and unjustifiable acts, Palmerston has contrived to involve us in a quasi quarrel with France, and to break up in the most wanton manner, and for the most ridiculous object, the good understanding which existed between the two countries. His colleagues, as usual, find themselves deeply plunged in the scrape into which they have permitted him to drag them, and obliged, as a hundred times heretofore, to make common cause with him, and to swallow all the dirt which he crams down their throats. While I am writing this they have brought me the newspaper with the report of what passed in Parliament, and Lord Lansdowne's and John Russell's replies, and it really is melancholy to see two such men reduced to such discreditable shifts, trying to evade giving direct answers to plain questions, attempting to mislead without doing so, and only exposing themselves. I see already that the friends and adherents of Government are sadly perplexed and annoyed. Lord Eddisbury, who sat next Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords and prompted him, told Granville 'he thought Palmerston could not have told his colleagues everything that had passed.' As to those colleagues, they deserve every mortification that can befall them, and are entitled to no pity. They have gone on submitting to all Palmerston's insolence and vagaries with full knowledge of having been repeatedly deceived by him, and not one of them has had spirit enough to cast off this disgraceful yoke. Instead of forcing him to show some regard to truth, he has broken them in to back his falsehoods, and one of the worst consequences that has been produced by his unfortunate administration is that the confidence and implicit reliance which ought to be placed on all that a Minister says in Parliament, can no longer be felt.
This is the greatest scrape into which Palmerston has ever got, and it will be curious enough too how he gets out of it. Our Government stands charged by that of France with breach of faith and violation of compact. We shall see whether he denies the facts. If he makes one statement, and Drouyn de Lhuys another, there can be no doubt which will be best entitled to credit. The latter had no motive to deceive his own Government, or to do anything but report faithfully what passed between Palmerston and himself.
REMONSTRANCE OF RUSSIA.
May 19th.—There is the devil to pay about this Greek affair, and at last there seems a tolerable chance of Palmerston coming to grief: 'Tant va la cruche à l'eau,' &c. Yesterday morning the Duke of Bedford came here and gave me an account of the state of affairs. It seems Brunnow had written a long letter to John Russell, couched in very temperate terms, but setting forth all his complaints of Palmerston's behaviour, and especially of the language of that part of the press which was avowedly under his control and direction, in reference to Russia, and he asked Lord John to call upon him, he being confined with a cold. Lord John sent this letter to Palmerston, accompanied with one from himself, in which he said that he (Palmerston) well knew how much he disliked such articles and such use of the press, and a good deal more indicative of displeasure. Palmerston wrote an answer defending himself, and the very same evening there appeared in the 'Globe' another article not less offensive than the preceding ones, greatly to the indignation of Lord John. He called on Brunnow, who repeated what he had before said in his letter, and announced that he must go away, for he would not stay here to be on bad terms with Palmerston, and it was impossible for him to remain on good terms. Meanwhile, Lord John had seen Drouyn de Lhuys before his departure, and from him he learnt what (according to his version) had passed between himself and Palmerston, that is, about the pledge which Drouyn de Lhuys affirmed Palmerston had given him that hostilities should not be renewed. The statement of Drouyn de Lhuys did not correspond with the accounts which Palmerston had given his colleagues of what had passed, and Lord John at once saw that there was no avoiding the unpleasant dilemma of the two Governments being at issue on a matter of fact which involved the good faith of ours. All this, together with what had already passed, had raised Lord John's resentment and disgust to a high pitch, and the Duke said that Lord John had at last resolved not to stand it any longer, although (he added) he could not feel complete confidence in his firmness and resolution after all he had seen on various occasions.
Lord John said that the first thing to be done was to settle this matter as they best might; that they must support Palmerston's assertions, to which they were bound to give credit; but that when this business was concluded, in about a month perhaps, he would bring matters to a crisis, that is, announce to Palmerston that he could not go on in the Foreign Office. Lord John is at present very angry, and therefore very stout, but I never can feel sure of him. He is to see the Queen on Tuesday, who will of course be boiling over with indignation, and if she finds Lord John at last disposed to take her views of the matter, the affair may possibly be settled between them.
Meanwhile no words can describe the universal feeling of reprobation, and almost of shame, with which the replies of Lord Lansdowne and Lord John were heard on Friday night. The morning arrivals from France had clearly shown that Lord Lansdowne in one House, and John Russell in the other, had tried to deceive and mislead by what they had said on Thursday. On Friday Palmerston did not make his appearance; but the figures which Lord Lansdowne cut in the Lords and Lord John in the Commons were most deplorable and humiliating; such shuffling, special pleading, and paltry evasions were never before heard from public men of their eminence and character; and of all that has occurred this discreditable exposure appears to many friends of the Government to be the most painful part. It appears inconceivable that any men should make statements the falsehood of which was shown in less than forty-eight hours; but the explanation is this. In the first place, Palmerston gave to his colleagues an imperfect and unfaithful account of Drouyn de Lhuys's communication to him. They were themselves not aware of the whole truth; but besides this Palmerston gave them to understand that Drouyn de Lhuys had carried with him such explanations, verbal and documentary, as would he hoped satisfy his Government, and consequently that the letter of recall might probably be cancelled, and the affair arranged. Hoping therefore for this result, they ventured to deny the recall altogether, but were completely confounded and exposed by the revelations of Lahitte[117] in the tribune the very same day; and then they had nothing for it but to try and shuffle out of it in the way they tried but miserably failed to do. It would have been far better to have spoken the plain truth, or to have declined to answer till the next day.
THE GREEK DISPUTE.
May 22nd.—I have read the long series of despatches published by the French Government, and the result in my mind is that they do not make out a case of breach of faith against our Government, supposing Palmerston's instructions to Wyse to have been in conformity with what was agreed upon between the two Governments here. This (the most essential) part of the case lies in a narrow compass. It was all along perfectly understood that if Gros threw up his mission, being unable to induce the Greek Government to consent to equitable terms, our Minister was at liberty to recommence the coercive measures without any further reference to his Government; but if the negotiation came to a standstill in consequence of Gros and Wyse not being able to agree, then the difference between them was to be referred for the decision of the two Governments upon it, and in this case the coercive measures were not to be renewed. The French maintain that the last of these contingencies occurred, Palmerston contends that it was the first. It is possible that Wyse may have received instructions conformable with this arrangement, and that he may have thought that the course which Gros took brought the case within the former category. This may have been an unsound opinion, but if such was the case it exonerates the British Government from the charge of having violated an engagement to that of France. But in order to make this defence valid, it will be necessary to prove that the instructions given to Wyse were such as the French had a right to expect. It does not appear that these instructions were ever imparted to them. These are minute, however important, points; but emerging from the confusion and perplexity of dates and circumstantial details, the question is, what is the general impression as to the whole conduct of the two Governments, more particularly of our own, throughout the transaction. I reserve the consideration of this till I have seen Palmerston's case as set forth in the papers that are to be laid before Parliament, and in the long and able despatch which he is said to have written in explanation and defence of his conduct.
May 25th.—The morning before yesterday the Duke of Bedford came here again. He had seen Lord John since, and heard what passed with the Queen. She was full of this affair, and again urged all her objections to Palmerston. This time she found Lord John better disposed than heretofore, and he is certainly revolving in his mind how the thing can be done. He does not by any means contemplate going out himself, or breaking up the Government. What he looks to is this, that the Queen should take the initiative, and urge Palmerston's removal from the Foreign Office. She is quite ready to do this as soon as she is assured of her wishes being attended to. For various reasons it would not do to put Clarendon in his place. Clarendon would not like it, and it would make Palmerston furious; therefore this is out of the question. The only possible arrangement is that Lord John should himself take the Foreign Office, provisionally, and he is quite prepared to take it. I told the Duke I entirely agreed that this was the only feasible arrangement, and I did not apprehend any danger to Lord John, because he would do the business in a very different way, and manage to lighten the burthen both by his mode of transacting it, and by delegating many details to his Under-Secretary, instead of, like Palmerston, doing everything himself. There certainly never appeared to be so good a chance of getting the Foreign Office out of Palmerston's hands as now; but long experience of his boldness and success, and of the pusillanimity and weakness of his colleagues, make me feel very doubtful and uncertain as to the result. If the thing is done, they mean to propose to him to take another office instead; not to turn him out. I don't know how they think of managing this, but he is sure to refuse to give up the Foreign Office and take another instead of it. He would consider this a degradation, and a sort of pleading guilty to the charges that are brought against him. If he will lend himself to this change, so much the better; if he does not go out, the Duke thinks, not without reason, that it will be almost impossible for Clarendon to come into office at present, and that he ought not; his opinions on foreign affairs are so strong, that he could not join the Cabinet while Palmerston was at the Foreign Office without the certainty of either very soon quarrelling with him, or of being obliged to make concessions against his conscience and real opinions, and which would therefore be discreditable to him.
PAPERS ON THE GREEK DISPUTE.
Meanwhile Palmerston has made his explanation in the House of Commons. There is much difference of opinion as to how it was received, but I gather that it was a good deal applauded by the Radicals and his own people; it was clever as he always is, but it was weak. As the case more develops itself (for now all the Blue Books are out, French and English), it resolves itself into a very small point: Did Palmerston, or did he not, send instructions to Wyse in conformity with what was agreed upon between himself and Drouyn de Lhuys? This is what the French have a right to ask: if he did, let him show these instructions; if he did not, he broke faith with the French Government. By Wyse's letter of the 15th, it seems pretty clear he did not send any such instructions. I do not see how volumes of Blue Books, or all the conferences and debates imaginable, can put the case in a clearer light, or bring it to a more direct issue than this.
June 2nd.—I was never able to plunge into the Blue Book till Epsom races were over, but I have now done it, and have gone through both—that and the French Book. The case is quite complete, and it is not difficult to extract from the mass of details with which the former is uselessly encumbered a clear view of the case. The result is a conviction in my mind that the French Government acted with amity and good faith, and that the conduct of Gros at Athens was irreproachable. He did his best to bring about an arrangement, and he failed because the requisitions of the English Minister were such as in honour and conscience it was impossible for him to support, sanction, or recommend to the Greek Government. If Stanley works this case well, he will make a great affair of it, for his materials are ample and excellent. Palmerston's Blue Book is just like former productions from the Foreign Office under him, voluminous details of matter quite uninteresting and beside the question, and the absence of those documents which we most require to see, and on which the whole case turns, his instructions to Wyse and Parker—none of which, or scarcely any, are given.
The night before last was remarkable for the maiden speech of young Stanley[118] in the House of Commons. It was very successful. He spoke with great fluency, and gave promise of being a debater. I dined with Sir Robert Peel yesterday, who said he heard him, and he spoke in terms of great commendation of the speech. It was on the West Indian question, on which he had just published and circulated a pamphlet, and it was remarkable and showed a confidence in his own powers that his speech did not appear to be a repetition of any part of his pamphlet.
June 6th.—On Monday last Graham called on me at the Council Office, and after talking about the Greek affair and Stanley's motion, he proceeded to other matters about which he had come expressly to speak to me as a channel of communication with John Russell. With reference to the first matter, he said that a negotiation was evidently going on between Stanley and Aberdeen, and that the latter was to support some of Stanley's domestic questions, and in return Stanley would fight vigorously the foreign policy. I did not pay much attention to this, for Graham is always dreaming of this connexion and its results. He then went on to say, that if there was (as there very probably would be) an adverse vote in the House of Lords on Friday, the Government would be very unwise if they attempted to procure a counter vote in the House of Commons; and if they tried it, he thought they would fail; but that they must counteract the effect in another way; and that Lord John had now an excellent opportunity of acquiring reputation for himself and strength for his Government, by proposing very important reforms of an administrative kind, and which he was enabled to do by the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy and the resignation of Lord Cottenham.[119] What he wants him to do is this—to give up the idea of a fourth Secretary of State, to take away the criminal business from the Home Secretary and give it to the new Lord Keeper, or whatever the great legal functionary to be created may be called. He thinks a fourth Secretary objectionable on many accounts, and that Government would have great difficulty in carrying it. He gave many reasons for this opinion which seemed to me sound enough. Then he proposes that all the Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage shall be taken from the Great Seal and made over to the Prime Minister; the livings to be sold as they become vacant, and the proceeds handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be applied to ecclesiastical purposes, which he says would be an immense boon to the Church, and by these means funds might be raised which are greatly wanted, but for which it would be impossible to apply to Parliament with any hope of success. He urged these reforms with great energy, and set forth all the advantages which might be derived from them, and said Peel was still more eager, especially about the Church patronage, than he was.
CHANCERY REFORM.
The same evening I told the Duke of Bedford all that had passed, and he said he would see Lord John the next morning and speak to him. He did so, and came to me afterwards on Tuesday morning. He said he had told Lord John all that Graham had said, that he thought Graham was always rather too much disposed to be running before what he thought was public opinion; that with regard to the fourth Secretary he was quite bent upon it, thought it absolutely necessary (as Clarendon did also), and he was determined to adhere to it. With respect to the question of the Chancellor's livings, he agreed with Graham, and he had brought before the Cabinet a scheme founded on Graham's recommendations, but that it had been rejected by the Cabinet unanimously. They thought it very objectionable to part with so much patronage. However, though Lord John could not under these circumstances press the matter at present, he will not give it up, and still meditates some measure of this character, though probably one less extensive. Yesterday morning I called on Graham and told him what had passed, at which he expressed great disappointment and regret, and after as much talk as we had time for (for I was going out of town), I left him provoked and disheartened. He said he could take no interest in a Government which rejected unanimously such a proposition as this, and which had rejected unanimously the French invitation to abide by the London Convention.[120] I had told him this which Beauvale told me, and which, as well as I recollect, I have not noted down. He said that when the French made this proposal, Palmerston drew up a paper placing it before the Cabinet with the reasons for accepting, and those for rejecting it, and desired them to determine, himself taking no part; and that they had unanimously agreed to refuse, so that it was their act and not his.
June 8th.—Graham called on me again yesterday morning. He had had a long conversation with John Russell in the House of Commons on Wednesday (sought by John Russell), in which Graham repeated to him at greater length all he had said to me. The discussion was very frank and friendly, but Lord John told him he could not give up the fourth Secretary, and gave his reasons for thinking it necessary, which Graham said were very weak ones. So they parted, Graham hoping that he would at all events take time for consideration, but he was much surprised and annoyed at hearing him give notice he should bring on the Lord-Lieutenancy Bill to-morrow. He thought this very uncourteous, and it had thrown him into perplexity as to the course he ought to take. He had a strong opinion upon it, and he was convinced that if he opposed it, and stated his reasons to the House of Commons, the clause would be thrown out; that he neither liked going against his own decided opinion, nor against the Government, and he did not know what to do. From me he went to Lyndhurst, and then to Peel, and then came back to me. Lyndhurst, blind, but full of vigour and spirit, is full of the new arrangements about the Great Seal. Lord John has consulted him on the subject, and he is going to call on him. Lyndhurst is against giving up the ecclesiastical patronage. Peel regrets Lord John's determination, but Graham said he is so bent on carrying the Government through the Session, that he will not oppose them on anything. He thinks of nothing but securing a fair trial for Free Trade, and keeping the Protectionists out.
DEBATE ON THE PACIFICO AFFAIR.
To-day I called on Lord Lyndhurst and found him in great force—Brougham, Baron Alderson, Stuart (the Protectionist Chancellor), Brodie, and Hatherton, and Strangford were there. They were all discussing the legal reforms, and Brougham broke out about Cottenham's earldom. Cottenham, he said, wrote to him, lamenting that he disapproved of this honour, which had been conferred on him as a mark of the Queen's confidence and approbation of his services. Brougham wrote in reply that he should not talk such 'Morning Post' twaddle, and that he knew very well the Queen neither knew nor cared about his services, and that he had got it because he insisted on having it! The new appointments which are beginning to be known do not please. Jervis to be Chancellor and at the head of the House of Lords and Judicial Committee seems strange. [But this arrangement was not carried into effect.]
June 18th.—The great debate in the House of Lords came off last night in the midst of immense curiosity and interest.[121] The House was crowded in every part; I never saw so many Peers present, nor so many strangers. There were various opinions about the result, but the Government was the favourite. Bear Ellice offered to lay two to one they had a majority. Most people thought the same, but everybody was agreed that go which way it would, the division would be a very close one, and the majority small. Malmesbury, Stanley's whipper-in, counted on fifteen on his side. Stanley spoke for two hours and three-quarters. He has made more brilliant speeches, but it was very good, moderate and prudent in tone, lucid, lively and sustained. I heard him, and then was so tired of standing, I was obliged to go away, and did not return. The Government made but a poor defence. Canning made a capital speech, and placed himself in a high position. He had taken great pains with it, and it was very effective, every word told. Granville told me Eddisbury was good too, and it was the most important speech he ever made. I never was more amazed than at hearing the division, never having dreamt of such a majority; reste à savoir what Government (and Palmerston especially) will do. If he was disposed to take a great line he would go at once to the Queen and resign, at the same time begging her not to accept the resignation of his colleagues if they tendered it. This would be creditable to him, and he owes them all the reparation in his power for the hot water he has kept them in, and the scrapes he has made for them for many years. They have over and over again allowed themselves to be dragged through the mire for him, and since they have refused now and heretofore to separate themselves from him, the least he can do is to separate himself from them, and to insist upon being the only sacrifice.
June 19th.—There was a Cabinet yesterday, of course for the purpose of considering what they should do, and the resolution they came to was to do nothing. Labouchere saw Granville before the Cabinet, and told him that he was all for resigning, but he feared there was a disposition to stick in amongst his colleagues, and, as he thought, particularly in Charles Wood; but Delane, who saw Charles Wood after the Cabinet, was assured by him that he would have preferred to resign, but that he was overruled by the majority of his colleagues. This is all I know of the matter, but it by no means surprises me to find that they have resolved to take no notice of the buffet they got from the Lords, and go on. I now expect that John Russell will lay aside all thoughts of getting rid of Palmerston, and the rickety concern will scramble on as heretofore. Nevertheless it is impossible this event and great majority should not produce sooner or later very considerable effects. It will abroad if it does not here. As to Palmerston's being corrected and reformed, I don't believe a word of it, but the Foreign Office will inevitably find itself in a situation of great difficulty and embarrassment, and our relations with the rest of Europe will in all probability assume a character mischievous, dangerous, and intolerable.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S ANSWER.
June 20th.—It seems that the Ministers' minds misgave them, and yesterday they began to doubt whether they ought not to do something. Roebuck gave notice of a question, and John Russell told him he would give him an answer this evening. John Abel Smith went and proposed that they should make a sign of intention to resign, and that a vote of general confidence should be moved in the House of Commons, on which they should stay in. Many of the friends of Government (some in office) are for resignation. It is no doubt embarrassing, but I am against their resignation. If Palmerston was disposed to take a high and creditable line, he might extricate them from the difficulty by voluntarily sacrificing himself. This is what he ought to do, but I don't hear that he has evinced any disposition of the sort. He did indeed offer to resign at the Cabinet, but this of course (as he well knew) they could not listen to.
June 21st.—John Russell made his statement last night, giving the reasons why he did not resign, quoting two precedents, one above a century ago, and one in 1833, for not resigning in consequence of an adverse vote of the House of Lords. I concur in the constitutional doctrine he laid down on that score, but the rest of what he said was very imprudent and ill-judged. He has now committed himself more than ever to Palmerston, and has thrown down a defiance to all Europe, announcing that they will make no difference whatever in their administration of foreign affairs. He alluded to that part of Stanley's resolution which laid down the right and duty of this country, asserted that the words of it limited those rights and duties within bounds he could not admit, and by implication at least asserted propositions against which foreign nations will infallibly kick. It was very imprudent to raise incidentally this very difficult and important question, and he might easily have avoided such dangerous ground. Then he finished by a very miserable and injudicious claptrap, which will be as offensive as possible to foreign Powers; in short, he evinced little judgement and taste. It is clear enough that he is now resolved to adhere to Palmerston, and that his intention is, if he can get a majority next Monday, to disregard the House of Lords and their opinions, and to set all Europe at defiance by giving them notice that they must have Palmerston to deal with and nobody else. The conclusion to which he came a few weeks ago is evidently thrown aside. All his indignation against Palmerston, his determination to endure it no longer, his bold resolution to take the labour of the Foreign Office on himself, have all evaporated, and are as a dream, and the fact of a large majority of the House of Lords having condemned Palmerston's proceedings, language, and conduct, instead of affording an additional reason, and confirming him in the course he had thought of pursuing, seems to have made him angry and obstinate, to have caused a reaction in his mind, and engendered a determination to cling more closely than ever to Palmerston, and fight his battle at all risks and at any cost, in everything and against everybody. The other day there was a general opinion that if a vote of approbation was moved in the House of Commons it would not be carried. This was Graham's opinion, and so entirely did John Russell himself concur in it, that he declared it should not be attempted, if the vote of the Lords was adverse. All that is suddenly changed. He now tries this experiment, and all the people I have seen say Government will carry it. Bernal Osborne told me it was certain, for the Whigs and the Radicals united could not be beaten, and all the Radicals but four or five would support the Government. Never was there such a state of difficulty and confusion in my recollection. It is at last come to what I long ago predicted, and Palmerston is proving the ruin of the Government.
MR. ROEBUCK'S VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
June 24th.—Nothing of course thought of but the division on Roebuck's motion.[122] The general opinion is that there will be a majority of about forty, but nobody knows what Peel will say or do, and many votes are quite uncertain. That there will be some such majority none doubt, and it is put about by the Government that they will resign if their majority is less than that in the House of Lords against them, which I don't believe, and it would be very absurd to make it turn on a mere question of numbers. Lady Palmerston and her belongings continue to make an active canvass. On Saturday afternoon the news came of the difference being settled, by our conceding to the French all they demanded. Nobody seems to care, or it would be a mortifying and a ridiculous conclusion, for we have not only agreed to what we at first refused to the French Government, but we have in fact gone back (with some modifications as to detail) to Gros's propositions to Wyse, which the latter so obstinately refused, and on his rejection of which the blockade at Athens recommenced, and the quarrel with France was based.
June 25th.—Little progress was made in the debate last night; Graham made a strong speech. In the morning I rode with Brunnow and had much talk with him. He spoke out about Palmerston, though with great regret; said he had done all he could in the way of warning and advice, to prevent his running this headlong course; but he never could make the least impression on him. He thinks there will be a calm of a few months' duration, but that it will be impossible for Palmerston to go on long at the Foreign Office. He complained of the great interests of the world having been sacrificed to this miserable affair, especially the Denmark question; that it might have been settled long ago; and if we had pacified France by accepting the London Convention, the three Powers would have immediately set to work to bring this knotty point to an end. He goes to Petersburg in August. The Emperor, he told me, cannot comprehend our political condition, and is at a loss to know why the Queen does not dismiss Palmerston; and when he hears of the division in the House of Lords, he will fancy that the Government will resign in consequence of it.
June 29th.—I have been for two days in the country, while the great debate was going on. Palmerston came out the second night with prodigious force and success. He delivered an oration four hours and three-quarters long, which has excited unusual admiration, boundless enthusiasm amongst his friends, and drawn forth the most flattering compliments from every quarter. It is impossible to deny its great ability; parts of it are strikingly eloquent and inimitably adroit. It was a wonderful effort to speak for nearly five hours without ever flagging, and his voice nearly as strong at last as at first. The ability of it is the more remarkable, because on an attentive and calm perusal of it, the insufficiency of it as an answer and a defence against the various charges which have been brought against him is manifest; but it is admirably arranged and got up, entirely free from the flippancy and impertinence in which he usually indulges, full of moderation and good taste, and adorned with a profusion of magnificent and successful clap-traps. The success of the speech has been complete, and his position is now unassailable. John Russell may save himself the trouble of considering, when this is all over, how he may effect some change involving the withdrawal of the Foreign Office from Palmerston's hands, for they are now all tied and bound to him in respect to the future as completely as to the present and the past. These discussions and attacks, which were to have shaken him in his seat, have only made him more powerful than he was before; but whether they have strengthened or weakened the Government is another question. It now remains to be seen what the attitude and animus of Foreign Powers will be, and what the character of his future proceedings. The debate was on the whole very able. Cockburn made a slashing speech, which will probably procure for him the post of Solicitor-General. Graham's and Gladstone's speeches were the best on the other side. Peel was very moderate, and refused to go into the details or to attack the Government on them. The majority of forty-six was rather more than was expected by either party.