July 24th, 1838
High Church has been recently reading lectures to Her Majesty the Queen in the shape of two sermons preached at the Chapel Royal by Mr. Perceval and Mr. Hook.[18] The Bishop of London was cognizant of Mr. Perceval’s intention, and he preached himself for several Sundays, probably for the purpose of keeping him out of the pulpit; but, the Bishop having had a fall from his horse and broken his MR. HOOK’S SERMON. collar-bone, Mr. Perceval found his opportunity. The Bishop, however, previously warned the Queen that she must expect a very strong sermon, which naturally excited her curiosity, and when she heard it it did not appear to her so strong as she had expected. The Bishop’s advice or his own reflexion may have induced Mr. Perceval to soften it. He made an attack upon Peel (that is, upon somebody whom they concluded to be Peel), reproaching him with sacrificing his conscience to political objects in consenting to Catholic emancipation, not totidem verbis, but in words to this effect. Hook’s sermon appears to have been the stronger of the two. He told the Queen that the Church would endure let what would happen to the throne. On her return to Buckingham House, Normanby, who had been at the chapel, said to her, ‘Did not your Majesty find it very hot?’ She said, ‘Yes, and the sermon was very hot too.’
[18] [Afterwards Dean of Chichester, and author of the ‘Lives of the Archbishops.’]
July 28th, 1838
The letters between Lord Palmerston and Mr. Urquhart which appeared two days ago in the ‘Times,’ have made a very great sensation, and thrown the friends of the former into great alarm. Urquhart’s letter is so enormously long, so overlaid with matter, and so stuffed with acrimonious abuse, that it is difficult to seize the points of it; but that to which general attention is directed is the positive assertion of Lord Palmerston that he had nothing to do with the ‘Portfolio,’ and the announcement of Urquhart that in consequence of such denegation he will demonstrate that Palmerston had everything to do with it. He is said to make exceedingly light of it, and asserts that he can clear himself of all the imputations Mr. Urquhart seeks to cast upon him. He has, however, committed a great blunder in entering into a paper war at all. In his letter he correctly lays down the principle of the irresponsibility and omnipotence of a Secretary of State in relation to his agents, and there he ought to have stopped, and, acting on that principle, have declined any controversy; but he entered into it, and descended from his pedestal; and, though his letter is clever and well written, there are some very weak points in it, and some things which incline one to doubt his veracity. Who, for example, can believe that when Strangways[19] gave him a letter from Urquhart containing (as he informed him) a statement of his conduct, which conduct he thought so reprehensible that he had desired Strangways to admonish and caution him, he should have put this letter in his pocket, and not even have broken the seal till a long time after? The Government people are evidently in great consternation, and it is very remarkable that not a line of contradiction has appeared in any of Palmerston’s papers. No less than three men (Labouchere, Morpeth, and Le Marchant) spoke to me about it yesterday, full of doubt and anxiety, and very curious to know ‘what people said.’
[19] [The Hon. William Strangways, afterwards Earl of Ilchester, was at this time Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Strangways was an old and intimate friend of Prince Adam Czartoryski, by whom the papers were brought to England which afterwards appeared in the ‘Portfolio,’ and it was through this Polish connexion that Mr. Urquhart was introduced to the notice of the Under-Secretary. Lord Palmerston was at that time (about 1834) strongly anti-Russian, and was perfectly cognizant of several undertakings which originated with Prince Adam Czartoryski, and his more energetic nephew, Count Ladislas Zamoyski, who had very much the ear of the English Government at that time. These undertakings were the publication of the ‘Portfolio,’ Mr. George Bell’s expedition to the coast of Circassia in the ‘Vixen,’ which was seized there, and the attempt to establish a Consulate in the then Free-Town of Cracow. But after having encouraged and promoted these objects for some time in conjunction with Mr. Strangways, Lord Palmerston suddenly became violently opposed to them, and disclaimed all knowledge of those whom he had employed. See infra, January 30th, 1839.]
Le Marchant told me that Palmerston was a strange mixture of caution and imprudence; that as long as he did not commit himself on paper he thought himself safe; that he would see any newspaper editor who called on him, and often communicate to such persons matters of great delicacy; yet, at the very time he would do this, he demurred to a request that was made to him to communicate freely with him (Le Marchant) and Drummond, who were managing the press on the part of Government; and this reserve was exercised towards him when he was Brougham’s private secretary, cognisant of all that Brougham knew (which, of course, was everything), and frequently employed to communicate MR. URQUHART AND LORD PALMERSTON. verbally between the Chancellor and his colleagues on the most confidential matters.
The history of Urquhart is this: William IV. was nearly mad upon the subject of Russia, and Sir Herbert Taylor[20] either partook of his opinions or ministered to his prejudices. Urquhart, who had been in the East, published a violent anti-Russian pamphlet, which made some noise and which recommended him to the notice of Taylor, and through him to that of the King. His Majesty took up Urquhart, and recommended him to Palmerston. Palmerston was not sorry to have an opportunity of gratifying the King, with whom the Ministers were never on cordial terms, and probably he was not then disinclined to act (as far as he dared) upon Urquhart’s views. Accordingly he appointed him—a very extraordinary appointment it was thought at the time—Secretary of Embassy at Constantinople. There can be no doubt that Urquhart considered himself appointed to that station on account of the opinions he professed, and for the express purpose of giving them effect. He was very likely told so by the King, and left to infer as much by Palmerston. The letter of Strangways, which has appeared in the course of the correspondence, shows that the communications from the Foreign Office were in this spirit. At the same time Palmerston took care not to commit himself in writing. When the death of the King was approaching, Palmerston foresaw that he would have to change his tone with regard to Eastern politics, and consequently that it would be convenient to throw over Urquhart, which he proceeded to do. This man, first his tool and then his victim, turned out to be bold, unprincipled, and clever, and finding his prospects ruined and his reputation damaged, he turned fiercely upon him whom he considered as his persecutor and betrayer. It is fortunate for Palmerston that the matter has broken out at the end of the Session when people are all on the wing and there is not time to sift anything to the bottom, but still the charges are so grave, and they involve such serious consequences and considerations, that it is absolutely necessary the truth should be manifested one way or another.[21] The Foreign Ministers all believe that Palmerston is guilty. Dedel told me last night that Pozzo had said to him, ‘Quant à moi, je ne dirai pas un mot; mais si tout cela est vrai, il faut aller aux galères pour trouver un pareil forfait.’ Graham said to me that he was sincerely sorry for it, inasmuch as he had personally a regard for Palmerston; that no man was ever a better, more honourable, or kinder colleague, more anxious to smooth differences and adjust disputes; that he could not attack him in the House of Commons, neither would Stanley; that Peel, who hated him, would not dislike doing so, but that he was too cautious to trust implicitly to Urquhart’s assertions, and to commit himself by acting on them; that there was nobody else capable of dealing with the subject well, and that Canning[22] ought not, for the same reasons (only much stronger in his case) that restrained himself and Stanley.
[20] [King William’s Private Secretary.]
[21] The truth never was manifested, the matter blew over, very little ever was said about it in the newspapers, Urquhart’s revelations never appeared, the public forgot it, and the whole affair died a natural death.—January 6th, 1839.