A great field-day at the Council Office yesterday to hear the Petition of the Serjeants against the order of the late King opening the Court of Common Pleas to all barristers. It was Brougham’s order.[10] The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Master of the Rolls, three Chiefs, all the Puisne Judges who are Privy Councillors, Lushington, Wynford, and Brougham sat. Follett and Charles Austin were counsel for the Serjeants, and the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals ordered to attend, and seated at a table in court. Follett spoke for four hours, and Austin for two, and did not finish. A vast deal of historical research was displayed, but it was not amusing nor particularly well done. The Serjeants were present (the five petitioners), and Wilde prompting Follett all the time. There seemed no difference of opinion among the Judges, at least with those I talked to, and the King’s mandate (for such it was to the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and under the sign manual, though countersigned by nobody) will be declared waste paper, and matters be replaced on their ancient footing till Parliament may otherwise determine. Brougham appeared considerably disconcerted, and though he tilted occasionally with the counsel, he was on the whole quieter than usual and than I expected he would have been. This order was one of those things he blurted out in that ‘sic volo sic jubeo’ style which he had assumed, and without consideration, probably without consultation with anybody, or he might easily have avoided the commission of such a blunder.

[10] [The Serjeants-at-Law had enjoyed from time immemorial the exclusive right of practising in the Court of Common Pleas. Upon the advice of Lord Brougham, then Chancellor, King William IV. had issued a written mandate to the court to open their bar to the whole profession. No doubt the act was quite illegal and a nullity. The Serjeants now petitioned the Queen in Council to set it aside. But the court was subsequently opened by Act of Parliament.]

January 18th, 1839

Durham has come down from his high horse, and has at last condescended to see Howick and Duncannon, the latter through the mediation of John Ponsonby, who hopes by bringing them together to pave the way, if not to a reconciliation, to a state of things less hostile and THE MURDER OF LORD NORBURY. bitter in feeling and intention between him and the Government. They are both anxious to avoid blows if possible, but it is so difficult to avoid mutual inculpation and accusation, although only professing exculpation, that it will be very strange if the matter does (as many think it will) blow over lightly. The personal question between Melbourne and Durham about Turton appears the most difficult to settle; but if there is a will there will be a way, and it is easy enough to imagine the sort of civil, complimentary assurances from one to the other, that though there had been a great misunderstanding, it was no doubt unintentional, and all that sort of palaver which is so familiar to old stagers and parliamentary squabblers.

The murder of Lord Norbury[11] has made a great sensation because the man is so conspicuous; for there seems no reason for believing that he was murdered from any religious or political motive, but that it was only another of the many prædial enormities that are from time to time committed in Ireland. At present this event only serves to exasperate angry passions, to call forth loud blasts of the never silent trumpet against Romanism and the Irish population, and it does not lead men’s minds immediately to a conviction of the necessity of calmly investigating, and if possible applying a remedy to, a social condition so full of crime and misery, and so revolting to every feeling of humanity, as that of Ireland. But the death of this poor man will conduce to this end, for it is only through long processes of evil and after much suffering that good is accomplished.

[11] [The Earl of Norbury was shot near his own house at Kilbeggan, in the county of Meath. The assassin was never discovered.]

The case of the Canadian prisoners has been argued before the Court of Queen’s Bench,[12] but it has not excited much interest. They give judgement on Monday. Roebuck is said to have spoken very moderately.

[12] [Twelve Canadian prisoners having landed at Liverpool were brought up on habeas corpus before Lord Denman and the Court of Queen’s Bench. The court upheld the committal of the prisoners.]

January 24th, 1839

Duncannon found Durham in a very complacent mood, and he entered with him fully into the subject of Canada and their quarrels. With respect to Turton’s affairs, Durham denies he ever said, or authorised anybody else to say, that the appointment had Melbourne’s consent, and he admits that Melbourne did put his veto upon Turton’s appointment to office, but says he considered this veto applicable only to offices under Government, and that the place to which he appointed him was not under Government, but one at his own disposal, and for which he was wholly and solely responsible. This is his excuse, and a very bad one it is. It won’t go down in the House of Lords, I imagine.