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.