April 2nd.—The debates in both Houses were marked by great bitterness on the part of the Opposition, by Derby in one House, and by Disraeli and Layard in the other. The war fever is still sufficiently raging to make it impossible for any man who denounces the war itself to obtain a patient hearing. Nobody ventures to cry out against it but Bright in the House of Commons, and Grey in the House of Lords, but already I see symptoms of disquietude and alarm. Some of those who were most warlike begin to look grave, and to be more alive to the risks, difficulties, and probably dangers of such a contest. I cannot read the remonstrances and warnings of Bright without going very much along with him; and the more I reflect on the nature of the contest, its object, and the degree to which we are committed in it, the more uneasy I feel about it, and the more lively my apprehensions are of our finding ourselves in a very serious dilemma, and being involved in great embarrassments of various sorts. Amongst other misfortunes, one is the discredit into which Gladstone has fallen as a financier. Notwithstanding his extraordinary capacity, most people who are conversant with the subject of finance think he has greatly mismanaged his affairs, and suffered his notions or crotchets to get the better of his prudence, and consequently that he has prepared for himself as Chancellor of the Exchequer very great difficulties. His Budget last year was so popular, and his wonderful readiness and skill in dealing with everything relating to finance excited so much admiration, that his reputation was prodigious, and he was not only the strength of the Government, but was marked out as the future Prime Minister whenever changes took place. All this prestige is very much diminished; and although his failures are in great measure attributable to accidents over which he had no control, many who are not unfriendly to him think he has been rash, obstinate, and injudicious, and no longer feel the same confidence in him which they did a short time ago.
April 3rd.—The Duke of Bedford has just been here, as uneasy about the state of affairs and as disgusted and alarmed at the war as I am. He does not know what Lord John will do about the Reform Bill, but fears rather than hopes as to his intentions. Aberdeen had desired that there should be a Cabinet before Easter, and that Lord John should then determine what he would do, but Palmerston requested that the final decision should only be made on the 26th, the day before that on which it is to come on. What his object is, they do not know. The Duke in talking to Lord John suggested the certainty of his breaking up the Government by bringing on his measure, and the enormous evil this would be, to which Lord John replied that if he knew what the internal state of the Government was, he would perhaps not think the evil of the dissolution so great. The fact is, that when the Opposition, as is their wont, taunt the Government with their internal disagreement and want of cordiality and union, they are much more right than they themselves are aware of. The Duke told me that the Queen told him the other day that she had herself written to Lord John urging him to give up bringing on his Bill. Not long ago the Queen was in favour of proceeding with it, but circumstances were very different at that time.
DIVISIONS IN THE CABINET.
April 15th.—This has been a week of excitement. It had been settled that on Monday last John Russell should announce his intention with regard to the Reform Bill. His uncertainty still prevailed, and he got into such a state of mind about it that it made him ill. He could not sleep, and was in a terrible state of vexation and perplexity. Aberdeen then proposed to him to give up the Bill, but to obtain from the Cabinet a unanimous consent to his pledging them to go on with it hereafter at some indefinite time. On Saturday there was a Cabinet, at which he made this proposal, but Palmerston and Lansdowne both refused their consent, and Lansdowne was in conversation with his friends very vehement about it. Graham appears to have been reasonable at this Cabinet, and ready to adopt the course proposed to Lord John. It was eventually settled that he should announce the abandonment of the Bill, and make the best statement he could, not pledging the whole Cabinet as he had intended; but before this he urged them to accept his resignation, which they refused, and then Palmerston begged he might resign, which they refused equally. So matters stood on Saturday night, and everybody believed it was settled. On Sunday Lord John's doubts and fears returned, his mind became unsettled again, and he was inclined to withdraw from his agreement and to go on. To the surprise of the whole House of Commons, when Monday came, Lord John only said he would make his statement the next day. Everybody saw something was wrong, and the curiosity and excitement were very great. All Monday and Tuesday mornings were passed in conferences and going backwards and forwards, the Duke of Bedford being called in to work upon Lord John. He did his best, and at last on Tuesday morning he and others finally persuaded Lord John to adhere to what had been determined and withdraw his Bill. This he did in a very good speech, full of an emotion and manifestation of sensibility which succeeded completely with the House, and he was greeted with prodigious cheering and compliments and congratulations on all sides. Nothing could in fact go off better, or in a way more gratifying to him, and the Government appears to have been strengthened by the operation. His emotion was sincere, because he is no actor, but it was in my opinion totally uncalled for; and as there is but a step between the sublime and the ridiculous, it might just as well have appeared ridiculous; but fortunately for him his audience were disposed to take it au grand s?rieux. Even his brother, partial as he is to him, takes the same view of this that I do, and has written to me that as Lord John has often been abused when he did not deserve it, so he has now been overpraised.
A FAST DAY.
April 24th.—When this Government was formed, its principal merit was supposed to be its great administrative capacity, and the wonderful way in which the business of the country was to be done. It has turned out just the reverse of what was expected, for they commit one blunder after another, and nothing can be more loose, careless, and ignorant than the way in which their business is conducted. All sorts of mistakes and embarrassments are continually occurring in the House of Commons, and I have had occasion to see ample proofs of what I say, in all that has been done and is doing about licences and trade permissions, consequent on the recent declarations and Orders in Council.[1] Now another matter has occurred, discreditable from the carelessness which has been evinced. When it was thought necessary to order a fast day for the war, the Queen set her face against it. She thought it very absurd (as it is) and objected in toto. Aberdeen with some difficulty overcame her objections, setting forth that it had been done by George III., and that the religious part of the community would make a clamour if it were not done. So she gave way, but still insisted it should not be a 'fast,' so they settled it should be a day of 'humiliation.' The Archbishop of Canterbury fully concurred, and the proclamation was issued accordingly. But the other day the merchants took alarm, and represented that, as the word 'fast' was omitted, the case would not come within the provisions of Masterman's Bill, and that bills of exchange, &c., would be payable on the day itself, and not the day before as provided by that Act, and that all sorts of confusion would arise. The Bank of England took the Solicitor General's opinion, who thought that such would be the law. A great difficulty arose, for time pressed. The Chancellor thought the case would stand, and was for taking the chance, but the Cabinet on Saturday decided that it would be safer to correct the error even thus late. Aberdeen went to the Queen and told her, and this afternoon there is to be a Council to turn the 'day of humiliation' into a 'fast day,' in order that 'merchants' bills may be presented on one day instead of another, and that banking operations may not be deranged. The ridicule this throws on the religious part of the question is obvious, and the effect it ought to have is to discontinue these preposterous observances, which all sensible people regard as a mockery and a delusion. But all this ought to have been provided for, and the law officers ought to have foreseen the consequences and advised accordingly. In Peel's time this never would have happened; but with a nominal Premier, a Home Secretary who will give himself no trouble about the details of his office, and an Attorney General who does nothing, knows nothing of law, and won't attend to anything, it is no wonder that such things and many others occur.
To return to the question of trading licences. When we went to war, the Government, I believe very wisely, resolved to relax belligerent rights and give all possible latitude to trade, with no more restrictions and reservations than were essentially necessary for carrying on the war. But this resolution involved a revolution of the old system and the necessity of completely constructing a new one, and as they long ago knew war was inevitable, they ought to have well considered all this, and framed their regulations before they issued their orders. But not a bit of this was done, and the consequence was a state of unparalleled confusion and embarrassment, applications from all sides, and hosts of petitions for leave to export goods of different descriptions. The Government at last set to work to deal with these cases, but in a very irregular, unbusinesslike way. Some two or three of them met in Committee at the Council Office, and with the help of Cardwell, President of the Board of Trade but not in the Cabinet, and Dr. Lushington, who has nothing to do with the Government, they have contrived to scramble through the business; but the laches and indifference of those who ought to be most concerned, and the loose way of proceeding, have been very striking. Some would not come at all, some came for a short time, different people attended on different days, so that different opinions prevailed, and no regular system was established. The other day, on Cardwell's saying these questions would be taken up as soon as Parliament met and Government called to account, I suggested to ---- that, such being the case, he ought to get Lord John Russell to attend the Committee. He said he would ask him, 'but John Russell could not bear details; he doubted if he would come, and, if he did, would be of no use, as he would be sure to go to sleep;' and this is the way business of the greatest importance is transacted.
[1] [On the outbreak of the war a Committee of Council was summoned to consider and frame divers Orders with reference to the prohibition of the export of military and naval stores, the detention of Russian ships, and questions of trade in Russian produce. Dr. Lushington, the judge of the Admiralty, was a member of this Committee, besides several Cabinet Ministers. The French Government proposed to revert to the old system of licences to trade with the enemy; but this proposal was not agreed to by Great Britain. The Russian trade was left open, except when stopped by blockade. Licences were issued by the Privy Council for the export of military and naval stores to neutral ports.]
DEATH OF THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEY.
May 3rd.—The death of Lord Anglesey, which took place a few days ago, has removed one of the last and the most conspicuous of the comrades of the Duke of Wellington, who all seem to be following their commander very rapidly. I have lived with Lord Anglesey for so many years in such intimacy, and have received from him such constant kindness, that I cannot pass over his death without a brief notice.