A more gallant spirit, a finer gentleman, and a more honourable and kindhearted man never existed. His abilities were not of a very high order, but he had a good fair understanding, excellent intentions, and a character remarkably straightforward and sincere. In his youth he was notoriously vain and arrogant, as most of his family were, but as he advanced in age, his faults and foibles were diminished or softened, and his virtues and amiable disposition manifested themselves the more. He distinguished himself greatly in the command of the cavalry in Sir John Moore's retreat, but was not employed in the Duke's army during the subsequent years of the Peninsular war. In the Waterloo campaign he again commanded the cavalry, not, as was supposed, entirely to the Duke's satisfaction, who would have preferred Lord Combermere in that post. He lost a leg at the battle of Waterloo; for this wound Lord Anglesey was entitled to a very large pension, of which he never would take a shilling. He was a great friend of George IV., and exposed himself to unpopularity by taking the King's part in the Queen's trial; but their friendship came to an end when Lord Anglesey connected himself with the Whig party, and when he went to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant he deeply offended the King by his open advocacy of the Roman Catholic cause in 1829. The Duke of Wellington, then Minister and about to give up the Catholic question, quarrelled with Lord Anglesey and recalled him. For some years past they had not been on very friendly terms. Lord Anglesey was jealous of the Duke, and used to affect to disparage his capacity both as a general and a statesman, and this political difference completed their mutual estrangement. These hostile feelings did not, however, last long; Lord Anglesey had a generous disposition, and was too fair and true to do permanent injustice to the Duke. I do not know how the reconciliation between them was brought about, but their temporary alienation was succeeded by a firm and lasting friendship, and the most enthusiastic admiration and attachment entertained by Lord Anglesey towards the Duke. For many years before the death of the latter, the two old warriors were the most intimate friends and constant companions, and every vestige of their former differences and antipathies was effaced and had given way to warm sentiments of mutual regard. When the regiment of Guards became vacant, King William sent for Lord Anglesey and announced to him that he was to have it; he of course expressed his acknowledgements; but early the next morning he went to the King and said to him that he felt it his duty to represent to him that there was a man worthier than himself to have the regiment, that Lord Ludlow had lost his arm at their head, and that he could not bear to accept that to which Lord Ludlow was so justly entitled. This remonstrance, so unselfish and honourable, was accepted, and the regiment was conferred on Lord Ludlow.[1]
[1] [George James, 3rd Earl of Ludlow in the peerage of Ireland, and created a baron of the United Kingdom in 1831, was born December 12, 1758, and died April 16, 1842, when the titles became extinct. He served with distinction in the army, and was colonel of the 38th regiment of foot.]
A FINANCIAL FAILURE.
May 7th.—The failure of Gladstone's Exchequer Bill scheme has been very injurious to the Government, and particularly to him. The prodigious applause and admiration with which he was greeted last year have given way to distrust and apprehension of him as a finance minister, and the repeated failures of his different schemes have in a very short time materially damaged his reputation, and destroyed the prestige of his great abilities. All practical men in the City severely blame him for having exposed himself to the risk of failure, and reproach him with the folly of trying to make too good a bargain, and by so doing exposing himself to the defeat he has sustained. The consequences will not probably be serious, but the Government is weakened by it, and the diminution of public confidence in Gladstone is a public misfortune.
Next in importance to the financial difficulty is the Oxford Bill, with which Government have got into a mess, and they are struggling through the measure with doubtful and small majorities, having been beaten on an important point, and now quite uncertain if they shall be able to carry it. I fell in with Graham yesterday, and spoke to him about these things, when he replied that Gladstone's failure was very unfortunate, but he had no doubt he would make a great speech in his own defence on Monday night. With regard to Oxford, he said it was quite true that they could not depend on carrying the clauses of their bill, but that was because in the present state of the House 'they could not carry a turnpike bill,' they were absolutely without power, and 'it was a state of things that could not go on.'[1] Last night I had a talk with Charles Wood on the same subject, and he said that the truth was, a revolution had silently been effected. Parties were at an end, and the House of Commons was no longer divided into and governed by them; and that the predicament in which this Government is placed would be the same with every other, and business could no longer be conducted in Parliament in the way it used to be. All this is in my opinion quite true, and what has long struck me. Whether the extreme elasticity of our institutions, and the power of adaptation to circumstances which seems to pervade them, will enable us to find remedies and resources, and that the apparent derangement will right itself, remains to be seen. But it is a condition of affairs full of uncertainty, therefore of danger, and which makes me very uneasy whenever I think of it. It is evident that this Government is now backed by no great party, and that it has very few independent adherents on whom it can count. It scrambles on with casual support, and its continuing at all to exist is principally owing to the extreme difficulty of forming any other, and the certainty that no other that could be formed would be stronger or more secure, either more popular or more powerful.
[1] [Lord John Russell introduced a bill to make further provision for the good government of the University of Oxford and the colleges therein, which passed both Houses, with some amendments, in the course of the session.]
MR. GLADSTONE'S BUDGET.
May 7th.—It is scarcely a year ago that I was writing enthusiastic panegyrics on Gladstone, and describing him as the great ornament and support of the Government, and as the future Prime Minister. This was after the prodigious success of his first Budget and his able speeches, but a few months seem to have overturned all his power and authority. I hear nothing but complaints of his rashness and passion for experiments; and on all sides, from men, for example, like Tom Baring and Robarts, one a Tory, the other a Whig, that the City and the moneyed men have lost all confidence in him. To-morrow night he is to make his financial statement, and intense curiosity prevails to see how he will provide the ways and means for carrying on the war. Everybody expects that he will make an able speech; but brilliant speeches do not produce very great effect, and more anxiety is felt for the measures he will propose than for the dexterity and ingenuity he may display in proposing them. Parliament is ready to vote without grumbling any money that is asked for, and as yet public opinion has not begun to waver and complain; but we are only yet at the very beginning of this horrible mess, and people are still looking with eager interest to the successes they anticipate, and have not yet begun to feel the cost.
May 10th.—Gladstone made a great speech on Monday night. He spoke for nearly four hours, occupying the first half of the time in an elaborate and not unsuccessful defence of his former measures. His speech, which was certainly very able, was well received, and the Budget pronounced an honourable and creditable one. If he had chosen to sacrifice his conscientious convictions to popularity, he might have gained a great amount of the latter by proposing a loan, and no more taxes than would be necessary for the interest of it. I do not yet know whether his defence of his abortive schemes has satisfied the monetary critics. It was certainly very plausible, and will probably be sufficient for the uninformed and the half-informed, who cannot detect any fallacies which may lurk within it. He attacked some of his opponents with great severity, particularly Disraeli and Monteagle, but I doubt if this was prudent. He flung about his sarcasms upon smaller fry, and this certainly was not discreet. I think his speech has been of service to his financial character, and done a good deal towards the restoration of his credit.
May 12th.—Cowley called on me yesterday, when we talked over the war with all its etceteras. He said the Emperor had been most reluctant to go into it, but was now firmly resolved to pursue it vigorously, and not to desist till he had obtained fair terms of peace; above all things he is bent on going on with us in unbroken amity. Cowley thinks his political position as secure as any position can be in France, and certainly the country seems satisfied with his rule. His social position is unimproved and rather worse; his marriage was a fatal measure; he would have done far better if he could have married the Hohenlohe girl, who was dying to be Empress, and Cowley thinks the Queen was wrong to prevent the match. In that case the Court might have been very different. In the beginning, after his marriage, he attempted to purify it as well as he could, and to get rid of all the disreputable women about it; but by degrees they have all come back again, and now they are more encanaill?es than ever.