I told Granville that all that was now happening only served to confirm my original opinion, that they were wrong in resigning, and that there was no occasion for their doing so, and they now saw how difficult it was, when they had let this Government in, to get them out again, and he not only had not a word to say in reply, but all he did was rather indicative of concurrence in my opinion. In the most palmy days of party government, and when the old traditions with regard to the relations of Government with the House of Commons were in full force, it was not considered as an invariable and unavoidable necessity that a Government when beaten on an important question must go out. I recollect the Government of the day in 1815 being beaten on the Income Tax, without therefore resigning, and it is so obvious that the vote on the French despatch did not imply any general withdrawal of confidence and support, that I never shall believe they would have resigned as they did unless they had thought they should gain more strength and power by doing so without losing their places, and consequently that they were caught in a trap of their own setting.
MR. DISRAELI'S BUDGET.
April 24th.—The events of the past week have been Disraeli's Budget, which has been received with favour and excited no opposition in any quarter, and the withdrawal of the Government India Bill, which was done by Disraeli, rather unwillingly; but their maxim seems to be 'anything for a quiet life,' and they agree to whatever is proposed or opposed in any influential quarter. The general notion is that they are safe for this session, but it is a very inglorious safety. It now appears as if they would scramble and hobble on until the whole Liberal party is reunited, and a reconciliation effected between Palmerston and John Russell, to bring about which it is clear that much exertion is being made.
While I was at Newmarket this week I had several letters from the Duke of Bedford, all bearing upon this matter. He writes on the 16th: 'I hear that the feeling against John has been very strong and that lies have been told as usual. It is said that he has been in communication with Derby indirectly, through Lady Derby, and that he wrote to Disraeli. If he did, it was only on a matter of ordinary courtesy, to ask him to postpone the second reading of the India Bill, to give time for a different course which he intended to suggest and did the first day the House met. John has been left by circumstances or by his old colleagues to pursue his own independent course, and ought not to be found fault with, if he pursued that course, as he did in this instance, after conferring with the friends I named to you, and receiving their approval. No doubt his move was very successful to the Government, and helped them out of an enormous difficulty, but I can see no harm in that.' There was a great deal more about the communications between Lord John and George Lewis, which now only signifies as demonstrating the extreme difficulty of getting at the truth. It is evident that there is a great desire on the part of the Whigs to bring about a reunion with Lord John and those who follow him, in order to get the Government out, for which the rant and file are getting more and more impatient. Lewis told me last night that they are holding constant Cabinets, which always ended with the same resolution, not to do anything, or to make any serious attack; and they have made up their minds to acquiesce in Derby's going on through this session; but nothing can exceed the contempt and aversion with which Lewis speaks of the Government and of all their proceedings, certainly not without reason, for there is no example of any Government consenting to hold office on terms so humiliating, and to such a powerless existence. They dare not originate anything, and they submit to everything that anybody proposes or suggests, having seemingly no object but that of currying favour, and avoiding to give offence. The way in which Disraeli withdrew his India Bill upon a few words spoken by John Russell is a curious exemplification of their forlorn state.
Lord Cowley, whom I saw yesterday, is desirous, like everybody else, to see the end of this feeble rule; but he thinks Palmerston's disposition is very unbending, and doubts his and Lord John's being brought together, notwithstanding that Lady Palmerston tells the Duke of Bedford that Palmerston 'has a great affection for John.' Cowley talked a great deal about French affairs and the state of things between the two countries, and he expressed great apprehensions lest Malmesbury should make too many concessions to the French Government,[1] which, however, he meant to prevent if he could. He mentioned one or two odd things. First of all he told me that he had foreseen all the effects produced by the Walewski letter, and had done all he could to prevent its being sent, and he was amazed at Clarendon having taken it so quietly, and that he should have seen no impropriety or danger in it, but on the contrary thought it would do good. Then with regard to Walewski's other letter in reply to Malmesbury, which, objectionable as it was, had been greatly softened from the original draft, had it been despatched as at first composed by Walewski, he said it would have raised an inextinguishable flame here. Cowley said that the Emperor's nerves were shaken to pieces by the attentat, and he was greatly changed.
[1] [The publication of Lord Malmesbury's autobiography has proved that he was not at all disposed to make any undue concessions to the French Government, and that he acted as long as this Administration lasted in strict union with Lord Cowley. The Emperor Napoleon complained that his old friend assumed too stern an attitude towards France in the course of the events which followed in the next few months and led to the Italian War.]
DECADENCE OF THE MINISTRY.
April 29th.—Every day the position of the Government gets worse and worse. The disposition there was to give them a fair opportunity of carrying on public affairs as well as they could has given way to disgust and contempt at their blundering and stupidity, and those who have all along resented their attempt to hold office at all are becoming more impatient and more anxious to turn them out. There is a very temperate, but very just, article in the 'Times' to-day, which contains all that is to be said on the subject, stated without bitterness or exaggeration. The Whigs, however, seem aware that it is not expedient to push matters to extremity, and to force their resignation, until the quarrels of the Liberal party are made up, and till Palmerston and John Russell are brought together and prepared to join in taking office, and to effect this object the most strenuous efforts are making. What the pacificators aim at is, that Palmerston should go as Premier to the House of Lords, and leave Lord John to lead the House of Commons. This is the most reasonable compromise, and one which ought to be satisfactory to both; but even if this leading condition were agreed to, it is not certain that there might not be others presenting great obstacles to the union, such as whether Lord John would agree to join without bringing a certain number of men with him, and whether Palmerston would consent to exclude so many of his former Cabinet to make room for them. Graham, Lord John would, I suppose, certainly insist upon; Gladstone would probably be no party to any arrangement, and he has recently evinced his extreme antipathy to Palmerston by a bitter though able review in the 'Quarterly' on France and the late Ministry, in which he attacks Palmerston with extraordinary asperity.
Ever since he resigned Palmerston has been very active in the House of Commons, and kept himself constantly before the public, evidently with the object of recovering his former popularity as much as possible, and he made a very clever and lively speech two nights ago, which his friends praise up to the skies.
I met Derby in the Park yesterday, and soon after the Chancellor in Piccadilly, and had some talk with both of them. They were neither of them in a very sanguine mood, and apparently well aware of the precariousness of their position. Derby attributed the state of affairs, which he owned was very bad, to the caprice and perverseness of the House of Commons, which he said was unmanageable. I did not, as I might have done, tell him that he had no right to complain of this House, and that it was the mismanagement of his own colleagues which was the cause of the evil. Lyndhurst made an extraordinary speech on the Jew Bill on Tuesday night.