Frederick Cadogan came over from Paris the other day, and told Clarendon that Cowley was in very bad spirits about the aspect of foreign affairs, that all intimacy and confidence between the Emperor and him was at an end, and that it was more and more evident that His Majesty meant to follow his own devices, whatever they might be, without reference to anybody, or caring for the opposition or the assent of any other Powers.
The Garibaldi expedition is supposed to have given great umbrage to France, but not without some suspicions that secretly she is not sorry for it, and thinks in its complications she may find matter to turn to her own account. Everybody believes that Cavour has covertly connived at it, though he pretends to oppose it. Certainly no resolute attempts were made to obstruct the expedition by the Sardinian Government, and none whatever by France, who, if she really cared to stop it, might easily have done so by sending ships from Toulon for the purpose.
Talking of Neapolitan affairs, Pahlen told me yesterday an almost incredible anecdote, but of which he said there was no doubt of the truth. There is just arrived a new Neapolitan Minister, Count Ludolph, grandson of the Ludolph who was formerly here. He has replaced the former Minister, who by his own desire was recently recalled, and he had begged for his recall because he had been grossly insulted by Palmerston at the Queen's Drawing Room, his story being that in that room, in the Queen's presence (who was of course out of hearing), Palmerston had attacked him on the proceedings of his Government and the conduct of the King, telling him that a revolution would probably be the consequence thereof, which would be nothing more than they deserved, and which would be seen in this country with universal satisfaction. The man was so flabbergasted by this unexpected and monstrous sortie that he had not presence of mind to make a suitable answer, and to riposter with the spirit which the occasion required of him. I must endeavour to find out if this is true. Palmerston has always been noted for the vivacity and often acerbity of his language in despatches, but in oral communications and in speeches he has never been reproached with intemperance or incivility, but, on the contrary, has always evinced self-control and gentlemanlike and polite behaviour and language.
May 28th.—Epsom engaged all my attention last week, and I could not find time to notice the debate in the Lords on the Paper Duties, and the extraordinary majority, so much greater than anybody expected. Lyndhurst undertook to speak on the constitutional part of the question, and got leave to speak early (between Granville and Monteagle) that he might go home to celebrate his birthday, which fell on that day, when he completed his eighty-eighth year. He made a very good speech, and met with an enthusiastic reception. Lady Palmerston was in the gallery, openly expressing her wishes that the Bill might be rejected by a large majority. Her language on this and other occasions so shocked some of the more zealous Whigs, that the Duke of Bedford was asked by one or more of them to remonstrate with her on the way she talked, but she knows very well that Palmerston is of the same mind, though he cannot avow his real sentiments in the way she does. Palmerston said to Gladstone, 'Of course you are mortified and disappointed, but your disappointment is nothing to mine, who had a horse with whom I hoped to win the Derby, and he went amiss at the last moment.' The affair has gone off very quietly, the House of Commons not being the least disposed to quarrel with the Lords about it. Even John Russell, who had talked very absurdly, held moderate and prudent language in the House.[1]
[1] [A Bill for abolishing the duty on paper was carried in the House of Commons on March 12 by a majority of 245 to 192. It was rejected on May 21 by the House of Lords by a majority of 193 to 104. The dispute was eventually settled by a resolution for removing so much of the duty on paper as exceeded the Excise duty at home.]
REFORM BILL WITHDRAWN.
June 15th.—At Ascot last week. Palmerston was there, and went up to town on Thursday (going reluctantly) to assist at the withdrawal by John Russell of the Reform Bill. There was a Cabinet the preceding day, at which Palmerston said, 'We must now settle what is to be done about the Reform Bill.' John Russell said, 'I know what my opinion is, and if anybody wishes to hear it I am ready to give it.' They all said they did wish it, when he announced that he thought it ought to be withdrawn. Everybody agreed except Gladstone, who made a long speech in favour of going on with it, which nobody replied to, and there it ended. A discussion took place as to what should be said, and strong opinions expressed that nothing but moderate language should be employed, which John Russell agreed to, and he acted up to it by making a very becoming speech, which would have been faultless if he had not announced another Reform Bill on the earliest possible occasion. This, too, he did entirely off his own bat, and without any consultation or agreement with his colleagues. Fortunately these announcements are no longer so important or so binding as heretofore, and I think it probable, unless there is some great change in public opinion (which is not likely), that when the time draws near Palmerston and a majority of the Cabinet will not consent to a fresh attempt.
July 8th.—I have been so ill till within the last few days that I have not had energy enough to do anything. I have known but little, and that little I could not bring myself to write down here. In fact, it is high time that I should close these records once for all, which I am morally and physically incapable of continuing with any probability of making them interesting. It is not very consistent with this opinion to fill a page or two with the recent transaction in the House of Commons, with reference to the duty on paper. Everybody allows that Palmerston got out of his difficulty with consummate tact and discretion, and that Gladstone's conduct was inexcusable. The Resolutions concocted by Palmerston had been fully discussed and agreed to in the Cabinet (reluctantly of course by Gladstone), and Palmerston's speech was received with general approbation in the House. It was excellent, fair and moderate, the argument logically consistent with the Resolutions, but displeasing to Gladstone and the highflyers because it made a sort of excuse for the Lords, or rather it set forth the grounds on which the Lords might think themselves justified in acting as they did, without having any of the motives and designs which the Gladstones and Brights attributed to them. All this elicited great applause from the Opposition side of the House, and their cheers were very offensive to and grated on the ears of the ultra-Liberals. Everything would have ended quietly, and the Resolutions would have passed without a debate, but Gladstone could not stand it, and, urged by spite and mortification, he must needs get up and make a most violent speech, really, though not avowedly, in opposition to Palmerston, and with the object of provoking a long and acrimonious debate. In this he only partially succeeded, and not for long. The debate lasted one night more, but nothing could be made of the Amendments. Palmerston kept his temper and displayed great firmness and resolution. The House was with him. Bright, partly from being very unwell, and probably partly from some discretion, made a moderate speech; everybody seemed determined to bring the matter to an end, and the Resolutions were very triumphantly carried. Granville told me yesterday morning that it was a toss up whether Gladstone resigned or not, and that if he did, it would break up the Liberal party, to which I replied that I was confident he would not resign, and if he did, it would have no effect on the bulk of the Liberal party.
RADICAL ELEMENT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
July 17th.—I met Charles Villiers at dinner at the Travellers' last night and had some talk with him, particularly about Gladstone. He thinks it far better that he should not resign, as he could, and probably would, be very mischievous out of office. He says people do not know the House of Commons, and are little aware that there is an obscure but important element in it of a Radical complexion, and that there are sixty or seventy people who would constitute themselves followers of Gladstone, and urge him on to every sort of mischief. They are already doing all they can to flatter and cajole him, and once out of office, his great talents and oratorical powers would make him courted by all parties, even the Tories, who would each and all be very glad to enlist him in their service. It is impossible to calculate on the course of a man so variable and impulsive, but at present it looks as if he had made up his mind to swallow his mortifications and disappointments and to go on with his present colleagues, though Charles Villiers says he is very dejected and uneasy in his mind, and very gloomy in the Cabinet.