On ye 16th, the chief persons of ye Opposition dined at Ld. Grenville’s; Whitbread was not originally invited, but was so, at the particular request of Ld. Grey. Stahremberg[312] sent the whole of the correspondence between him and the Governt. which ended in the present rupture between them and his Court. Mr. Canning seems to have rejected the mediation of Austria in very unbecoming terms, and in his usual flippant manner; the whole will be made public. S.’s instructions are peremptory as to his quitting England before the meeting of Parlt. Bonaparte offered passports for two plenipos., hoped they would select men of ‘formes simples’ and of a ‘caractère impassible’; a glance against either Lds. Lauderdale or Malmesbury. S., in his private letters to Metternich, complained of Mr. Canning’s impetuosity, and misapprehension of several expressions. Whitbread, with malignity and in the most unprovoked manner, attacked Ld. Grey at dinner; all were disgusted at his rancorous spirit. It was unfortunate that such a wrangle should occur before Ld. Grenville upon the subject of peace, as he had only just been persuaded against seceding himself from the H. of Lords upon the precise subject of the question of peace, and the want of discipline and unanimity amongst the difft. parts of the Opposition.
18th.—Ld. H. dined at Ld. Stafford’s. We went to the Birthday.
19th.—The same party dined here as did at Ld. Grenville’s, with the addition of a few, and Ld. Erskine, nommément to prevent a recurrence of the unpleasant conversation between Whitbread and Grey.
I hear nothing but of Coleridge, which makes me regret not being acquainted with him. After having accepted, by way of recompense for three scurrilous letters against Mr. Fox which appeared in the Morning Post upon his residence at Paris, a Commissaryship at Malta, he is returned to England, where he is supposed to employ himself in writing articles in the Courier.[313] His nature is radically bad; he hates and envies all that are good and celebrated, and to gratify that spleen he has given in to Methodism, not from conviction, but solely to enable him to give vent to his malignity in a garb which is a passe partout. He is fond of maintaining paradoxes; at a dinner lately he began by attacking Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy, Bonaparte’s military talents, and Virgil as a poet. He is often obscure, a mystical species of platonic philosophy, which he dresses up according to his own metaphysical taste, and calls the mind. A new theory he descants upon at length, and in his exposition of it absorbs the whole conversation. I have heard of him from various persons; Campbell, the poet, furnished me with the latter particulars.
OPENING OF PARLIAMENT
The debate on the Address went off very triumphantly for the Opposition in the Lords, and, as far as the negative success of the failure of Ministers in making an impression, did so in the Commons. Ld. Grenville made a masterly speech in which he pressed strongly the atrocity of the Copenhagen business, the impolicy of their conduct with regard to the U. States, rather depreciated the prospect of the advantages of the emigration of the Portuguese to Brésil, and touched lightly upon peace. The novelty of the night was Ld. Kenyon,[314] who did not acquit himself formidably. Some considered Mr. G. Ponsonby’s speech as a complete failure, but more temperate judges say it was not so, and the accident of not moving the Amendment arose from a misapprehension of more protests than his alone. Mr. Canning appears to have assumed the lead, and by an endeavour to appear dignified he was heavy and obscure, instead of being, as formerly, pretty flippant. Perceval excelled him much, but the fair ones allow there was not a good speech made in the whole debate. Mr. C. professed that Governt. had laid down a rule, which was to act directly contrary to what they found had been the conduct of their predecessors, and hitherto they had not erred.
On Monday, the 1st of Feb., we moved to Pall Mall. I had been confined many days with a smart inflammation in my eyes.
On Wednesday, 3rd Feb., a long debate in the Commons on Mr. Ponsonby’s motion for further papers on the Danish Expedition.[315] Altho’ he had spoken before, yet this was considered as a debut; his friends were rather anxious, as his forte lies more in reply than in the opening of a business. However, he acquitted himself well, and people seem to be generally satisfied with him. He was answered by Mr. Canning in a speech remarkable chiefly from its length, and the abundance of gross untruths; he read extracts out of those very despatches he refused to give to the House, and in one instance (a dispatch of Ld. Howick’s to Mr. Garlike) read a sentence which, if he had read the context, would have given a different colour to the whole matter. He was very flippant and offensive, and showed neither more nor less ability than usual. Mr. Mills[316] [sic], his élève, was quite extinguished; it was the first occasion on which he had attempted to speak without previously writing his speech, so he is completely given up by all and laughed at by his own party. Ld. Palmerston’s maiden speech was not attended either with the bad or good qualities of a young beginner; he had practised in debating societies, and formed an unimpressive, bad manner. Some of Opposition who are for the expedition yet voted upon this question, but would not if it had been a vote against the Ministry for that measure. Upon the whole the effect of the debate was rather against Opposition.
Sick of, and indifferent to the measures of a hopeless Opposition, I have omitted noticing any occurrence.