Monday, 1st January.— ... The Duke of Sutherland told me the other night, that Lord Melbourne’s mother (whom he knew) was a very agreeable, sensible, clever woman, and that Lord Melbourne was very like her as to features; Lady Melbourne was very large latterly. Lord Melbourne’s father, on the contrary, the Duke said, was very far from agreeable or clever; he was a short fat man and not like any of his children. He died at the age of 80. The Duchess of Sutherland spoke to me last night about Lady Caroline Lamb,[364] Lord Melbourne’s wife; she was Lord Duncannon’s only sister, and the strangest person that ever lived, really half crazy, and quite so when she died; she was not good-looking, but very clever, and could be very amusing. She teazed that excellent Lord Melbourne in every way, dreadfully, and quite embittered his life, which it ought to have been her pride to study to render a happy one; he was the kindest of husbands to her, and bore it most admirably; any other man would have separated from such a wife. He has now the greatest horror of any woman who is in any way eccentric or extravagant, which shows how very much he must have suffered from such a wife. The Duchess told me the strangest stories about her....
Tuesday, 2nd January.— ... I rode a new horse, a most delightful creature, called Tartar; he is taller than Barbara, excessively pretty, and of a very dark brown colour; he has a very springy charming canter and action, is full of spirit, and yet as quiet as a lamb, never shies and is the best-tempered creature possible; to crown all these valuable qualities, Tartar is exceedingly sure-footed. It was a delightful ride and we cantered a great deal coming home; the roads were so dirty that my habit was quite heavy with mud. Changed my dress and walked out with Lady Mulgrave and Lehzen and came home at ½ p. 3. Read Despatches from Canada which are very interesting....
Thursday, 4th January.— ... At ½ p. 5 came my excellent, kind friend, Lord Melbourne, whom I was quite delighted to see again after such a long absence, the longest that has taken place since I came to the Throne. I thought him in very good spirits, and looking well, though pale, and as kind, amiable and mild as ever; never do I find any difference in this excellent man, may he be very tired, or not tired, he is always equally kind and gentle, though he may at times be low. I was agreeably surprised to find him in good spirits, for from his letters and all the troubles and difficulties he has had of late, I feared it might not be so. He spoke to me first a good deal about Canada; said they were all agreed as to what was to be done, namely to repeal a Statute (which, I cannot say), and for the present, govern as Canada had been governed before; but that Lord Howick was of a different opinion and thought that these strong measures ought to be accompanied by conciliatory measures, which Lord Melbourne said would not answer the purpose and have a bad effect; Lord Howick, he said, was excessively eager about this, for various reasons which Lord Melbourne explained to me; “if Lord Howick was to resign,” he added, “I do not think that would affect the Government; it would be a bad thing for there is a good deal of strength in him.” The other question, about the Army, he considered a more difficult one; the five Ministers who signed the Report relative to the changes meditated in the office of the Secretary of War, are, Lord John Russell, Lord Howick, Lord Palmerston, Sir J. Hobhouse, and Mr. Spring Rice. Lord Howick and Lord John, he said, are the only two who are eager about it; the others he believed signed it reluctantly, particularly Mr. Rice. We spoke a good deal about this difficult question; there is, in my opinion, a good deal for and a good deal against it. It is, as Lord Melbourne says, creating a new Minister with new powers, by giving the Secretary at War great power over the Army. There have been, as Lord Melbourne says, great abuses which it would be desirable to remedy. Spoke about the Troops to be sent to Canada; about Mr. Rice’s wish to take the Chair; about his reasons for doing so; how to replace him; about the present Speaker; about the quarrel in Belgium relative to the cutting of timber in the Grünewald; about the King of Hanover’s foolish proceedings; how they are viewed in Germany; about some despatches from Sir Frederick Lamb,[365] saying that Metternich was much displeased at the expulsion of the Archbishop of Cologne, at the manner of doing it, and at the impolicy of the act. Lord Melbourne said he had dined once or twice at Lord Holland’s[366] since I had seen him. I was quite happy to talk to him again, as there were many subjects on which I wanted explanation and he explains so well and so clearly and agreeably.... My good Lord Melbourne led me in and I sat between him and Lord Torrington. He (Ld. M.) spoke to me about many things; about riding and horses; about bad ears for Music; said that everybody would suppose from Scott’s writings that he was very fond of and understood music very well; whereas Lord Melbourne said, he said: “In music I don’t know high from low!”...
Tuesday, 9th January.— ... At 22 m. to 12 came my excellent Lord Melbourne and stayed with me till 27 m. p. 12. He had informed me by a note in the morning, that he should be obliged to go to London which I am extremely sorry for; Lord Glenelg wrote to him wishing to see him, and both he and Lord Glenelg were to see Lord Durham at four about this Canadian business. I shall say more of this hereafter. Lord Melbourne said: “It will be a long interview, I dare say; probably last 2 hours, and there would be no time to be back,”—meaning for dinner tonight, so he will only come back at 4 tomorrow; I am very sorry to lose him even for one night. Spoke a good while about this. Spoke about this army business, upon which Lord Melbourne will see Lord Howick. He said, “It would be madness to propose at this moment a complete change in the Administration of the Army, when we have got all these affairs of Canada.” He spoke of this a good deal; and seemed to hope Lord Howick would give it up; he said the others would be ready to do so if he did.... Though I think Lord Duncannon agreeable and amusing, I cannot find in him or in any of the other Ministers, that kindness, mildness, and open frankness, and agreeability (to use a word of Lady Mary Stopford’s) which I find in my kind friend Lord Melbourne; he alone inspires me with that feeling of great confidence and I may say security, for I feel so safe when he speaks to me and is with me; what he says is all so kind and good, and he never says anything which could alarm or hurt me. But I should not wish to be on the same confidential footing with any of my other Ministers as I am with this truly excellent friend....
Wednesday, 10th January.— ... Lord Melbourne said that he had seen Lord Durham who seemed very much inclined to accept the Proposition of going to Canada; he (Ld. D.) was not quite satisfied with all the plans proposed by Government, and particularly with a Council of 17, which he said was too many; that he could not manage more than 4 or 5. Lord Durham requires, Lord Melbourne added, a large outfit, as he would not spend any of his private fortune; and he would not go till the Navigation was open. Lord Melbourne then told me that he had seen Lord Howick who seemed “disposed to reconsider” the question of the army, and said he would not press parts of it, and would give way on some points. This is a great satisfaction and I think Lord Melbourne seemed quite happy about it....
Wednesday, 17th January.— ... My excellent Lord Melbourne led me in, and I sat between him and Lord Glenelg. Lord Melbourne said he was, and I was happy to see he looked, better. He said, as he led me in, that the Majority in the House of Commons of the night before was very favourable. He spoke to me about Greece; said he had heard from his brother that they were very uneasy at Vienna about the state of Greece; said that the only person who showed any sense or character there was the Queen of Greece,[367] but that she was very young and was placed in rather a rougher situation than suited her; that the Archduke John[368] had told Sir Frederic (on his return from Greece) “that she was like a Brazillian Paraquite in a wood of firs covered with snow,” meaning that she was in a position not suited to her; I said to Lord Melbourne that I had heard in the Summer that there were hopes of there being an heir in some time; he said, “I am afraid not.” He told me that the Archduke John had likewise told his brother that the Emperor of Russia[369] was beginning to sink under the immense weight and fatigue of governing such an empire as Russia; we spoke about him some time; and also a good deal about the Austrian Royal Family; Lord Melbourne told me that the Emperor of Austria[370] was worse, and hardly able to do anything; but, that as his mental faculties decreased, his bodily strength increased. Spoke of Aunt Louise; of the Queen of Portugal; of Clementine, Augustus, &c., of Feodore, her happiness, her not being rich; he spoke of the poverty of the younger branches in high families in England, and of their being often obliged to gain their livelihood in inferior situations; he said that he thought his nephew Lord Cowper was cleverer and had “a sounder understanding” than William Cowper.... Spoke about Shakespear’s plays; Hamlet, Macbeth, Lear, &c., &c.; he thinks the 2 first named the finest; he said: “I think the German critics understand Shakespear better than we do here”; mentioned Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister, and Schlegel’s book upon Shakespear, which he thinks very good; he knew, or at least saw, Schlegel here; he knew Mme. de Staël; spoke of her, of her daughter, the Duchess de Broglie; spoke of actresses; of their marrying out of their sphere; of its often not answering; of Lady Harrington,[371] Lady Craven[372] (the Dowager), Lady Derby (the late),[373] Mrs. Butler; of marriages in general, and most cleverly and sensibly; of their often being broken off—the reasons why. Lord Melbourne said, “Why, you see, a gentleman hardly knows a girl till he has proposed, and then when he has an unrestrained intercourse with her he sees something and says, ‘This I don’t quite like....’”
Friday, 19th January.— ... The cold increases, the snow is getting deep, and I hear the Thames is frozen over very nearly, which has not happened since 1814. At ½ p. 1 came my excellent friend Lord Melbourne and stayed with me till 3. He looked well, I was very happy to see, and said he was not at all tired. He said that they had got through this Canada business very well; that Lord Brougham made a good though very violent speech; that the Duke of Wellington’s was very fair; in fact very friendly; that he (Lord Melbourne) thought the only difficult part to defend was the not having sent more troops; “but,” he added, “there the Duke of Wellington came to our assistance, and said there were not too few troops.” Spoke about Canada for some time.... In speaking of the Duke of Wellington he said: “He has no oratorical powers; he attempts no ornament, but speaks generally very much to the point; he cannot always express what he feels and understands.” He added that people sometimes who were great in action could not express well in words what they meant and conceived; spoke of all the Duke’s family, and said he thought the Duke was the cleverest; asked me if I had ever read the Duke’s Despatches, and said they were worth looking at, to see the way he did them.... Lord Melbourne told me, in speaking of the Duke of Wellington, “His people are very angry with him; they think he is leaving them.” How wrong of these people! I told Lord Melbourne what my Uncle Leopold had written to me about him (Ld M.), which seemed to please him. Talked of other things. Talked for some time with him and Lord Palmerston, about education, punishments, &c., Lord Melbourne was amazingly funny and amusing about this. I said I thought solitary confinement a good punishment: Lord Melbourne replied, “I think it’s a very stupefying punishment.” I mentioned the system of silence as a very good one and quoted myself as a proof of its having answered, which made them laugh very much. Lord Melbourne said, “It may do very well with a lively child; but with one of a sulky, grumpy disposition it would not answer....” I said I thought it cruel to punish children by depriving them of their meals and saying they should go without their supper, &c. Lord Melbourne replied, “Why, when I was a child, they had contrived to annoy me so, and had made me cry so much, that I had lost all appetite.”
Saturday, 20th January.— ... At ½ p. 12 Lord Glenelg presented Lord Durham to me on his appointment; Lord Glenelg then left the room and Lord Durham remained with me for about ½ an hour, I should say. He spoke entirely about Canada which subject he seems to understand thoroughly; said he considered the task he was about to undertake, a most difficult one; and he might not succeed; but that he would do his utmost to restore tranquillity in Canada; said he wished to have my authority, when the rebellion was quelled, to conciliate these deluded people and to hold out mercy to them. He spoke at much length about all this,—about what he intended to do,—the difficulty of the task, &c., &c. At ½ p. 1 came Lord Melbourne and stayed with me till 20 m. p. 2. He seemed well. He said, “I am sorry to say I received a letter from Lord Howick this morning and that he makes a great demur about this Army affair.” Lord Melbourne then added that as it was such a difficult question and as it could be done “as it were by one blow,” and as the Army disliked it so much and altogether it was such a bad time for it, and he thought it such a difficult question, that he could not give way to him upon it, and could not advise me to do it; he added he would not mind it near so much if it were brought before Parliament and there fairly discussed, for then if it passed, it would be done by the authority of Parliament; but in this way, it was so entirely to be done by me, as it were, that he really could not agree to it; moreover that if even it were a very good thing in itself (which he does not think it), this would not be the moment for doing it; none of the other Ministers he thought were eager for it; but if it were proposed in the Cabinet and carried by a majority against Lord Howick, he (Ld. H.) might resign (which Lord M. says would be a bad thing, but would not affect the Government), and Lord Melbourne did not know what Lord John Russell might then do, if Lord Howick held out on it; which would then affect the Government. I told Lord Melbourne that if it could be of any use, he might say that I quite agreed with him (Lord Melbourne) and that he might rely upon me; which assurance pleased him, though I think he must long be aware of my firm resolution to support this kind and true friend of mine, as he truly and really is, in every way.... Got a few lines (when I went to my room) from Lord Melbourne (I generally hear from him and write to him every day, and very often two or three times a day), in which he said that great difference had prevailed and did prevail in the Cabinet respecting the Details about Canada. A Cabinet had been held immediately after he left me. I am very sorry to hear this.
Sunday, 21st January.— ... After dinner before we sat down, I talked to Lord Melbourne about some important things; I asked him the cause of the differences in the Cabinet; he said that he wished, and also most of the others, that the Legislative Council in Canada should be chosen from those which composed the present Legislative Assembly,—whereas Lord Howick and some others wished the Council should be chosen from the Country at large, and not from the Assembly; Lord Melbourne was against this and for this reason; we should probably lose by such an Election many of the English party, now in the Legislative Assembly, and get a good many of the French party who would be hostile to us; and consequently diminish our influence; none of the other Ministers were as obstinately for this as Lord Howick—but he at length gave way.... He was very funny about a word which Lady Mary gave me to find out; she gave me the ivory letters and I was to find out the word; she gave me “thermometer,” and she spelt it with an “a” instead of an “e,” and laughed very much at her bad spelling; upon which Lord Melbourne said, “It is a very good way to spell it, but not the way,” which made us laugh. I said to him I was reading the first novel I had ever read—The Bride of Lammermoor; he said it was a very melancholy—a terrible story—but admires it; he mentioned Old Mortality, Quentin Durward, The Fair Maid of Perth, and Kenilworth, as Scott’s best novels; he said there was “a great deal of good” and “a great deal of bad” in his novels; said he admired his poems very much, though most people said his novels were greatly superior in their way to his poems; spoke of Richard Cœur de Lion whom we both rather admire; of Henry IV. and Sully; Lord Melbourne said that Sully was a clever and good man, and greatly superior to those Ministers who followed him; Richelieu and Mazarin; “They were shocking fellows,” he added....
Tuesday, 23rd January.— ... He spoke of what had just taken place in Canada; said Sir John Colborne[374] was an excellent officer. “A good officer,” he added, “can generally effect with a small force, what a bad officer with a large force would fail in.” Spoke about this question of the Army. Said that Lord Francis Egerton[375] had said in the House, “That the troops had done remarkably well and that he hoped nothing would be done to tamper with the management of the Army,” evidently alluding, Lord Melbourne observed, to the intended changes in the Army. I told Lord Melbourne that Lord Adolphus Fitzclarence, on being told that I would continue to him and his brothers and sisters the same annual allowance they enjoyed from the late King, burst into tears, and said it was unexpected, for they did not dare to hope for anything....