Wednesday, 24th January.— ... Lady Falkland,[376] whom I had not yet seen, was of course presented to me by Lady Portman.[377] I (as usual to all Peeresses and Ladies by courtesy) wished to kiss her, but she insisted on kissing my hand first and then only received her kiss from me.... I observed to Lord Melbourne that it must be a great trial for poor Lady Falkland dining here.... Lady Falkland must have felt very low, and it must have been a sad trial for her to see me for the 1st time in the place of her poor father, but she behaved uncommonly well; she is a very nice person. She looked pale and thin, but still very pretty. I sat on the sofa with her; Lord Melbourne sitting near me the whole evening; and all the other ladies sitting round the table. Spoke with Lord Melbourne about Lady Falkland &c. Asked him what he thought was the best History of the last 60 or 70 years. He said there was no History of that time only, but that it must be got from different books; that the Annual Register was as good a book as any, if I wanted to look for any particular event in any one year. That the beginning was written by Burke, and followed up by Dr. Laurence &c. Said that being written at the time, it was tinctured with party spirit. He said Adolphus’s History of George III. was curious as he had got a good deal of information, and that the anecdotes told in it were true, though the names of the people were sometimes wrong. Said that Hume’s History of England was undoubtedly the best, in spite of his party prejudices, and that he thought I would like it much better now than when I read it before. Spoke of Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion (which I told him I had read), which he thought curious, but likes his (Clarendon’s) Memoirs better. Spoke of Mrs. Hutchinson’s book, said I had been reading it; he thinks that “a nice book” and “very curious”; he knew the Editor of it; spoke of Charles the First, whom I thought much to blame.... Spoke of Sismondi, whom he thinks a dull writer; he recommends Barante’s History of the House of Burgundy; and Daru’s History of Venice; spoke of Voltaire’s Histories; of O’Driscol’s Ireland which he likes and whom he knew; of Scott’s History of Scotland which he has not read, &c. &c....
Thursday, 25th January.— ... At ½ p. 3 came my excellent Lord Melbourne and stayed with me till ½ p. 4. He said, “I think we have patched this up,” meaning the affair about the bill relating to Canada. “We mean to stand by the bill,” he added, “and take our chance of a division.” Lord John, he said, was very much for leaving the Preamble out, and was not at all pleased at being obliged to stand by it; and Lord Melbourne said it was a bad thing “to force a man to do what he dislikes when he has a principal part to act in it,” which is very true. He added something more about Canada and what was meant to be done, if they were beat about this clause. He said that Lord Howick’s great violence irritated the others on the other side (in the Cabinet); Mr. Thomson was very eager against Lord Howick’s ideas about Canada. I asked him if Mr. Poulett Thomson was eager; he replied that he was, but that he could control himself, which Lord Howick could not, and was excessively cross, and kept saying he would resign and would not be party to this and that, which offended the others.... Spoke of Sir Robert Peel, who I observed I thought was more eager than the Duke of Wellington. Lord Melbourne replied he was not acquainted with Sir Robert Peel’s character, could not judge of his feelings, did “not know if he was desirous of office or not.” Said he believed that his (the Duke’s) party were very angry with him for what he had said in the House of Lords, and therefore that Sir Robert was obliged to be more violent in order to keep his party together. “This I believe to be the truth,” Lord Melbourne observed....
Friday, 26th January.— ... He told me that they had settled the matter about Canada. “We have settled to leave out the Preamble; Lord Howick has given way, and owned he was in the wrong.” He added: “It will be a triumph to the other party, but I don’t much mind that.” I said that I was surprised Lord Howick had given way. Lord Melbourne replied: “He is not devoid of candour,” but that his opinions were so very strong that he did not feel able to “surrender them.” Said that Sir Robert Peel had justly observed that: “what was the necessity of asking Parliament about what they were going to do”; “we don’t mean to oppose you; we won’t fetter you.” “Why therefore ask our approbation of what you are going to do?” “Act like any other Ministers and then afterwards we will approve or disapprove what has been done.”[378] “Now,” Lord Melbourne said, “this is almost unanswerable.” He is the fairest person about his opponents I ever knew; so frank, so noble! so candid!... Spoke of the Combinations of the workmen in Scotland and Ireland and England, which he says are quite frightful. This led him to speak of servants, of their combinations with tradespeople, their being bribed, &c. He observed how disagreeable it was to recommend tradespeople or servants; he said that his coachmaker had come to him this morning and begged him to write a letter to the Bishop of Ely to recommend him to him. “Very well,” said Lord Melbourne, “I will write a letter if you wish which I will show you.” “So I wrote to the Bishop of Ely,” continued Lord Melbourne; “‘My dear Lord,—Mr. Robson has been my coachmaker for many years, and I believe him to be a very good one, but so he ought, for I must say he is a very dear one.’ ‘Now,’ I said to the man, ‘here is the letter, you may read it if you like....’” At 7 I went to Drury Lane with the Duchess of Sutherland, Lady Portman, Miss Cavendish, Lady Mary Stopford, Lord Conyngham, Lord Headfort, and Col. Buckley (who this day replaced Col. Grey). It was Shakespear’s tragedy of Hamlet, and we came in at the beginning of it. Mr. Charles Kean (son of old Kean) acted the part of Hamlet and I must say beautifully. His conception of this very difficult and I may almost say incomprehensible character, is admirable; his delivery of all the fine long speeches quite beautiful; he is excessively graceful and all his actions and attitudes are good, though not at all good-looking in face; the two finest scenes I thought were the Play-scene, which he acts, they say, quite differently to any other actor who has performed Hamlet; and the scene with his mother, the Queen; it was quite beautiful when he rushed out after having killed Polonius, exclaiming, “Is it the King?” He fights uncommonly well too. All the other characters were very badly acted. I came away just as Hamlet was over. They would recognise me between the 2nd and 3rd acts,—I was compelled to come forward, curtsey, and hear “God save the Queen” sung. The house was amazingly crowded and they received me admirably. Came home at ½ p. 10.
Saturday, 27th January.— ... Told Lord M. I had been much pleased with Hamlet last night; observed it was a very hard play to understand, which he agreed in; he said he thought the end of it “awkward” and horrid; said he thought Hamlet was supposed to be mad, of a philosophical mind, and urged to do something which he did not like to do. He added that Mr. Fox always said that Hamlet possessed more of Shakespear’s faults than almost any other play of Shakespear, &c., &c.—Saw Lord Palmerston who introduced Baron Munchausen, Minister from the Court of Hanover.... I told Ld. M. of my last recollection of Baron Munchausen,[379] namely, my giving him a commission to send me some wax dolls from Berlin, which made Lord Melbourne laugh excessively. He spoke of children’s love for dolls, and that they sometimes think they are alive. Spoke of my former great love for dolls....[380] After dinner, talked (before I sat down) with all the gentlemen, &c. Spoke about Kean with Lord Melbourne; about Landseer and the sketches which Lord Melbourne saw and none of which he “thought like,” he said, though very clever.... Lord Melbourne said that Richard III. by Shakespear was a very fine play; I observed that Richard was a very bad man; Lord Melbourne also thinks he was a horrid man; he believes him to have been deformed (which some people deny), and thinks “there is no doubt that he murdered those two young Princes.” I was delighted to hear Lord Melbourne say he thought Henry 7th a very bad man, and reckless of blood; spoke of the inhuman murder, I may call it, of the young Earl of Warwick; he said that Ferdinand of Spain would not give his daughter Catherine to Arthur unless this poor Warwick was got rid of; that Catherine felt this all along and observed that it dwelt upon her and “that it did not go well with her in the world” for this reason. He spoke of Henry VIII.; said he was not so bad at first and had begun with good intentions; spoke of Catherine of Arragon, &c., &c.; that when Henry VIII. took a liking to somebody else, he only sought to get rid of the other in the quickest way. Spoke of the wars in Flanders.... He fell asleep for a little while in the evening, which is always a proof that he is not quite well....
Tuesday, 30th January.— ... I asked Lord M. what Lord Palmerston’s Politics were at the time when he stood against Lord Lansdowne and Lord Althorp. Lord Melbourne said that Lord Palmerston then belonged to the high Tory Party! Spoke of the change of opinions &c., &c. Spoke of the salaries &c. of my people, and spoke of Names, Christian names, for a long while; said that Lady Vivian’s[381] little girl was called Lalage, from Horace; he thought the name rather pretty on account of the lines which he repeated and which are, I think, “Dulce ridentem, Lalagen amabo, Dulce loquentem.” Told him of the intention there once was of changing my name, which he was surprised at, and could not think how it could have been done.
Thursday, 1st February.—The curious old form of pricking the Sheriffs was gone through; and I had to prick them all, with a huge pin. This was the first Council that I have yet held at which Lord Melbourne was not present, and I must say I felt sad not to see him in his place as I feel a peculiar satisfaction, nay I must own almost security, at seeing him present at these formal proceedings, as I know and feel that I have a friend near me, when I am as it were alone among so many strangers. This may sound almost childish, but it is not so. Saw Lord John Russell....
Saturday, 3rd February.—Received a communication from Lord Melbourne which I shall transcribe: “Lord Melbourne presents his humble duty to Your Majesty and acquaints Y.M. that the Canada Government Bill was read a second time in the House of Lords, with the single dissentient voice of Lord Brougham. Lord Melbourne sends the returns of the attendance and the speeches. Lord Brougham made a long and able speech, not over-violent for him. The Duke of Wellington made a moderate speech and concluded with some very able views” (I think) “of the subject. Lord Aberdeen and Lord Wharncliffe also spoke, both strongly condemning the conduct of Government.” This note was dated from last night. Heard also from Lord John Russell that they had proceeded in the House of Commons with the Irish Corporation Bill and the Pluralities Bill.... Lord M. said they sat till near 12 o’clock last night. Said “it was a very good Debate.” “The Duke of Wellington,” he added, “again made a very fair speech”; and that the Duke’s remarks were very good about Canada, for that there was a great deal to say about it; and that the Duke observed, “that each Mail brought the account of some new and very important event.” He (Ld. Melbourne) said that Lord Aberdeen and Lord Wharncliffe “were very severe.” I asked him if Lord Aberdeen was not rather a dull and heavy speaker; he replied in the affirmative; and said (in reply to my question as to whether he were a good speaker) that Lord Wharncliffe was a good speaker and spoke “very clearly.” I asked him about Lord Brougham’s speech which he said “was more bitter than violent; very bitter, but a fine speech.” Lord Melbourne told me: “We have not yet settled this Army Question; but I am more and more convinced it would be madness to propose it; and after this affair of Canada too.” He seemed, however, I thought, sanguine about its being ultimately settled.
Sunday, 4th February.—Lord Melbourne asked if I had seen King Lear (which I had half intended to do last week); I said I had not. He said (alluding to the manner in which it is being performed at Covent Garden), “It is King Lear as Shakespear wrote it; and which has not been performed so, since the time of Queen Anne.” As it is generally acted, Lord Melbourne told me, it is altered by Cibber, who “put in a deal of stuff” of his own; that it was a much finer play as Shakespear wrote it, but “most dreadfully tragic.” That Dr. Johnson had seen it performed in that way, and that “it made such an impression on him that he never forgot it.” I observed to him that I feared that, and did not like all that madness on the stage. Lord Melbourne said, “I can’t bear that, but still it is a very fine play, and many think Shakespear’s best.” Spoke of the play of Richard III., which I said I was going to see. Lord Melbourne said it was “a fine striking play.” He observed that that scene where Richard makes love to Anne, at the funeral of Henry VI., did not belong to the play, but was taken from Henry VI.; he said, “That is a very foolish scene; I always thought it a most ridiculous scene; and there is not the slightest foundation in History for it; he married her 8 years afterwards.” He added that Shakespear constantly mixed up events, in his Historical plays, without minding when they happened, and how far asunder.
Monday, 5th February.—Lord M. showed me a letter he had got this morning, from Lord Ebrington,[382] saying that Lord Tavistock (who, Lord Melbourne tells me, has great influence over Lord John, and was sent for) had prevailed on Lord John to put off the Army Question till June or July; so that Lord Melbourne says they will get over it this Session; and when a thing is put off, he added, it is often forgotten or the moment not found suitable for it. “But,” continued Lord Melbourne, “when one gets over one difficulty, there always comes another; and there is now another question of great difficulty, which is the Ballot.” He then explained to me, that not only several of their supporters but even some of the Government had pledged themselves to the Ballot, and consequently after Lord John made that very decided declaration against the Ballot, these people said they must go against this; amongst others Sir Hussey Vivian who has pledged himself to it; and Lord Melbourne says if they should vote for it after Lord John’s declaration, either they or perhaps Lord John will resign, and this “would make such gaps in the Government as would make it very difficult to fill up; and Sir Hussey Vivian has written to Lord John this morning, and he to me, saying I shall have to choose whether I will accept Sir Hussey’s or his resignation.” Lord Melbourne however said he would see if he could manage it, which I fervently hope and trust he will; but he is sadly teazed and plagued. He said, “There is a succession of difficulties in a Government....” At 20 m. to 7 I went with Lady Portman, Lady Tavistock, Miss Cavendish, Miss Pitt, Lord Conyngham, Lord Headfort, and Col. Buckley to Drury Lane theatre. We came in before the performance had commenced. It was Shakespear’s tragedy of Richard III., and Charles Kean’s first appearance (in London) as Richard. The house was crammed to the ceiling; and the applause was tremendous when Kean came on; he was unable to make himself heard for at least five minutes I should say. He was dressed exactly like his father, and all those who were with me, and who had seen his father, were struck with the great resemblance to his father both in appearance and voice. It would be impossible for me to attempt to describe the admirable manner in which Kean delineated the ferocious and fiend-like Richard. It was quite a triumph and the latter part particularly so; he was applauded throughout in the most enthusiastic manner. He acted with such spirit too! One of the best scenes was the one when the Lord Mayor urges him to accept the regal Dignity, which Kean did uncommonly well. As also the disagreeable and absurd scene with Lady Anne. The manner in which he gave: “So much for Buckingham,” was truly splendid, and called down thunders of applause, as also many other of the scenes where he gets very much excited; he fought and died beautifully. He was uncommonly well disguised, and looked very deformed and wicked. All the other parts were very badly acted, and the three women were quite detestable. It is a fine, heart-stirring play, and there are some beautiful passages in it. I but just escaped being recognised, for as the curtain was dropping and I left the box, they called out “the Queen.”
Tuesday, 6th February.—At 17 m. p. 2 came my kind friend Lord Melbourne who said he was better, and stayed with me till 20 m. p. 3. He spoke to me about Mr. Roebuck’s[383] speech of last night; said “it was a very bitter speech.” I told him what Lord John had written to me of what took place in the House of Commons last night. He spoke to me about this Parliamentary Elections Bill; said it would he thought not pass the House of Lords. Gave me an explanation about it, and about people’s being unable to vote unless they had paid the rates up to the very day; and that many people wanted to get rid of this; but the Lords did not like that as they thought it was “meddling with the Reform Bill.” I asked him if he had done anything more about the Ballot. He replied that he had heard from Lord John this morning, who said they had best wait the decision; he added that Lord John thinks he must resign if any of the others vote for the Ballot, as after his very strong declaration against it, he would consider their voting for it as “passing a censure upon him”; Lord Melbourne said he did not quite think that, and that he thought Lord John took it rather too seriously; but he added: “Lord John does.” Lord Melbourne said he thinks it better not to take much notice of who vote for or against it; and he added “we took no notice of it when Lord Charles Fitzroy voted for it (Ballot) last year; he is a very foolish man, I think.” I said to him that I believed the Cabinet were all agreed upon this question; he replied they were; “that is to say either to vote against its being made an open question, or not to vote at all.” He added that Sir John Hobhouse and Mr. Poulett Thomson did not vote at all, having he believed pledged themselves before they came into the Ministry.... Lord Melbourne told me he had dined at home the night before. Spoke to him about the play of Richard III., and of Kean; spoke of Richard III. himself, who he (Ld. M.) believes to have been crooked and deformed, and to have murdered the two young Princes; though, he said, that great pains had been taken to trace it all in the Historical Doubts by Horace Walpole and to prove the contrary. He also mentioned the well-known old story of the old Countess of Desmond,[384] who “said she had danced with him” (Richard) “the night of his Coronation and that he was a very handsome man.” Spoke of the Duke of Wellington; he said “The Duke of Wellington is amazingly sensible to attention; nothing pleases him so much as if one asks him his opinion about anything.” He added that many people were offended with the Duke’s abrupt manner of speaking; I observed that I thought that was only a manner, and that he did not mean it so. “No more do I,” replied Lord Melbourne. Spoke of Lord Ebrington, who Lord Melbourne has known a long while and says is a clever man and possesses a considerable influence over Lord John; Lord Tavistock also he added, has influence over his brother John; “but,” said Lord Melbourne, “Lord Tavistock has also got some strange notions; he lives a great deal in the country; and people who live a great deal in the country pick up strange ideas.” I asked him if he thought there would be much opposition to the Irish Poor Laws in the House of Lords. “I think there will be none,” he said. “I don’t think there will be any difficulty about any of the Questions—it’s only this Ballot.” I asked him if he had seen Lord John about it. He replied that others had, but that “I don’t like to speak to him about it; I feel rather awkward about speaking to him about it, as last year he wanted me to make it an open question and I refused; and now that I want him to relax he would say, ‘Why, what have you to say?’” He said Lord John was “very unbendable” about it. Lord Melbourne wanted him not to be so very particular about it, and let them vote for or against it (its being an open question) and not take much notice of it; but Lord John said that after his declaration that would affect him. I asked who were the others who wanted to vote for it. “Why, Sir Hussey Vivian is the one of the greatest consequence, and Parnell,”[385] he replied. “The fact is, Vivian should not have pledged himself; he carried his election in a way he should not have done.”