Saturday, 28th April.—Lord Melbourne continued, that those who were about the Prince of Wales[449] were not liked at Court “and vice versa.” And he said his family quite belonged to Carlton House; still, he added, the King and Queen were very civil to him. Speaking of George IV. he said, “He expected those he was fond of to go quite with him; to dislike those he disliked, and to like those he liked, and to turn with him.” He then mentioned what he told me before, that his (Ld. M.’s) father and mother got into disgrace, for I think 3 years, when Mrs. Fitzherbert was banished, and they continued seeing her; and when George IV. came back to Mrs. Fitzherbert he came to dine with them (Lord Melbourne was there the first day he came) as if nothing had happened, and as if he had been there the day before. Lord Melbourne said, before all this, that “the only thing one learns at a public school” is punctuality, and the value of time; that he never had a clock in his room, and always called to somebody to tell him what o’clock it was, which he owned was bad, as it put you in the power of the man to make you late. He “never carried a watch about him” in his life, and yet he thinks he generally knows what o’clock it is....
Monday, 30th April.—I then showed him a little book relating to the Coronations of various of my Ancestors, and amongst others Queen Anne; he looked over parts of it, and glanced at one part which states that Queen Anne said in her first speech to Parliament that “her heart was entirely English.” Upon which Lord Melbourne told me that when she concluded the Peace of Utrecht, which was supposed to be rather favourable to the French, a Sir Samuel Garth[450] wrote a poem in which he said of Queen Anne: “The Queen this year has lost a part, Of her entirely English heart,”—which is very funny; Lord Melbourne did not remember what followed. Speaking of Prince George of Denmark, who Lord Melbourne said “was a very stupid fellow,” he added that he (G. of Denmark) was always saying, “Est-il possible?” to everything, and was always saying so whenever he was told of another Lord having left James II. So when James heard that George of Denmark had left him, he said, “So Est-il possible is gone at last!” I spoke of the Duchess of Ancaster[451] having been Queen Charlotte’s first Mistress of the Robes; the title of Duke of Ancaster became extinct, Lord Melbourne told me, and the Dowager Lady Cholmondeley[452] and Lord Willoughby’s mother[453] were her co-heiresses. I asked him who was now Lord Fauconberg; he said the title was extinct[454]; he was a descendant of Oliver Cromwell’s by Cromwell’s daughter Lady Fauconberg; Lady Charlotte Bellasyse married a person called Thomas Wynne, a Welshman.[455] Sir Ed. Desborow, Lord Melbourne told me, is also a descendant of Cromwell’s by one of his daughters. I told Lord Melbourne what the Duke of Sussex had told me, viz. that none of his family “could hold their tongue,” which is very true; which made Lord Melbourne laugh, and still more so when I told him that the Duke, in speaking of the King of Hanover, called him “that other man.” After dinner I sat on the sofa with Lady Isabella and Lady Augusta, Lord Melbourne sitting near me the whole evening, and some of the other ladies being seated round the table. Spoke of Lady Isabella; Henry Fox,[456] of the Apartments at Hampton Court &c.; of this Review of Brougham’s of Lady C. Bury’s book. Lord Melbourne said again, what he told me the other day, that there was much which Brougham seemed to know nothing about; he (B.) states that Mrs. Fitzherbert did not know when she married the King that a marriage with a Catholic could not be valid; Lord Melbourne says she must have known that, and that, by what he has heard, she was against the marriage; he said Lord Holland knows a good deal about it, and that it is known where the marriage took place and by whom it was celebrated. Lord Melbourne thinks it took place in 1784 or 5[457]; the King left her in 1795, when Lady Jersey got into favour, whom he put about the Princess of Wales; he came back to Mrs. Fitzherbert in 1802, then left her for Lady Hertford, quarrelled with her, and then Lady Conyngham followed; the last-named, I observed, was very good-natured; Lord Melbourne said, “She was the most good-natured, but the most rapacious; she got the most money from him.” Spoke of Lady Augusta Fox; Lord Melbourne said her mother, Lady Coventry, was Lady Mary Beauclerc, daughter of a Duke of St. Albans (uncle to the present Duke). Her (Lady Coventry’s) mother was a Miss Moses, a Jewess. Lady Holland, Lord Melbourne says, does not like Lady Augusta Fox. Lord Melbourne told me that the Irish Poor Law Bill would come up to the House of Lords next day, and that there would be probably a good deal next week, in the Committee about it; a great deal of difference of opinion; but he thinks they’ll pass it....
Friday, 4th May.—Lord Melbourne told me on Wednesday evening that Landseer said of McLise[458]: “He is beating us all; his imagination, grouping, and drawing is wonderful; he must soften his colouring perhaps a little.” Two very clever ones of Grant; a portrait of Lord Cowper by Lucas which is excessively like; Lord Melbourne, by Hayter, and my dogs by Landseer looked very well. The latter is too beautiful. There were also two very clever pictures by Landseer’s brother; there was also a very good picture by Sir Martin Shee of the late King; it is the likest I’ve seen; it’s so like his figure.
Saturday, 5th May.—We then spoke of my sitting one day to Sir Martin Shee; of Lord Melbourne’s having seen an Academician this morning who said the reason why Hayter was not elected one of their Members was because his character was not good; Lord Melbourne asked me about it; I said I did not know much about it, but that I believed he had quarrelled with his wife and had separated from her. “And did he get another?” said Lord M. I laughed and said I was not sure of that....
Monday, 7th May.—We (that is Lord Melbourne, Lord Holland and I) spoke about the Exhibition, Landseer’s picture of my dogs, the origin of the dog in the Arms of the Seal of the Duchy of Lancaster, which Lord Holland said came originally from John of Gaunt, was adopted by Henry VII., abolished by James I., and restored by William IV.; spoke of Macaws, and he offered me one which belongs to Lady Holland. Spoke of Nightingales; Lord Melbourne said he could not distinguish its song from that of another bird’s; that it could be mistaken for a wood-lark’s, which Lord Holland denied, and they went on discussing the different songs of birds; we then spoke of various birds; of nightingales migrating; of how wonderful the migration of birds was; Lord Melbourne did not think it so incredible; they first went to France, he said, and “then they slide along the country....”
Wednesday, 9th May.—Lord Melbourne said he was kept in the House of Lords till 8, the night before; that Lord Shrewsbury[459] made rather a good speech, but that his (Ld. M.’s) fear was that some of the Roman Catholic Peers might refuse to take the Oath on account of all this; and then “we should have all this question” (the Roman Catholic) “over again.”
Thursday, 10th May.—At ½ p. 10 the doors were opened and I went through the Saloon into the other Ball-room next the Dining-room in which was Strauss’s band. I felt a little shy in going in, but soon got over it and went and talked to the people. The rooms I must say looked beautiful, were so well lit up, and everything so well done; and all done in one day. There was no crowd at all; indeed, there might have been more people. The dining-room looked also very handsome as the supper-room. The Throne-room was arranged for the tea-room. I danced (a Quadrille of course, as I only dance quadrilles) first (in the large ball-room) with George[460]; and 2ndly with Prince Nicholas Esterhazy; there was a valse between each quadrille; I never heard anything so beautiful in my life as Strauss’s band. We then went into the other ball-room where I danced two other quadrilles with Lord Jocelyn[461] and Lord Fitzalan[462]; the first named is very merry and funny. When I did not dance (which was only the case when valzing went on) I sat with Mamma and my Aunts, on a seat raised one step above the floor. Lady Fanny Cowper was my vis-à-vis when I danced with Lord Jocelyn. At 1 (after my quadrille with Lord Fitzalan) we went into the Supper-room. After supper we went into the large Ball-room where we remained till the last quadrille which I danced in Weippert’s room. I danced with Lord Cowper (who was much less shy and very agreeable); Lord Uxbridge (who dances remarkably well); Lord Douro; Lord Folkestone[463] (a great ally of mine); Lord Suffield[464]; and lastly with Lord Morpeth. There was a great deal of beauty there, amongst which were Lady Ashley, Lady Fanny Cowper, Lady Wilhelmina Stanhope, Lady Seymour,[465] Lady Clanricarde,[466] Lady Mary Vyner,[467] Lady Norreys,[468] Lady Emma Herbert,[469] Lady Clanwilliam,[470] Lady Mary Grimston,[471] Lady Powerscourt,[472] Miss Maude,[473] Miss Elphinstone.[474] Lady Fanny was twice my vis-à-vis, as was also Lady Adelaide Paget.[475] I did not leave the ball-room till 10 m. to four!! and was in bed by ½ p. 4,—the sun shining. It was a lovely ball, so gay, so nice,—and I felt so happy and so merry; I had not danced for so long and was so glad to do so again! One only regret I had,—and that was, that my excellent, kind, good friend, Lord Melbourne was not there. I missed him much at this my first ball; he would have been pleased I think!
Friday, 11th May.—Got up at 20 m. p. 10 and breakfasted at ½ p. 11. Heard from my good Lord Melbourne that he was “extremely concerned” at not having been able to come to the Ball, but that “he felt so unwell and so disturbed” that he was afraid to venture; which was right of him, though I regret it so much. Heard from Lord John that “Sir Thomas Acland[476] gave notice yesterday that he should move on Monday to rescind the resolution of 1835 respecting the Church of Ireland. The Debate on this Question must lead to one of the most severe struggles of the session both in discussion and in the Division. Both parties have nearly all their strength in London. But a majority for Ministers, though a small one, is tolerably certain.” This gave me a pang which somewhat damped my very light and high spirits. We spoke for a long time about my Ball—who I danced with, the beauties, and the different persons there; I said to Lord Melbourne the moment I saw him, how very sorry I was that he had not come last night. We spoke of all this for some time, and he was so kind about it all, and seemed to take quite an interest in it all. He then said, “They are going to make another attack upon us on Monday; Sir Thomas Acland has given notice that he means to make a motion to rescind the Resolutions about the Irish Church passed in 1835, upon which we came in.” I then added that Lord John seemed certain about a majority, though a small one; Lord Melbourne said Sir Thomas Acland was a conscientious and not very violent man, and consequently well chosen in that respect to make a good effect. There is to be a Cabinet upon it tomorrow at 1; and Lord John is going to have a Meeting of the Members at 4. All this distresses me much; would to God! none of these Motions, which are so useless, were brought on. I fervently trust however that all will do well. Spoke of my ball, and the different people, the rooms; he asked if I was not tired; I said not the least, for though I had danced a great deal I did not valze, as I did not think it would do for me to valze. Lord Melbourne said eagerly, “I think you are quite right; that’s quite right.” Lord Melbourne dines with me tonight, I’m happy to say. I showed him the letter I meant to write to the King of Hanover, which he quite approved of. Spoke of several people at the Ball and several other things concerning it; of Lord Duncannon who is rather better but still very poorly; Lord Melbourne does not like his being so long ill, and suffering with so many different things; there is a disease in the sockets of his teeth which become quite loose, the teeth themselves being quite sound. Lord Melbourne said the Ponsonbys were generally strong, and lived to a great age; that the present Lord Bessborough’s father lived to a very great age; Lord Melbourne said he was the man of whom the following anecdote is told:—he (that Lord Bessborough) was playing at cards, at Picquet, Lord Melbourne thinks, when his partner dropped down dead; and he said to the Waiter, “Remember, if the gentleman recovers, that I’ve got such and such a thing in my hand....” Spoke to him of the Coronation, and of the different people who were to bear the Swords (which he had already spoken to me of, in the morning; for he showed me then a letter from the Duke of Grafton declining to take any part in it, as he only meant to attend as a Peer). He (Ld. Melbourne) will carry the Sword of State; the Duke of Hamilton[477] he thinks of proposing to carry the Crown; the Duke of Somerset[478] the Orb; the Dukes of Devonshire and Sutherland the other swords; and the Duke of Roxburgh,[479] something else. But nothing is as yet settled with respect to all this. Spoke of my reading the Despatches, of which there were so many.
Saturday, 12th May.—At a ¼ p. 1 came Lord Melbourne and stayed with me till 10 m. to 2. He said he was, and seemed, much better. He first read me a Petition from the Society of British Artists, wishing me to go to their Exhibition, which however he said was quite unnecessary. He then said they were going to have a Cabinet upon this motion,[480] which is to take place on Monday, and to see what can be done upon it. Lord Melbourne then explained to me in the clearest manner possible all about it. He told me that:—In 1835, Sir Robert Peel found himself several times in minorities about various things which I forget; but he said he would not resign until he was beat upon a Question relative to the Irish Church; when he brought in his Bill for Irish Tithes, the resolution, to appropriate the surplus for the benefit of Moral Education, was carried against him by 37,—and he resigned; well, the present Government came in, and Lord Melbourne said, found this resolution an awkward one, and that there was less surplus than they had imagined; they however brought forward several Acts, and also awkward ones, Lord Melbourne said, which were each year rejected by the House of Lords. Well, this year the following Bill was brought in (which Lord Melbourne thinks a very good one, as do I, but which he hears will meet with a great deal of opposition), which is, leaving out the Appropriation Clause, and doing away with the surplus, but proposing to pay the Irish Church out of the funds of the Empire, which is separating the Irish Church from the Land, and keeping it up, not for the people, as they are almost all Catholics, but for the Protestant feeling in the country. Now, Lord Melbourne says, the Church don’t like it, as they think it’s making the Church Stipendiary and is separating it too much from the Land, and the violent democrats dislike it as they think it is giving the Church too much support. Lord Melbourne observes that the opposition will be so considerable from these two Parties that he thinks it will hardly be possible for us to carry this measure. Now, it is upon this measure being proposed on Monday that this Motion or amendment is to be made: “to rescind the resolution of ’35”; “that is,” as Lord Melbourne said, “to do away with it, to scratch it out of the Journals.” Lord Melbourne said that if this should be carried against us, it will be almost fatal to the Government; he added that it is one of those awkward sort of questions in Politics, which it is very difficult to get over, and at the same time hardly possible to resign upon; “it is not good ground to resign upon,” he said, “it would not be understood by the people, they would not sympathise with you.” He continued—but that Lord John might consider his honour at stake, and might resign upon it, which Lord Melbourne said he almost thought he would, but that he would hear that at the Cabinet today. He added, “If we have a Majority, why then it’s all well.” I observed that Lord John seemed to think that likely. Lord Melbourne said he certainly thought we should; but from the nature of the House it made it “ticklish” and “nervous”; which, God knows! it does. He says the Irish Poor Law Bill will not meet with much opposition in the House of Lords, except from the Irish Peers; Lord Londonderry[481] means to oppose it very violently. Sir Robert Peel has a great dinner today, given to him by his followers. Lord Melbourne said he would let me know what took place at the Cabinet; and if there was anything very particular he would come himself. He dines at the Speaker’s tonight. I cannot say (though I feel confident of our success) how low, how sad I feel, when I think of the possibility of this excellent and truly kind man (Lord Melbourne) not remaining my Minister! Yet I trust fervently that He who has so wonderfully protected me through such manifold difficulties will not now desert me! I should have liked to have expressed to Lord Melbourne my anxiety, but the tears were nearer than words throughout the time I saw him, and I felt I should have choked, had I attempted to say anything.
Sunday, 13th May.—In speaking of the singing of birds, which Lord Melbourne said he never could make out one from another, he said, “I never can admire the singing of birds; there’s no melody in it; it’s so shrill; that’s all humbug; it’s mere Poetry; it is not pretty.” This made us laugh; he likes the Blackbird’s singing best. He said that people say there is no difference between the song of a ground-lark and the nightingale. I observed that Lord Holland said there was. “Oh!” he said, “I don’t think Lord Holland knows anything about it.” “It’s very odd,” he continued, “Mr. Fox, and Lord Holland the same, like the singing of birds, and can’t bear music, nor the Human Voice....”