Tuesday, 18th May 1841.
"Saw Lord Melbourne.37 He said Lord John Russell had been to see him, and, 'He now wishes us not to resign, but to give notice immediately of a Motion on the Corn Laws. This, he thinks, will make the others propose a vote of confidence, or make them oppose the Sugar Duties, which, he thinks, will be better for us to resign upon, and when it would be clear to our people that we couldn't dissolve. Everybody says it would be a very bad thing for us to resign now, upon such a question as this, and we must consider the party a little.' I said, of course, this would be agreeable to me as it gave us another chance. I said it would be awkward if they resigned Thursday, on account of the Birthday. Lord Melbourne said I could wait a day and only send for Peel on Saturday, that that wouldn't signify to Peel, as he could come down to Claremont.... I asked, in case they meant to bring on this Corn Law question, when would they do so. 'Perhaps about the 30th,' Lord Melbourne said. It would be a more dangerous question, but it would make them (the Tories) show their colours, which is a great advantage. He said they prevented Sir Edward Knatchbull from speaking last night."
Footnote 37: After eight days' discussions of Lord Sandon's Motion, the Ministers were defeated by 317 to 281.
RESIGNATION POSTPONED
Wednesday, 19th May.
"At twenty minutes to one came Lord Melbourne.... I returned him Lord John Russell's letter, and talked of it, and of John Russell's saying the division and Peel's speech made it absolutely necessary to decide to-day whether to resign or dissolve. I asked what Peel had said in his speech about the Corn Laws. 'I'll tell you, Ma'am, what he said,' Lord Melbourne replied, 'that he was for a sliding duty and not for a fixed duty; but he did not pledge himself as to what rate of duty it should be. I must say,' Lord Melbourne continued, 'I am still against dissolution. I don't think our chances of success are sufficient.' I replied that I couldn't quite believe that, but that I might be wrong. Lord John is for dissolving. 'You wish it?' I said I always did. Talked of the feeling in the City and in the country being so good. Lord Melbourne don't think so much of the feeling in the country. Talked of the majority of thirty-six having not been more than they expected.... Lord Melbourne said people thought the debate was lengthened to please me. I said not at all, but that it was more convenient for me. Anyhow I need do nothing till Saturday. The House of Commons was adjourned to the next day, and the House of Lords to Monday. 'Mr Baring says,' he said, 'if there was only a majority one way or another, it would be better than this state of complete equality.'
"At twenty minutes past four Lord Melbourne returned. 'Well, Ma'am,' he said, 'we've considered this question, and both the sides of it well, and at last we voted upon it; and there were—the Lord Chancellor for dissolution, Lord Minto38 for it, Lord Normanby against it, but greatly modified; Lord John for, Lord Palmerston for, Lord Clarendon for, Lord Morpeth for, Lord Lansdowne for, Labouchere for, Hobhouse for, Duncannon39 for, Baring for, Macaulay for; and under those circumstances of course I felt I could not but go with them.40 Lord Melbourne was much affected in saying all this. 'So we shall go on, bring on the Sugar Duties, and then, if things are in a pretty good state, dissolve. I hope you approve?' I said I did highly ... and that I felt so happy to keep him longer. 'You are aware we may have a majority against us?' he said; he means in our election. The Sugar Duties would probably take a fortnight or three weeks to pass, and they would dissolve in June and meet again in October. He thought they must."
Footnote 38: Lord Minto was First Lord of the Admiralty.
Footnote 39: Then First Commissioner of Land Revenue.
Footnote 40: See Sir John Hobhouse's account of this Cabinet meeting, Edinburgh Review, vol. 133, p. 336.