Chapter 94
To-night is the great night in the House of Lords, when they are to deal with the Commons' amendments of the Munic.i.p.al Bill. Lord Grey is expected to speak, and he told his old colleagues that if he did he should say what they would not like. The fact is, he is out of humour. First he doesn't like being laid aside, though he would not own this even to himself, and as he and Howick disagree on many points, Howick tells him nothing, and consequently he knows nothing, and this provokes him; then he is indignant at the O'Connellism of the Government, and abhors the attacks on _his order_. Tavistock talked to me a great deal yesterday about Lord John Russell, who he declares is by no means the Radical he is accused by his adversaries of being, that he is opposed tooth and nail to the reform of the House of Lords, much disagreeing with O'Connell, that he has constantly and firmly refused to comply with the demands of the Dissenters in the matter of Church rates, and that in the Ecclesiastical Commission he and the bishops are on the best terms, and they are abundantly satisfied with him, that the greatest Reformer there is Lord Harrowby, and John Russell has had to act as mediator between him and the bishops.
The prelates, it seems, have grasped at patronage with all their might, and have taken to themselves that which appertained to the chapters, much to the disgust of the latter; they likewise endeavoured to get hold of that which belongs to the Chancellor, and on this occasion John wrote on a slip of paper (which he threw across the table to the Archbishop of York), 'I don't object to your robbing one another, but I can't let you rob the Crown.' The Archbishop wrote back, 'That is just what I expected from you.' This shows at least the good-humour that prevails among them.
[Page Head: THEATRICALS AT BRIDGEWATER HOUSE.]
There has been such a stagnation in politics lately that I have heard nothing, and having been laid up with the gout for a fortnight, have seen scarcely anybody. The greatest interest I have had has been in the dramatic representation at Bridgewater House, to the rehearsals of which I ventured to go. They were very brilliant and successful. As the s.p.a.ce was limited, the invitations necessarily were so, and everybody was wild to be there. There were one or two _traca.s.series_ growing out of the thing, agitating for the moment, but very uninteresting in themselves. The pieces were 'Glenfinlas,' taken from Walter Scott's ballad, and 'Lalla Rookh,' from Moore's poem; the princ.i.p.al performers were James Wortley, my brother Henry, Mitford, Mrs. Bradshaw, Miss Kemble (Mrs. Sartoris); and the chorus was composed of Mrs. Baring, Mrs. Hartopp, Miss Gent, Miss Paget, Lady Mary Paget (Lady Sandwich), Lady Wallscourt, Lady Georgiana Mitford, my sister, Lord Compton, Messrs. Westmacott, Holford, James Macdonald, Baynton Lus.h.i.+ngton. Grieve painted beautiful scenery, and the dresses were magnificent; all the ladies were covered with diamonds, which the great jewellers lent to them for the occasion. Mrs. Bradshaw's acting was perfection itself, and altogether it was singular, striking, and eminently successful, especially 'Glenfinlas,' which was very ingeniously managed, and went off to the amazement of those who were concerned in it, who did not expect such success.
July 1st, 1836 {p.353}
At Stoke for three days; divine weather, profusion of flowers and shade, and every luxury; n.o.body there of any consequence. On Tuesday night at the House of Lords to hear the debate, which was worth hearing. Lyndhurst spoke very ably, by far the finest style of speaking, so measured, grave, and earnest, nothing glittering and gaudy, but a manly and severe style of eloquence. Lord Grey spoke very becomingly, but was feeble compared with what he used to be. He endeavoured to effect a compromise, and said nothing offensive to anybody or any party, spoke strongly in favour of the Ministerial measure, and I think took the sound view. I have no doubt the Tory Lords are all in the wrong in taking the course they do, and their arguments are very frivolous and inefficient.
O'Connell was not in the House during Lyndhurst's philippic, but came in soon after, and his arrival made a great bustle.
July 9th, 1836 {p.353}
Since Monday (4th) at De Ros's villa. The division on the appropriation clause and the majority of only twenty-six was hailed with great triumph by the Tories, and was a grievous disappointment to the Government. This, with the Warwicks.h.i.+re election at the same moment, has made them very down in the mouth, and raised the _Conservative stock_ pretty considerably. There was very sharp work between Stanley and John Russell, who left off _n.o.ble friending_ and took to _n.o.ble lording_ him, to show that they were quite two. The fact is that they are in a huge difficulty with this appropriation clause, which served their turn for a while (when it turned out Peel and cemented their alliance with the Radicals), and now it hangs like a millstone round their necks, and is not unlikely to produce the dissolution of the Government. Strange that this Irish Church in one way or another is the insuperable obstacle to peace and tranquillity in Ireland, and to the stability of any Administration here; and yet it is fought for as if the prosperity or salvation of the State depended on it--
Tantum _religio_ potuit suadere malorum.
As far as the Whig Ministers are concerned it serves them right, for it was a wicked and foolish proceeding; their conduct will tell against them in the country, and when the House of Lords is accused of stopping legislation, people will not fail to ask, What else is the House of Commons doing, or rather how much more?
They a.s.sert that t.i.thes are the great bane of Ireland, and the cause of the disorder which prevail, and they propose a t.i.the Bill as the remedy, but they clog it with a condition which they know, with as much certainty as human knowledge can attain, will prevent its pa.s.sing into a law, and in this shape they persist in producing it. Lord John Russell and his colleagues, it is said, are pledged not to pa.s.s a t.i.the Bill without this clause; but what cares the public for their pledges, and what is their consistency compared with the great interests at stake, and which are involved in the settlement of this question?
They acted 'Genfinlas' for the last time on Thursday, with greater success than ever. The Queen was invited, but did not come. All London is intent upon morning amus.e.m.e.nts--morning parties, which are extended into the night. The d.u.c.h.ess of Buccleuch gave entertainments on Monday and Wednesday; De Ros on Friday--dinners, tents, illuminations, and dancing; all very gay for those who can find amus.e.m.e.nt in it, which I have ceased to do.
July 18th, 1836 {p.355}
[Page Head: APPROPRIATION CLAUSE ABANDONED.]
On Thursday night, almost as soon as I got back from Newmarket, I heard that it was strongly suspected that the Cabinet were in great embarra.s.sment about the Irish Church question, and of course the Tories were proportionably elated at the visions of return to office which are always ready to dance before their eyes. This report was confirmed to me the next day (Friday) by Lord Tavistock, who told me what really was the case. The late division seems to have made a considerable impression, and several of the supporters of Government have represented that matters cannot continue in their present state, and that the resistance to payment of t.i.the on the one hand and the threats of rebellion on the other render it of paramount necessity to settle the question, and that it is better after all to take the Bill without the appropriation clause than to let it be again lost. This difference of opinion has of course particularly embarra.s.sed Lord John Russell, and they do not know what to do. With respect to Lord John himself the question is, Can he continue in office and let the Bill pa.s.s without the clause? If he cannot, are his colleagues as completely committed as he is, or may not they elect some other leader on his migration, and take the Bill in that state? I told Tavistock that he well knew what my opinions had always been with respect to the introduction of that clause, which seemed to be more fully justified by the event; that I did not think any difference could be made between John and his colleagues, and they must stand or fall together. With respect to their taking the Bill without the clause, they, and Lord John in particular, must make up their minds, if they did so, to have every species of abuse poured upon them from their Tory enemies and their Radical friends; but they were in a sc.r.a.pe, and had, in fact, got the country into a sc.r.a.pe too, and their duty now was to take that course which on the whole seemed to promise the best results, whatever it might personally cost them and to whatever reproaches they might render themselves liable. If they were satisfied that no other Government would at present be formed, and that the Irish Church question could be settled in no other way, they ought to swallow the pill. He said he thought they were not indisposed to face the obloquy, if it must be so, and that all depended upon the conduct of the Lords, and upon their affording the Government a decent pretext for taking the Bill. I asked how. He said that what he thought of was this--earnestly conjuring me not to commit him and his friends by saying he had suggested any such thing (which satisfied me that it was not only his own idea, but that of others also belonging to the Government)--that last year the Lords had thrown out the Bill, because the appropriation clause being a money clause, they could not touch it, but that now this objection was removed as to form, and they were at liberty to cut it out if they pleased, and return the Bill without it to the Commons; that if they would at the same time pa.s.s a resolution declaring that if any surplus was reported such surplus should be at the disposal of Parliament, without expressing any opinion as to the way in which Parliament should deal with it, this, he thought, would be sufficient to enable the Whigs _salvo honore_ to take the Bill; neither party would be
Petworth, July 24th, 1836 {p.356}
[Page Head: THE MINISTRY IN DIFFICULTIES.]
Came here yesterday from Hillingdon, the day before from London.
In the morning (Friday) there was a meeting of the Ministerialists at the Foreign Office; called by Lord John Russell, to talk to them about the Church Bill. After the skirmish in the House of Commons between him and Charles Buller a deputation, headed by Hume, waited on Melbourne to remonstrate, and they reported that the interview was on his part very civil and good-natured, but very unsatisfactory. Lord John Russell therefore called them together and harangued them. He is said to have spoken very well, stating that Government could not and would not give way with respect to this measure, and reminding Hume that in a former speech he had already a.s.sented to the principle of the Bill. The English Radicals were, however, not to be appeased, spoke strongly, and declared they would oppose the Bill in every stage.
O'Connell rose, and said that he would support Government, that it was of vital consequence to Ireland that there should be no appearance of disunion in the party, and that no idea should prevail there that there was a chance of its being broken up; and for this reason Government should have his support.
I met them all coming away, and fastened on Tom Duncombe, who told me what had pa.s.sed, and how angry they (the English Radicals) were. I asked him whether their resentment would induce them to desert Government on the appropriation clauses and stay away, because, if so, they must go out; and he said that it would not push them to that length. It may be presumed that O'Connell's behaviour at this meeting will have bound the Government still more not to give way on this clause, and that whatever the Lords may do, they will fight the battle.
The Lords in the meantime have gone quietly into Committee, and the second reading pa.s.sed off with tolerable harmony. Melbourne made a good speech, and produced a surplus, but which the Duke of Wellington will take very good care to reduce again to _nil_.
This is very easily done on one side, and the contrary on the other; redistribution can accomplish either desideratum--surplus or no surplus. However, the Government seems to be in a pretty state between their moderate and their violent adherents, and though they may scramble through this session, and hustle Parliament to an end, it is difficult to see how they will ever pa.s.s the ordeal of another, for they can neither continue in their present course nor adopt any other with safety.
I met old Denison (the member for Surrey)--a strong supporter of the Government and an old Whig--coming from the meeting on Friday, and suggested to him what a sc.r.a.pe his friends were in. He owned that it was so, but said that parties were so balanced that Peel could not go on if he came in. I said Peel could not go on if the King turned out the Government as he had done before, or if Peel was instrumental in compelling them to resign; but that if they resigned of their own accord, and because they were themselves conscious that they could not go on, I thought Peel would be supported by a majority even of this House of Commons; for, after all, the country must have a Government, and if Peel took it because it was vacant, and n.o.body else could be found to occupy it, he could not be refused the trial, which he had in vain asked for before. He owned this was true, and such an admission from such a man was a great deal. The King is evidently waiting with the greatest impatience for the moment when his Ministers must resign. He complained bitterly of my brother-in-law's[4] going abroad, and said it was a time when every Conservative ought to be at his post, which means that every opponent of his Ministers should strive with ceaseless zeal to drive them to the wall. He is a true king of the Tories, for his impatience fully equals theirs.
[4] [Lord Francis Egerton.]
August 7th, 1836 {p.358}
[Page Head: DISSENSION BETWEEN LORDS AND COMMONS.]
After the meeting at the Foreign Office there seems to have been an end of all notion of any compromise, or any giving way on the part of the Government about the clauses in the t.i.the Bill, and Lord John Russell held very strong language. The debate presented nothing remarkable. Sheil came over from Ireland on purpose to speak, not being able to vote, as he had paired. Great exertions were made on both sides, and the Tories dragged up Sir Watkin Williams Wynn from Wales, very infirm; and had a blind man in the House, led about by Ross. The majority of twenty-nine ought to have been twenty-six, just the same as the last division. Sir Charles c.o.c.kerell (Whig) was shut out, whilst on the other side Lord Arthur Hill's[5] vote was lost by his mother's death, which made him a Peer, and the Lennoxes and Poyntz stayed away. The whole thing went off tamely enough; everybody in Parliament knew what was to happen, and out of doors people don't care. While the revenue presents an excess of two millions, and everything flourishes, political excitement is impossible. The Lords continue to throw out Bills, and many complaints are made of their evident determination to reject as many of the Commons' measures as they can. Some of them have been opposed, particularly the Stafford Disfranchis.e.m.e.nt Bill, by the Ministers themselves. The Lords, however, no doubt evince a very imprudent disposition to exercise their power of rejection without grave and sufficient cause, and needlessly to expose themselves to the charge of wanton and intemperate opposition to the measures of the Commons. It is the height of folly to make the line between the two Houses as broad as possible, and to publish to the world on every occasion that the one House is Whig and the other Tory; not but what (in the present rage for legislation, and the careless and hurried way in which measures are bustled through the House of Commons) the revision and watchful superintendence of the House of Lords are more than ever necessary.
[5] [Lord Arthur Hill became Baron Sandys on the death of his mother, the Marchioness of Downs.h.i.+re, who was Baroness Sandys in her own right.]
There was a report of General Evans' death the other day, which was believed for some time, and long enough to show that there would have been a contest for Westminster if it had been true.
The accounts from Spain are deplorable, and it is curious enough that while Palmerston was proclaiming in the House of Commons his conviction of the ultimate success of the Christino cause he must have had letters from Villiers in his pocket telling him that it was almost hopeless. I saw one from him a few days ago, written in the greatest despondency. He said that he had been stopped on his road to St. Ildefonso by intelligence that the Carlists were approaching the place, and that the Queen had taken flight. He found all the relays of mules ready for her Majesty, and he returned to Madrid. It turned out to be a false alarm, and the Queen stayed where she was; but he said that he could only compare the progress of the Carlists to water spreading over table-land. It will be a severe blow to Palmerston if this cause is overthrown, though perhaps no fault of his policy. Had France acted fairly, the result of the Quadruple Alliance would have answered the expectation of its authors, but France, instead of co-operating according to the spirit of that treaty, has thrown every impediment in its way. It is surprising to hear how Palmerston is spoken of by those who know him well officially--the Granvilles, for example. Lady Granville, a woman expert in judging, thinks his capacity first-rate; that it approaches to greatness from his enlarged views, disdain of trivialities, resolution, decision, confidence, and above all his contempt of clamour and abuse. She told me that Madame de Flahault had a letter written by Talleyrand soon after his first arrival in England, in which he talked with great contempt of the Ministers generally, Lord Grey included, and said there was but one statesman among them, and that was Palmerston. His ordinary conversation exhibits no such superiority; but when he takes his pen in his hand his intellect seems to have full play, and probably when engaged exclusively in business.
August 13th, 1836 {p.360}
On Monday last I was riding early in the Park and met Lord Howick. We rode together for some time. He said that 'he supposed they should be out after this session, and they ought to be out, as they could carry none of their measures, and the Lords rejected Bill after Bill sent up from the other House; that since the Tories chose to go on in this way, they must make the experiment and carry on the Government if they could, but they must look for every opposition from his friends and his party. It was quite impossible things could go on upon their present footing; the country would not stand it, and the Lords must look to those changes which their own conduct rendered indispensable.'
I said to Howick that the appropriation clause made the great difficulty of the Whigs; that I believed they were, on the whole, a very Conservative Government, but why struggle for this absurdity, and why not bring forward a measure at once of real relief and pay the Catholic clergy? He said they could not do it; their own friends would not support them; that the Tories might have done it, but that the Whigs could not. 'So,' I replied, 'both parties are in such a position that no Conservative measures can be carried but by the Whigs, and no Liberal ones but by the Tories.'
Since this there has been a free conference, and the Lords have been bowling down Bills like ninepins. This certainly cannot go on; either the Tories must come into power again, or the Whigs must do something to control the House of Lords, or the Lords must lower their tone and adopt more moderate counsels. The latter would be the best, as it is the least probable, of the three alternatives.
His Majesty was pleased to be very facetious at the Council the other day, though not very refined. A new seal for the Cape of Good Hope was approved, and the impression represented a Caffre, with some ornaments on his head which resembled _horns_. The King asked Lord Glenelg what these _horns_ meant, but Glenelg referred his Majesty to Poulett Thomson, to whom he said, 'Well, Mr.
Thomson, what do you say to this? I know you are a man of gallantry, but if you choose to be represented with a pair of horns I am sure I have no objection;' at which sally their lords.h.i.+ps laughed, as in duty bound.
August 21st, 1836 {p.361}
[Page Head: PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.]
Yesterday the King prorogued Parliament with a very moderate, inoffensive Speech. The Tories had spread a report that the Ministers wanted to thrust into the Speech some allusions to the conduct of the House of Lords, but no such thing was ever contemplated.
The session was wound up by an oration of Lyndhurst's in the House of Lords, introduced with a considerable note of preparation. It was announced a day or two before that he was going down to deliver a vindication of the majority of the Lords and of himself for their conduct during the session, and the expectation which was raised was not disappointed. It seems to have been a great display, and sufficiently well answered by Melbourne. As his opponents universally admit that Lyndhurst's speech was of consummate ability, while his friends confess that it was not discreet and well judged, we may safely conclude that it deserves both the praise and the blame; and as the Duke of Wellington rose afterwards and made a speech of remarkable moderation, it would certainly appear as if he thought it necessary to temper the violence of Lyndhurst by a more conciliatory tone. When I say _his friends_ have expressed the opinions above stated, I should say that I have conversed with only two--Lords Bathurst and Ripon--and they both expressed themselves to this effect. Lord Holland, who endeavoured to answer it, said he thought Lyndhurst's one of the best speeches he had ever heard in Parliament.
If he had confined himself to a temperate and dignified vindication of the proceedings of the House of Lords (that is, of his own), and had abstained from any attack on the Government, and especially from any language reflecting on the Commons, perhaps it would have been a wise measure, but it cannot be wise to widen the differences which already exist between the two Houses, and to render all the animosities of public men more bitter and irreconcilable than they were before. The Tories are convinced that they are becoming more and more popular, and that the country approves of the daring behaviour of the Lords. The Whigs insist that the apathy of the country (which they mistake for approbation) is nothing but the imperturbability resulting from prosperity and full employment, but that if adverse circ.u.mstances arise a storm will burst on the Lords, and they will see how miserably deceived they are. I think the Lords have gone too far, and though a vast deal of crude legislation comes up from the Commons, requiring much supervision, and often great alteration, they have shown an animus and adopted a practice quite foreign to the usual habits of the House of Lords, and which is in itself an important innovation. The truth is, it is not (as has been represented) a contest between _the two Houses_, but between the two great _parties_ very nearly balanced, of which the stronghold of one is in the Lords, and that of the other in the Commons. It can scarcely cross the minds of either party, or of any individual of either, that the substantive power of Government can or ought to be transferred from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, and Lyndhurst and the Tories would not venture to make the havoc which they do in the Government Bills if they were not persuaded that if ever a crisis is produced by the collision their party will succeed in obtaining the sanction of the country and an ascendency in the other House.
If they have estimated correctly their own strength and the real disposition of the country, their Parliamentary tactics have been skilful, but the game which they play is a very desperate one, for if it fails the House of Lords can hardly avoid suffering very materially from the conflict. However, much is to be said on the subject when considered in all its bearings.
The King at his last levee received Dr. Allen to do homage for the see of Ely, when he said to him, 'My Lord, I do not mean to interfere in any way with your vote in Parliament except on one subject, _the Jews _, and I trust I may depend on your always voting against them.'
August 30th, 1836 {p.363}
[Page Head: MARRIAGE OF LADY AUGUSTA FITZCLARENCE.]
At Hillingdon from Sat.u.r.day to Monday. There were great festivities at Windsor during the Egham race week, when the King's daughter Lady Augusta was married at the Castle[6]. It was remarked that on the King's birthday not one of the Ministers was invited to the Castle, and none except the Household in any way connected with the Government. At the Queen's birthday a short time before not one individual of that party was present. Nothing can be more undisguised than the King's aversion to his Ministers, and he seems resolved to intimate that his compulsory reception of them shall not extend to his society, and that though he can't help seeing them at St. James's, the gates of Windsor are shut against them. All his habitual guests are of the Tory party, and generally those who have distinguished themselves by their violence or are noted for their extreme opinions--Winchilsea and Wharncliffe, for example, of the former, and the Duke of Dorset of the latter sort. At the dinner on his birthday the King gave the Princess Victoria's health rather well. Having given the Princess Augusta's he said, 'And now, having given the health of the oldest, I will give that of the youngest member of the Royal Family. I know the interest which the public feel about her, and although _I have not seen so much of her as I could have wished_, I take no less interest in her, and the more I do see of her, both in public and in private, the greater pleasure it will give me.' The whole thing was so civil and gracious that it could hardly be taken ill, but the young Princess sat opposite, and hung her head with not unnatural modesty at being thus talked of in so large a company.
[6] [Lady Augusta Fitzclarence, fourth daughter of King William IV. by Mrs. Jordan, married first, on the 5th of July, 1827 to the Hon. John Kennedy Erskine, and secondly, on the 26th of August, 1836, to Lord John Frederick Gordon. She died in 1865.]
While London is entirely deserted, and everything is quiet and prosperous here, there is a storm raging in Spain which has already had an effect in France, by producing the dissolution of Thiers's Ministry,[7] and may very likely end by creating disturbances in that country and embroiling Europe. The complication of French politics, the character and designs of the King, his relations with the great Powers of Europe, and the personal danger to which he is exposed from the effects of a demoralised ma.s.s of floating hostility and disaffection, rendered doubly perilous from the mixture of unnatural excitement and contempt of life which largely enter into it, present a very curious and very interesting subject of political observation and speculation for those who have the means of investigating it closely.
[7] [M. Thiers came into power for the first time as Minister of Foreign Affairs and head of the Government on the 22nd of February, 1836. He had boasted that he should be able to engage the King in a more active intervention in Spain in favour of the young Queen--'Nous entrainerons le Roi' was his expression--but in this he was deceived, and his Administration came to a speedy termination. Lord Palmerston proposed on the 14th of March that some of the ports on the coast of Biscay should be occupied by British seamen and marines, and that Pa.s.sages, Fontarabia, and the valley of Bartan should be occupied by the French. This scheme was strenuously opposed by the King, though M. Thiers was willing to a.s.sent to it. The Revolution of La Granja in August only increased the repugnance of Louis Philippe to interfere actively in Spain, and early in September the Thiers Cabinet was dissolved. Mr.