Chapter VIII (1)

1838

_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....

_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.”

_Wednesday, 7th February._—Lord Melbourne said he had just been to see Lord Durham “who wants more force.” He (Ld. D.) said that the Duke of Wellington had told him he ought to have 75,000 men in Canada, to put it down. Lord Melbourne further told me that the Duke of Wellington had been to see Lord Durham on Friday, he thinks; stayed with him for an hour and a half; had gone with him through the whole thing, had told him how to manage the troops by sending them from one place to another, and told him all his ideas of doing the thing. Lord Melbourne seemed quite pleased about it.[386] I showed Lord Melbourne a letter I had got from Stockmar, about which Lord Melbourne said he would write to Stockmar. Spoke about my asking Sir Robert Peel &c. to dinner, which led us to speak about Lady Ashley, who, Lord Melbourne says, is decided in her politics, though not violent; she is a Tory; Lord Melbourne says she does not talk about it much; but he thinks she has at one time discussed it with her mother, who of course is a Whig; I said I supposed Lady Fanny had no ideas of her own about Politics; he replied, “Why I think she is a Tory.” I was surprised; said laughing I thought it very wrong, and very odd, as all her brothers were Whigs. Spoke to him at dinner about various things; he told me Mr. Roebuck is a small man with “small finely cut features,” and that he speaks well—“plainly, without ornament.”

_Thursday, 8th February._—He said he thought there would be some debate in the H. of Lords about the third reading of the Canada bill tonight; he thinks Lord Ellenborough[387] will speak. I asked him if he (Ld. E.) was a clever man; he replied, “He is a disagreeable, conceited man, but a clever man....” Lord Melbourne told me today that when he was as young as Lord Canning is now, he “was very shy”; “I think I was about as shy as anybody could be,” he said.

_Friday, 9th February._—Got the following communication from Lord Melbourne. “The Canada Bill was read a third time yesterday evening without division, but after a Debate which lasted until ten o’clock. Lord Ashburton[388] made a speech generally upon the subject of Colonies, Lord Mansfield[389] made an elaborate attack upon the Government and in some measure complained of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel for not having taken more active measures in opposition, and Lord Brougham repeated the observations which he had before made, with no diminution of vehemence. The speakers were Lord Ellenborough, Lord Glenelg, Lord Ashburton, Lord Mansfield, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Brougham, Lord Melbourne, Lord Fitzwilliam,[390] who spoke with great kindness of the Government, but declared his disapprobation of the Bill.” I asked Lord Melbourne the other day how many Peers could constitute a House of Lords and be considered able to sit; he said _three_; and in the House of Commons 40 Members must be present to make a House of Commons. I likewise asked him if there was any particular form when a Peer takes his seat; he said _on his creation_ there was a great deal of form; but on taking it in a new Parliament or upon succeeding to the Title there was hardly any. “You go up to the table,” he added, “take the oaths, pay the fees, and shake hands with the Chancellor.” Lord Melbourne also told me that any Peer may bring in any bill and lay it upon the table, and it is generally read a first time; whereas “in the H. of Commons, they must always move for leave to bring in a bill.” He said that Lord Ashburton had got that “fashionable theory” that it was better to give up the Colonies at once when they became at all unquiet; which Lord Melbourne observed with great justice, would be just the way to encourage them to revolt; for they would then say, “Why, we have nothing to do but to revolt to get rid of our masters.” And “a very dangerous thing to declare,” Lord Melbourne observed. Spoke a long time about all this; then about George IV., who he said was not at all unhappy at Princess Charlotte’s death, on the contrary, he was rather glad; spoke of her—of Uncle Leopold—her happiness with him—her death—that she might have been saved if she had not been so much weakened. I was delighted to see Lord Melbourne in very good spirits, and very talkative, and _so_ agreeable! Spoke of many things; of M. de Barante, the French Ambassador at St. Petersburg who Lady Durham said she knew, as also his daughter who was separated from her husband and excited pity as he was known or supposed to have beat her. Upon this Lord Melbourne said: “Why, it is almost worth while for a woman to be beat, considering the exceeding pity she excites,” which made us laugh. Spoke of the dinner next day at the Lord Mayor’s, which Lord Melbourne said was called a private dinner of about 50 or 60 persons, and which was generally very dull. He spoke of the Duke of Wellington, and, with tears in his eyes at the Duke’s friendliness to Lord Durham, about Canada. I asked him if it would do well if I asked Lord and Lady Francis Egerton[391] the same day as the Duke of Wellington dined here; he replied extremely well, and that it would “be very agreeable to both.” I told him that I was very thankful to him when he told me _who_ I should invite; he said, “I am afraid I don’t attend enough to that; I am rather neglectful about it,” which I would not allow. Spoke about the Emperor of Austria—the Duchess of Sutherland—her family; Lord Melbourne said she was naturally very proud; spoke about her house[392]; the lease of which she wishes to buy, but which as it is Crown property Lord Melbourne said she could not do; he dreaded the time when the Duchess should learn she could not do so; that he was afraid of writing to her before she received the formal answer from the Treasury; I told him, however, it would be better if he did so, upon which he said: “Then it shall be done.” Spoke of Lady Ashley—Lady Hardwicke[393]—Lady Fanny; I asked him how she came to be a Tory—and who could have made her so. He said, “Why, I think her Nurse; people generally get their ideas in that way.” He told me he went to Eton when he was nine years old; he went there at Xmas in the year 1788, and stayed there till Midsummer 1796. Lord Holland left Eton about 3 months after Lord Melbourne went there. He spoke most cleverly and sensibly about Public Schools; said “I am not at all bigotted about a Public School”; said he was very happy at Eton; spoke of the many disadvantages and dangers of a Public School; amongst which he mentioned the great habit of telling falsehoods which boys get to do with impunity in order to save themselves from punishment; and the disagreeable, bad, blackguard boys you were obliged to meet at such schools; and if a boy is weak, the liability of being led and governed by such boys; Lady Durham likewise entered into the conversation, and she and Lord Melbourne and I went on discussing the subject for some time; Lady Durham observed that it was a constant _War_ between boy and master at school, which however Lord Melbourne thought the same with a Tutor; we all agreed that it was very bad that no French was taught at the Public Schools, for that boys never learnt it afterwards. Lady Durham said that Lord Durham had had a great mind that their boy should learn no Latin at all, which however Lord Melbourne said he thought was a bad thing, for that he thought a man could not get on well in the world without Latin in the present state of society.[394] I told Lord Melbourne that though Lehzen had often said that she had _never_ seen such a passionate and naughty child as I was, still that I had never told a falsehood, though I knew I would be punished; Lord Melbourne said: “That is a fine character”; and I added that Lehzen entrusted me with things which I knew she would not like me to tell again, and that when I was ever so naughty, I never threatened to tell, or ever did tell them. Lord Melbourne observed: “That is a fine trait.” I felt quite ashamed, on hearing this praise, that I had said so much about myself. I asked him if his sister’s children had not been passionate when little. “Minny and Fanny were dreadfully passionate,” he said, “and now they have both very sweet tempers and are very calm.” I observed to him that I was sure _he_ had never been so; he answered, “dreadfully passionate, and so I am now,” which I _would not_ and _cannot_ believe....