Chapter XXX (1)

The Case of Gorham _v._ the Bishop of Exeter--Death of Lord
Alvanley--The Session opened--State of Parties--Clouds
arise--The Greek Affair--The Ceylon Committee--The Removal of
Lord Roden--The Pacifico Affair--Lord Clarendon arrives--The
Dolly's Brae Debate--The Irish Encumbered Estates Act--The Greek
Affair--Conversation with Sir Robert Peel--The Roden Affair--The
Queen's View of Lord Palmerston's Foreign Policy--Debate on Mr.
Disraeli's Motion--Mr. Gladstone's Equivocal Position--Grillon's
Club--Precarious Position of the Government--The Gorham
Judgement--The African Squadron--Ministerial Troubles--The Greek
Dispute--Lord Campbell Lord Chief Justice--Negotiation between
the Branches of the House of Bourbon--The French Ambassador
recalled from London--Lord Palmerston's Prevarications--The Case
of the French Government--Intention to remove Lord Palmerston
from the Foreign Office--First Speech of Mr. Stanley--Sir James
Graham's Schemes of Reform--Debate in the Lords on the Greek
Dispute--Effects of the Division--Lord Palmerston's great Speech.

[Sidenote: THE GORHAM CASE.]

_London, January 16th, 1850._--Since I first began to keep a journal I do not believe so long an interval has ever elapsed as between the last time I wrote anything and now. Without there having been any matter of great importance, there have been fifty small things I might have recorded at least as interesting as one half that these books contain; but I know not why, I have never felt the least inclination, but, on the contrary, a considerable aversion, to the occupation. I have over and over again resolved to recommence writing, and as often have failed from an inexplicable repugnance to execute my purpose. I am at last induced to take up my pen to put down what has taken place in the case of Gorham and the Bishop of Exeter, because this is a matter which excites great interest, which will not speedily be forgotten, and on which it is desirable there should be some authentic account, especially in respect to those parts of the proceedings which are not publicly known. The details of the case itself are to be found in a hundred publications, and I shall therefore confine myself to what passed behind the curtain. Jenner[104] having given judgement in the Court of Arches in favour of the Bishop, Gorham appealed to the Privy Council. We first had to consider what steps we should take to form a competent Court. It was immediately settled that the two Archbishops and the Bishop of London[105] should be invited to attend, and I wrote them letters, setting forth the clause in the Privy Council Act by which the Queen was authorised to summon them, telling them they could not vote, but signifying the desire of the Lord President they would attend to give their opinions to the Judicial Committee. The two Archbishops wrote answers that they would come; the Bishop of London sent no answer, and I found out afterwards that he would have preferred the attendance of the prelates being dispensed with. We then considered whom we should get to form the Court, and after a consultation with Lord Lansdowne, it was settled that the whole of the Judicial Committee should be summoned, but with an intimation that while it had been considered advisable to send a summons to every member of the Court on account of the importance of the question, their attendance was not imperative. It was also deemed very desirable to have at least one Common Law Judge there. In the Court of Delegates a Common Law Judge was always indispensable, and Baron Parke had often pronounced a strong opinion that one ought always to be present in those Appeals to the Judicial Committee which formerly went to the Delegates. We had, however, great difficulty in getting one; neither Wilde nor Pollock would consent to attend, and Parke had made an engagement to go into the country. At length, finding that unless Parke agreed to come we should have no Common Law Judge, I wrote him a strong and pressing letter, urging him to attend; and having got the Lord President to back me up, he agreed to give up his engagement and assist at the hearing of the case. The Court was finally composed of Lords Langdale and Campbell, Baron Parke, Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, Dr. Lushington, and Mr. Pemberton Leigh. Lord Lansdowne came the first day and opened the proceedings; made a short speech, stating that Her Majesty had been advised to summon the prelates in so important a case, and that he himself did not contemplate attending throughout the hearing, as he did not consider himself competent to act as a Judge in that Court, though always ready to render his assistance in arranging their proceedings, and then having fairly launched them he went away. The cause was very elaborately and very ably argued by Turner for Gorham, and Baddeley for the Bishop. The Court was crammed full almost every day, and the interest very great. It was conducted with great moderation and decorum on all sides, with one exception. At the end of his speech Baddeley very injudiciously and very indecently made a personal attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury. He charged him with having given a living to a man holding Gorham's opinions, and therefore being prejudiced in this case. The Prelate, with some emotion, but very mildly, explained that he had given the living to the clergyman in question before he had published the book in which these opinions were said to be enunciated, and that he knew nothing about them. Baddeley made a sort of apology, and Campbell rebuked him with some severity, but at the same time acknowledged the ability of his speech, and, with this exception, its moderation and becoming tone. When the arguments were over, the Lords remained in discussion for some time. The Prelates all said they should like to take time to consider their opinions, and then to give them in writing. It was therefore agreed that they should meet again on the 15th, when they would read their written opinions to the Judicial Committee; and it was also settled that Lord Langdale should draw up the Report. There was not much discussion, but it was evident from what passed that the judgement would be reversed. Yesterday afternoon they assembled again. The Archbishop of Canterbury began. His paper was excellent. He showed that opinions, if not identical with, yet very like, those of Gorham had been held by a host of great and good Churchmen, and he was strongly of opinion that the Bishop was not justified in refusing to induct him. The Archbishop of York followed. He gave the same opinion, but in a much less able paper. Then came the Bishop of London. He said he entirely agreed with the two Archbishops, so far as they had gone; intimated that his first impression had been the same as theirs, but in looking more closely into Gorham's doctrine he had arrived at the conclusion that he had gone considerably beyond what had ever been held by any of the eminent persons whom the Archbishop had quoted, and that he had distinctly laid down positions wholly inconsistent with the efficacy of the Baptismal Sacrament, and that this he could not get over. He therefore gave an opinion, though it did not seem to be a very decided one, against Gorham. The Lords thanked the Prelates, and begged for copies of their several papers, and then they proceeded very briefly to state their own views. Lord Langdale said a very few words against the judgement of the Court below. Baron Parke said he had written his opinion, and they begged him to read it. It was a very good argument, of which, however, he did not read the whole, and he agreed with Lord Langdale. Campbell neither made a speech nor read a paper, but took a similar view. Lushington said he had written out his opinion, but had not brought his paper with him. He made, however, a short speech, very good indeed, in which he pronounced a strong opinion against the Bishop, commenting in severe terms upon the nature of the examination, and setting forth the great danger to the peace of the Church which would result from a judicial declaration on their part that Gorham's opinions were clearly proved to be heretical. After him came Knight Bruce, who read a paper of moderate length, but strongly condemnatory of Gorham, and for affirming the judgement of the Court below. Pemberton Leigh was the last. He said he had not been prepared to express any opinion, having conceived that they were only to meet to hear those of the Prelates; but he made a very short speech, in which he gave a very decided opinion for reversing the judgement; and he showed very clearly that if there were some answers of Gorham's which appeared to bear out the Bishop of London's view of the matter, there were others by which they were neutralised, and in which he gave his unqualified assent and consent to those doctrines of the Church which the Bishops alleged that he rejected. Some conversation, all very amicable, then ensued, and the question was settled. Lord Langdale undertook to prepare the judgement. The Bishop of London said he hoped nothing would be said in it condemnatory of the Bishop of Exeter's doctrine, at which they all exclaimed that they would take care nothing of the kind was done; they would steer as clear as possible of any declaration of opinion as to doctrine, and found their judgement on this, that it had not been proved to them that Gorham had put forth any doctrine so clearly and undoubtedly at variance with the Articles and formularies as to warrant the Bishop's refusal to induct him. Lushington said he had the greatest difficulty in making out what Gorham's doctrine really was, and he was much struck with the fact that in no part of the Bishop's pleadings did he say explicitly with what he charged him. They then separated, no time having been fixed for giving judgement. But for Knight Bruce it would be unanimous; but he will never give way, and this will prevent their declaring that they are unanimous.

[Footnote 104: [Sir Herbert Jenner, then Dean of the Arches, had given judgement against Mr. Gorham, who was the promoter of the 'Duplex Querela' for institution to the living of Brampford Speke, which was the commencement of these celebrated proceedings.]]

[Footnote 105: [Dr. Sumner was then Archbishop of Canterbury; Dr. Musgrave, Archbishop of York; Dr. Blomfield, Bishop of London.]]

[Sidenote: OPINIONS ON THE GORHAM CASE.]

[Sidenote: DEATH OF LORD ALVANLEY.]

_January 23rd._--If I had not been too lazy to write about anybody or anything, I should not have suffered the death of Lord Alvanley to pass without some notice. The world, however, has no time to think of people who are out of its sight, and a long illness which had confined him entirely, and limited his society to a few old friends, caused him to be forgotten, and his departure out of life to be almost unobserved. There was a time when it would have been very different, during those many years when his constant spirits and good humour, together with his marvellous wit and drollery, made him the delight and ornament of society. I know no description of him so appropriate as the character of Biron in 'Love's Labour's Lost':--

...A merrier man,
Within the limit of becoming mirth,
I never spent an hour's talk withal:
His eye begets occasion for his wit,
For every object that the one doth catch
The other turns to a mirth-moving jest,
Which his fair tongue (conceit's expositor)
Delivers in such apt and gracious words,
That aged ears play truant at his tales,
And younger hearings are quite ravished;
So sweet and voluble is his discourse.

He was originally in the army, came early into the world, and at once plunged into every sort of dissipation and extravagance. He was the most distinguished of that set of _rouÈs_ and spendthrifts who were at the height of the fashion for some years--consisting of Brummel, Sir H. Mildmay, Lord Sidney Osborne, Foley, John Payne, Scrope Davies, and several others, and when all of them were ruined and dispersed (most of them never to recover), Alvanley still survived, invulnerable in his person, from being a Peer, and with the means of existence in consequence of the provident arrangement of his uncle, who left him a considerable property in the hand of trustees, and thus preserved from the grasp of his creditors. He was naturally of a kind and affectionate disposition, good-natured, obliging, and inclined to be generous; but he was to the last degree reckless and profligate about money; he cared not what debts he incurred, and he made nothing of violating every sort of pecuniary engagement or obligation. He left the friends who assisted him in the lurch without remorse, and such was the _bonhomie_ of his character, and the irresistible attraction of his society, that they invariably forgave him, and after exhausting their indignation in complaints and reproaches, they became more intimate with him than before. Many a person has been astonished, after hearing the tale of Alvanley's abominable dishonesty and deceit, to see the plaintiff and the culprit the dearest of friends in the world. He was a great example how true it is that--

L'agrÈment couvre tout, il rend tout lÈgitime;
Aujourd'hui dans le monde il n'y a qu'un seul crime,
C'est l'ennui: pour le fuir tous les moyens sont bons.

When I recollect his constant treacheries, and the never-failing placability of his dupes, I always think of the story of Manon L'Escaut, of whom he appears to me to have been a male prototype. It would be very difficult to convey any idea of the sort of agreeableness which was so captivating in him. He did not often say very witty things; it was not uproarious mirth, and jokes exciting fits of laughter like Sydney Smith; he was unlike any of the great luminaries of his own or of bygone times; but he was delightful. He was so gay, so natural, so irresistibly comical, he diffused such cheerfulness around him, he was never ill-natured; if he quizzed anybody and bantered them, he made them neither angry nor unhappy; he had an even and constant flow of spirits, and till his health became impaired you were _sure_ of him in society. He was vain, but it was a harmless and amusing vanity, which those who knew him well understood and laughed at. He had rioted in all the dissipations of play and wine and women, and for many years (a _liaison_ which began when neither were very young, and was the _rÈchauffÈ_ of an earlier affair, before she was married) he was the notorious and avowed lover of Lady ----. What Burke says with a sort of mock modesty of himself, was true of Alvanley--he had 'read the book of life for a long time, and other books a little!' For the first years of his life he was too entirely plunged in dissipation and debauchery to repair in any way the deficiencies of a neglected education; later, he read a good deal in a desultory way, and acquired a good store of miscellaneous information. At one period he addicted himself to politics, but he never made any figure in the House of Lords, having no parliamentary experience, no oratorical genius, and no foundation of knowledge. But it was during this period that he signalised his courage in his duel with young O'Connell. Before that event, for no particular reason but that he was only known as a voluptuary, no very high idea was entertained of his personal bravery; but on this occasion it shone forth with great lustre, for no man ever exhibited more resolution or indifference to danger. For the last four years of his life he was afflicted with painful diseases, and his sufferings were incessant and intense. He bore them all with a fortitude and a cheerfulness which never failed him, and which excited universal sympathy and admiration.

[Sidenote: OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.]

_February 2nd._--The Session opened on Thursday,[106] and Ministers got a great victory in the House of Lords the same night, and yesterday another in the House of Commons so signal and decisive as to leave no uncertainty in respect to the agricultural questions, or the stability of the Government. After all the sound and fury which have pervaded the country, and the formidable attitude they assumed, they entered on the parliamentary contest in a very feeble and apparently undecided, if not disunited manner. And nothing could be more shocking than the contrast between the rage and fury, the denunciations and determinations of the Protectionists all over the country for months past, and the moderate language and abstinences from all specific demands on the part of the leaders in both Houses. Stanley, who has never said or written a syllable during the recess, and kept aloof from all agitation, made a very reasonable speech, disclaiming any wish to interrupt the experiment, which he was sure would fail, and only requiring that if it did fail, we should retrace our steps. This was very different from Richmond, who was coarse and violent, and declared he wanted to turn out the Government, and restore Protection at once. In the other House, Disraeli was very bad, and there was no possibility of making out what he meant or was driving at. Cobden was very good, and had much the best of him. All this disunion and weakness ended in good divisions, an exposure of the weakness and inefficiency of the Tory party, and apparently putting the Government at their ease and into smooth water.

[Footnote 106: [Parliament was opened by Commission on January 31. A Protectionist amendment to the Address was defeated in the House of Lords by 152 to 103, and in the House of Commons by 311 to 192.]]

But in the midst of all this apparent prosperity many people (of whom I am one) are far from easy at the state of affairs. The Opposition are rabid, and bent on annoying and damaging the Government in every way they can. The Radicals are lying in wait to take advantage of their resentment and turn it to their own purposes. It is impossible not to feel that the Free Trade 'experiment,' as it is called, is a fearful and a doubtful one; and even supposing it to succeed (as I think it will in the long run), there are so many weak and vulnerable landlords and tenants, that there will be a great deal of intermediate havoc and distress; and the farmers have been so terrified and excited by their leaders and orators, that there is good reason to fear, when they find Protection cannot be had, that they will become financial reformers, break through all the old patriarchal ties, and go to any lengths which they may fancy they can make instrumental to their relief. The Protectionists have had the folly to poison and pervert their minds, and to raise a spirit they will find it difficult either to manage or subdue. In short, the country is in a greater state of fermentation and uncertainty than I have ever known it, and its conservative qualities, and faculty of righting itself, and resisting extreme dangers, will be put to a severe test.

[Sidenote: LORD PALMERSTON AND LORD GREY.]

_February 10th._--The brightness of the Ministerial prospect was very soon clouded over, and last week their disasters began. There was first of all the Greek affair, and then the case of the Ceylon witnesses--matters affecting Lord Palmerston and Lord Grey. The Greek case will probably be settled, thanks to French mediation, but it was a bad and discreditable affair, and has done more harm to Palmerston than any of his greater enormities.[107] The other Ministers are extremely annoyed at it, and at the sensation it has produced. The disgust felt at these bullying and paltry operations is great and universal, and it will of course tend to make us still more odious abroad. As far as Palmerston himself is concerned, he will as usual escape unscathed, quite ready to plunge into any fresh scrape to-morrow, uncorrected and unchecked; he bears a charmed life in politics, he is so popular and so dexterous that he is never at a loss, nor afraid, nor discomposed. He is supported by his own party; the Peelites will not attack him for fear of hurting the Government; and he is the pet of the Radicals, to whom he pays continual court, giving them sops in the shape of Liberal speeches, Hungarian sympathies, and claptrap--unmeaning verbiage of different sorts.

[Footnote 107: [In consequence of the _hiatus_ in these Journals from September to January, no mention has yet been made of the demands on the Greek Government in favour of Don Pacifico, a Gibraltar Jew, by order of Lord Palmerston, but they led to very serious consequences. On January 18, 1850, Admiral Parker proclaimed a blockade of the PirÊus, the Greek Government having refused to acknowledge the British claims. On February 5, France offered her good offices as a mediator; but this, as will be seen, did not settle the question.]]

Very different is the case of Grey. He is as unpopular as the other is popular. The House of Commons swarms with his bitter enemies, and he commands very few friends. Notwithstanding his great and undeniable abilities, he committed blunders, which proceed from his contempt for the opinion of others, and the tenacity with which he clings to his own; and while those who know him are aware that a man more high-minded, more honourable and conscientious does not exist, he has contrived to make himself pass for a Minister whose word cannot be relied on. This last affair of the Ceylon witnesses is indeed well calculated to confirm such an impression, and to heap additional odium on his head. It is wholly without excuse, damaging to him, damaging to the Government, and will animate and embitter the personal hostility with which he is pursued to a degree that will probably bring him to grief in the course of this Session, and perhaps the whole Cabinet with him.[108] The Government was only saved from a defeat on Wednesday morning by the bad tactics of Disraeli, who moved so strong a resolution that few would support it. Bright then moved one more moderate, and was only beaten by nine; had the more moderate one been moved at first, it would have been carried. These two incidents have been vexatious and injurious, and were not improved by an angry personal squabble between Horsman on one side and John Russell and Sir George Grey on the other, in which, however, the former is undoubtedly in the wrong.

[Footnote 108: [A Select Committee of the House of Commons had been appointed to enquire into the grievances alleged to exist in Ceylon, especially with reference to the means taken by the Governor to quell the recent insurrection in that island, and an understanding had been arrived at in the preceding Session, that certain witnesses should be brought over from Ceylon on the reappointment of the Committee. These witnesses were not forthcoming, and condemnatory motions were made by Mr. Hume, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Bright, but rejected by the House of Commons.]]

Lord Stanley has taken up Lord Roden's cause,[109] and is going to attack the Irish Government, much to my surprise, for he told me himself at Newmarket that he thought Roden quite wrong, and that Clarendon could not help dismissing him. But what he may have said or thought all goes for nothing when he can find an opportunity of making an assault on the Government, or 'giving them a gallop,' as he told Clanricarde he was going to do, when he gave notice of his motion.

[Footnote 109: [In October 1849, Lord Clarendon, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, dismissed from the Commission of the Peace Lord Roden and the other Orange magistrates implicated in the fray which took place at Dolly's Brae on July 12, 1849. Lord Stanley brought the whole subject forward in the House of Lords on February 18, and Lord Clarendon defended his measures in person.]]

[Sidenote: THE PACIFICO CASE.]

_February 14th._--There has been a grand discussion whether Clarendon should come over to meet Stanley and Roden on Monday next. He was greatly against coming, and so were several of his friends; but John Russell, George Grey, and Lord Lansdowne all thought he had better come, and he acquiesced, though reluctantly, and retaining his opinion that it was not expedient. Stanley told Granville yesterday that he was not going to defend Orange processions, and had only taken up the matter for the purpose of preventing personal matters between Clarendon and Roden being mixed up with the discussion on the Processions Act, and to have those personal matters settled beforehand; _au reste_, that he had at first thought Clarendon had been quite in the right, but since he had seen all the evidence and read the papers he had changed his opinion, and thought Roden and the other Peers had been hardly treated. Clarendon himself wrote me word he was convinced Stanley only brought forward this matter to satisfy his Irish adherents, who had been urging him to do it. It is most probable that he finds himself in a scrape with his party, who must be excessively disappointed and disgusted at his very lukewarm advocacy of Protection in his speech on the first night of the Session, and indeed at the way he has kept aloof from all their agitation; and he finds it necessary to do something to satisfy them in other ways. So he will take every opportunity he can find of attacking the Government, and try to excite and assure his party by such field-days as Dolly's Brae, and by working the Greek question and anything else he can lay his hands on.

This Greek question is the worst scrape into which Palmerston has ever got himself and his colleagues. The disgust at it here is universal with those who think at all about foreign matters; it is past all doubt that it has produced the strongest feelings of indignation against this country all over Europe, and the Ministers themselves are conscious what a disgraceful figure they cut, and are ashamed of it. Labouchere came into my room yesterday and let loose about it without reserve. He said it admitted of no excuse, and that John Russell, who alone could have prevented it, was inexcusable for not having done so; that it ought to have been brought regularly and formally before the Cabinet, who ought all to have known precisely what it was Palmerston proposed to do. Papers indeed were sent round in boxes, and Palmerston defended himself on this ground, and asked why they did not read them; but (said Labouchere) how was it possible for men who had large departments with a vast deal of business of their own, to read all the papers which were brought round in circulation? They neither did nor could. It was quite clear from all this that the Greek affair was not a measure well considered, discussed, and agreed on by the Cabinet, but done in the true Palmerstonian style, offhand, partly and casually communicated to his colleagues, but so managed as to be his own act, to which they indeed became parties, completely implicated, but in which they were not really consulted, and which passed under their eyes without entering into their serious thoughts. Now that the whole magnitude of the scrape is revealed to them they are full of resentment and mortification. Graham told Arbuthnot the other day that he thought the breaking down of the Government would be the greatest of evils, and he would do anything to support them, but that it was impossible for them to go on with two such men as Grey and Palmerston.

_February 17th._--I breakfasted with Senior yesterday, to meet Macaulay, Hallam, and Van de Weyer, and I had some talk with the latter about Greece. Of course, he expressed himself with reserve, but he owned it was a very bad affair, and could not end either creditably or well. He said he thought there was a good chance of patching up the quarrel with Spain, which was in the hands of his King. After the breakfast I went to Kent House, where I found Clarendon arrived the night before in very good spirits. He gave me an outline of his case, and told me several facts, very important and available, and I am sanguine as to his coming well out of it, if he can manage his materials adroitly. On the other hand, the Stanleians and Rodentes give out that they have a great case, the first on constitutional, and the last on personal, grounds; but both profess an intention to be moderate in their mode of pressing it. Lord Grey has had a success in the Ceylon Committee in the evidence of Captain Watson, who proved the proclamation attributed to him to be a forgery; and he threw so much discredit on Baillie's evidence that Graham told me he thought it would be fatal to his case.

[Sidenote: THE DOLLY'S BRAE AFFAIR.]

_February 19th._--Stanley brought on the Dolly's Brae affair last night in a long, clever, and artful speech, delivered in his best style. But it was the speech of a clever _nisi prius_ advocate, and consisted principally of an ingenious dissection of Berwick's report and the evidence, and a bitter attack upon him. The useless and unmeaning character of this display was very apparent when he announced his intention of doing nothing, and asking no opinion of the House. Clarendon rose after him. He made a very good case, his points told remarkably well, and, on the whole, he acquitted himself successfully, and to the satisfaction of his friends; but, coming after Stanley's practised and brilliant declamation, his style appeared tame and feeble. It was easy to see that he was no debater, and that his parliamentary inexperience diminished his force and efficacy. For a little while I was in great alarm for him, and thought he was going to break down; but he recovered, and got through his speech very well. If he had had more artistic power, he would have made his excellent materials much more effective than they were. In such hands as Stanley's they would have been crushing; they would have been very powerful if Lord Lansdowne had had them; but as it was, it was well enough. There was no personality introduced into the debate; the rival speeches were very civil and complimentary to each other; and Roden, throughout his dull and inaudible harangue, called Clarendon his noble friend, to which Clarendon of course responded in his short second speech. Before it began Stanley and Clarendon rushed to each other across the House, and shook hands very cordially, like a couple of boxers before setting to.

_February 20th._--Clarendon called on me yesterday, very happy at his success the night before. There is a pretty general opinion that he made out a very good case, and that Stanley's was a failure. The latter made one or two great mistakes, and was detected in one very discreditable attempt. He quoted from an Act of Parliament, reading an extract from it, but stopping short at that part of the clause which would have upset his own argument. By a great piece of good luck, the Chancellor Brady had anticipated the possibility of this Act being alluded to, and had sent it over to Clarendon, pointing out this clause, and Clarendon only received it two hours before the debate came on.

Clarendon told me he expected the Encumbered Estates Act would prove the regeneration of Ireland, and that this measure was entirely done by himself. When he was here last year he saw Peel, who said he would give up his own scheme if Clarendon could accomplish something of this kind. Clarendon spoke to John Russell about it, who said legal reforms were impossible; the lawyers never would carry them out. Clarendon replied, 'Only lend me your Solicitor-General, and I will do it all.' Romilly went over to Dublin, the Chancellor was cajoled, the Irish Attorney-and Solicitor-General were frightened into acquiescence, and Romilly drew the Bill with their concurrence, which was passed last Session, and is now working with extraordinary effect. The Lord-Lieutenancy is to be abolished on January 1, 1851, and the Bill to be brought in this Session. Clarendon will then be Secretary of State for Ireland.

We had some talk about our foreign affairs, especially Greece, of which he had himself only heard a little. I had heard that Palmerston had been making some fresh proposal to the Cabinet, at which they had kicked, and I now learned what it was. So little disposed is he, notwithstanding all the feelings and opinions that have been manifested, to recede, that he proposed that instructions should be sent to Wyse to insist that the French Minister at Athens (or agent of the _bons offices_, whoever he may be) should be obliged to require of the Greek Government an immediate compliance with the whole of our demands. This the Cabinet refused to do, but Lord Lansdowne owned to Clarendon that he was by no means sure that they were apprised of all the instructions that had been sent, or that this requisition might not have gone out, though the Cabinet had refused its consent to it. Clarendon told Lord Lansdowne that he hoped he was not insensible to the state of public opinion on this matter, and he said he was fully aware of it.

[Sidenote: SIR ROBERT PEEL ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.]

_February 22nd._--On Wednesday, as I was crossing the Park, I fell in with Sir Robert Peel, and turned back with him to Charles Wood's, where he was going, after which we went towards his home, and walked up and down behind Whitehall for half an hour or more, talking of all sorts of things. He began about the Roden affair, on which he thought there was no case against Clarendon, but that he might have made more clearly known to Lord Roden his dislike to the procession, and considering the friendly terms they had been on, that there was some want of courtesy in making no communication to him before the notice of dismissal, particularly after Roden had offered to resign if it would be of any use to him that he should do so. I explained all these matters to him, and showed him that Clarendon had said and done all he could, and that no blame attached to him. He said he had known nothing of the matter but what Jocelyn had told him.

He then spoke of foreign affairs, and did not spare Palmerston. He reviewed the general course of our proceedings, and especially the Greek affair, which he thought very bad; but what was still worse, was our having sent our fleet into the Dardanelles, having no right to do so, and then asserting we were driven there by stress of weather, which was a pretence and a falsehood. This was very disgraceful, and the use to which our fleet had been put very shameful. That Palmerston had met with nothing but failures from Lisbon, where he first sent the fleet, and where his enemy Cabral had been ever since in power down to the present occasion. Brunnow had spoken to him the other day, and talked very good sense. He said the Emperor of Russia would not quarrel on this matter, not having done so on our fleet going to the Dardanelles; he would not on account of two uninhabited islets, but he would feel it. He alluded to the Emperor's sarcastic remark on the story of our fleet being compelled to take shelter in the Dardanelles; that 'he had always understood our fleets were most ably and powerfully manned, their tactics very superior, and that Sir William Parker was a very skilful officer; but that _his_ fleet, though lying in that sea for many months, had never found itself under any such necessity.' Brunnow said it was a great pity that somebody could not represent to Palmerston the impolicy of the course he had been pursuing all over Europe; that it was evident his real motive and intention in the Greek affair had been to bring about a revolution there, and that he had expected, when his fleet appeared, there would be a rising against Otho, who would be expelled; that when Europe was only just emerging from a state of general revolution, and order was only lately restored, what folly it was to provoke a fresh revolution, and to reopen an important question, the settlement of which might lead to the greatest difficulties! Brunnow always defends Palmerston, and affects to make light of all the _accidents_ that arise, but he speaks his real sentiments to Peel and Aberdeen. Peel said he had seen a letter from an officer in Parker's fleet, representing that the Admiral was exceedingly disgusted at the business put into his hands. We occupied so much time in discussing Ireland and Greece, that there was none to go into other matters, though I should have liked to hear his opinion of the state and prospects of the country.

Last night I met Clarendon at dinner at Bath House, when I told him what had passed between Peel and me. He told me also that Roden had behaved shabbily to him, when he quoted in the House of Lords the letter he had written, offering to resign the magistracy, but concealing the latter part of the same letter in which he said that he hoped he would not accept it if he thought it would be any triumph to the Catholics, for they had now got them down, and they should be able to keep them down. This, Clarendon said, he felt tempted to read himself, as Roden chose to read the first part, but he abstained.

[Sidenote: PRINCE ALBERT ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.]

He then gave me an account of what had passed between the Queen and Prince and himself. He dined at the Palace on Tuesday. I told him they were sure to talk to him on foreign affairs, but he said he should avoid it. However, he could not avoid it. The moment he came into the drawing-room after dinner the Queen exploded, and went with the utmost vehemence and bitterness into the whole of Palmerston's conduct, all the effects produced all over the world, and all her own feelings and sentiments about it. He could only listen and profess his own almost entire ignorance of the details. After she had done Prince Albert began, but not finding time and opportunity to say all he wished, he asked him to call on him the next day. He went and had a conversation of two hours and a half, in the course of which he went into every detail, and poured forth without stint or reserve all the pent-up indignation, resentment, and bitterness with which the Queen and himself have been boiling for a long time past. He commented on Palmerston's policy and conduct much in the same terms in which the 'Times' does, and as I and others do. But what he enlarged upon with the strongest feeling was the humiliating position in which the Queen was placed in the eyes of the whole world. The remonstrances and complaints, the sentiments and resentments of other Sovereigns--of the King of Naples, and of the Emperor of Russia, for instance--directly affected her dignity as the Sovereign and Representative of this Nation; and the consciousness that these Sovereigns and all the world knew that she utterly disapproved of all that was done in her name, but that she was powerless to prevent it, was inconceivably mortifying and degrading. Prince Albert said he knew well enough the Constitutional position of the Sovereign of this country, and that it was the policy and measures which the nation desired and approved which the Government must carry out; but that the nation disapproved of Palmerston's proceedings, and so did his own colleagues, Lord Lansdowne particularly; yet by their weak connivance he was allowed to set at defiance the Sovereign, the Government, and public opinion, while the Queen could get neither redress nor support from John Russell, and was forced to submit to such degradation. He then mentioned various instances in which the Queen's remonstrances and suggestions had been disregarded. Minutes submitted to her in one form and changed by Palmerston into other forms; the refusal of Austria to send any Ambassador here, because he could not transact business with her Secretary of State. Clarendon asked him if he had ever endeavoured to influence Palmerston himself, and remonstrated with him on those matters which had justly excited the strong feelings of the Queen and himself. He said that he had done so repeatedly, and for a long time; that he always found him easy, good-humoured, very pleasant to talk to, but that it was utterly impossible to turn him from his purposes, or to place the least reliance on anything he said or engaged to do, and that at length the conviction which had been forced upon him of the uselessness of speaking to him had caused him entirely to leave it off, and for above a year past neither the Queen nor he had ever said one word to him; that it was in vain they had appealed to John Russell. He supposed it was the etiquette for Cabinet Ministers never to admit there was anything censurable in the conduct of each other, for though he was certain many things were done of which John Russell could not approve, and for which he was unable to make any defence, he never would admit that what had been done had been wrong; that the consequence of this had been to impair considerably the relations of confidence and openness which ought to exist between the Queen and her Prime Minister, and to place her in an unsatisfactory position _vis-‡-vis_ of him. After dilating at great length on this topic, he said something from which Clarendon inferred that his object was to make _him_ a channel of communication with John Russell, and thus to make their sentiments known to him more clearly and unreservedly than they could do themselves, and he means to tell Lord John all that passed. He said the Prince talked very sensibly and very calmly, very strong, but without excitement of manner. I shall be curious to hear what Lord John says to it all; but though it can hardly fail somewhat to disturb his mind, I don't believe it will make the least alteration in his conduct, or change an iota of the 'unconquerable will and study of revenge' of Palmerston, or prevent his doing just what he pleases in spite of all the world. Peel told me he understood we were sending to Leghorn to make demands of some sort there, which he concluded was done to annoy Austria.

[Sidenote: DEBATE ON THE POOR LAWS.]

_February 23rd._--The division in the House of Commons on Thursday night was hailed with vociferous cheers by the Protectionists, who considered it a great victory and the harbinger of future success.[110] Everybody was taken by surprise, for though it was known that the Opposition would muster strong, nobody imagined there would be so small a majority as twenty, the Government expected about forty. Graham spoke very well, and so did Gladstone _in reply to him_, the part the latter took exciting a considerable sensation. Disraeli was good, both in his opening speech and reply. Graham told me he was much improved, and his taste and tone far better than formerly. Peel was long and heavy, talked of himself too much, and made one of those defences of his former conduct which he might as well let alone, for they are superfluous with one half of the House and country, and useless with the other. He had much better, as Disraeli told him, do like Cosmo de Medici, and leave his character to posterity; he unwisely enough noticed a very warm and unjust attack which Henry Bentinck had made upon him at some public meeting. Henry Bentinck, like a true member of his family and own brother to George, instead of recanting or apologising, insinuated his disbelief in what Peel said, and was as offensive as the clamour and displeasure of the House and his own inarticulateness allowed him to be. In the afternoon yesterday Graham called on me to speak about the Australian Bill which was to have come on next Monday, and on which he said Government would infallibly be beaten, which following up the _quasi_ defeat of Thursday would be very awkward. I suggested, after talking the matter over, that he and Peel might give them some help, which he said they would do, but must know what Government thereupon meant to do. I undertook to find out, but in the meantime John Russell put off the Bill.

[Footnote 110: [On February 19 Mr. Disraeli moved for a Committee to revise and amend the Poor Laws for the purpose of affording relief to the agricultural classes. Mr. Gladstone voted for the motion, though it became virtually a Protectionist demonstration. The resolution was defeated by 273 to 253--only 20 majority for Government.]]

_February 28th._--Before Clarendon left town he saw John Russell, and told him all that had passed between him and the Prince, and that he was quite certain it had been said to him for the express purpose of its being repeated to Lord John. He also told him that it was fit he should understand the strong and unusual feeling that existed on this subject, assuring him that he had not met with one single individual of any party or condition who did not regard it with disgust and displeasure. He then adjured him, whatever else he might do, to cultivate better _personal_ feelings, and more confidential relations with the Queen and Prince, to be more open with them, and to enter into their feelings, and this Lord John, who seems to have taken what he said in very good part, promised he would not fail to do.

[Sidenote: GRILLON'S CLUB.]

Clarendon had also long conversations with Peel and Graham, who were both very complimentary and satisfactory about his case in the House of Lords, and Peel talked to him a great deal about affairs, both English and Irish. He was as confident as ever in the impossibility of the restoration of Protection, and the disastrous, and in the end abortive, effects of any attempt to do so by a Stanley and Disraeli Government, if by any possibility they could force themselves into office. He is evidently much disgusted with Gladstone and Goulburn, who have given indubitable signs of forsaking him, and advancing towards the Protectionists, and Graham said Stanley would now be able to offer the Queen a list, which would not be an insult. But Gladstone, though he has twice voted with the Opposition, loudly declares that he has not changed an iota of his Free Trade opinions, and has no thoughts of joining the other party, though they think they can have him whenever they may vouchsafe to take him. There is a considerably prevailing opinion of the diminished vigour as well as of the diminished influence of Peel. His speech the other night was laboured and heavy, and not judicious. Then the House was much struck by the unusual spectacle of Peel and Graham both rising to speak together, and both persisting to await the Speaker's call instead of Graham's giving way to Peel, as he would have done formerly. It was probably the first time Peel ever rose in the House of Commons to speak, and had to give way to another speaker. The House called for the one as much as for the other, and Graham made incomparably the best speech of the two. Ever since their large minority, the Protectionists have been in a very rampant and excited state, overflowing with pugnacity and confidence; but they made a great mistake in opposing very furiously and factiously the Irish Voters Bill, and the Government think that night was exceedingly serviceable to them, by rallying back a great many of the Irish Members, who were out of humour, and disposed to go against them in the matter of protection and relief.

I was last night elected at Grillon's Club, much to my surprise, for I did not know I was a candidate.

_March 8th._--I dined on Wednesday at Grillon's, and was received with vast civility and cordiality. A large party, much larger than usual--amongst them Harrowby, Granville, Graham, Sir Thomas Fremantle, Rutherford, Pusey, Sir Thomas Acland, &c. Sat next to Graham, and had much talk on affairs. I told him that Labouchere had said to me a day or two before that John Russell was uneasy about the House of Commons, and expected that he should be beaten on more than one item in the financial accounts; that people told him he must expect to be beaten; but he replied that repeated defeats on such details materially impaired his influence and authority in the House, and made it difficult to carry on the business. Graham said this was very true, and that he probably would be beaten. He thought the position of the Government unsatisfactory and precarious; they had got into some scrapes about both Army and Naval estimates, unnecessarily and injudiciously. Then there were the questions of the African squadron and the Greek business behind. Stanley is very bitter and active, and eager to fight. He thinks Gladstone, Goulburn, and Aberdeen would all join Stanley in taking office. I asked him how it was possible. He said the Protectionists would make some concessions, and for various reasons and on different pretexts they would be easily satisfied. He congratulated himself on his foresight in refusing to take office. This Greek question was just one of those cases in which he must have refused to obey the orders of the Foreign Office, very different now from Lord Grey's time. Then when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, he used to be every day at the Foreign Office, and Lord Grey was paramount, allowing nothing to be done without his full knowledge and assent, and constantly altering Palmerston's despatches as a tutor might a boy's exercise. He talked a good deal about the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, of which he approves, but said the arrangement of the details, especially about the Chancellor, would be very difficult. Arbuthnot told me the other day that the Protectionists are doing all they can to disgust the Yeomanry with the service, and to induce them to resign, not without success. This is their patriotism.

I met Brunnow a few days ago coming from Palmerston, where he had been (though he did not say so) to present the Emperor's indignant note. He was laughing as he always does when he speaks of Palmerston; said of this affair, 'que c'Ètait une bÍtise; qu'il ne pouvait pas faire comprendre ‡ Palmerston l'humiliation de l'affaire.' So far from acknowledging this, or evincing the least sign of regret or shame, when Hume asked him a question in the House the other night, he replied with the utmost effrontery, and with rather more than his usual insolence and audacity. As on every occasion, the House laughed and nobody said a word. All that relates to him, his character, conduct, and career, will hereafter form one of the most curious passages in history and the most astounding and unaccountable.

[Sidenote: THE GORHAM JUDGEMENT.]

_March 9th._--Yesterday judgement was given in Gorham's case at the Council Office. The crowd was enormous, the crush and squeeze awful. I accommodated my friends with seats in court, and there were Wiseman and Bunsen sitting cheek by jowl, probably the antipodes of theological opinions. The Lords met an hour before. They made some alterations in the judgement, and some judicious omissions. The Bishop of London, after much vacillation, half assenting and half dissenting, being on and off, by turns against Gorham and against the Bishop, disagreeing with everybody and everything, finally sent his determination through Lushington, and announcing (as was said in the judgement) that he could not concur. He did not, however, concur in the statement of Gorham's doctrine as gathered by the Lords, a difference of construction which shows how impossible it would have been to condemn Gorham on the score of heterodox, if not heretical, opinions, when a number of very able men, laymen and clergymen, after careful examination, could not agree what his opinions really were. Knight Bruce dissented altogether, wrote to Lord Langdale to that effect, and declined coming. The Archbishop agreed in both judgement and reasons. There was a preliminary discussion about costs. Langdale, Campbell, and Lushington were for giving Gorham costs in the Court below; Pemberton Leigh was against it; and the three eventually yielded to the one, and it was agreed to say nothing about costs. Langdale read the judgement well, and the people who heard it (at least those I talked to) thought it able and judicious; but of course all the highflyers and Puseyites will be angry and provoked, and talk of schisms and secessions, which will be, I am firmly convinced, _bruta fulmina_.

Reeve received yesterday afternoon from Paris the Russian Note--not the Note itself, but the whole substance of it, textual evidently, and copied from the note.[111]

[Footnote 111: [This was a Note in which the Russian Government protested against the abuse of the maritime power of England to coerce small and unresisting States.]]