The Greville Memoirs, Part 3 (of 3), Volume 2 (of 2) / A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1852 to 1860

The Treaty, the Budget, and the Reform Bill had thrown foreign affairs into the background, but the interest in them was suddenly aroused, and speedily absorbed every other, by the Emperor's speech and M. Thouvenel's despatches, all so mortifying and provoking to us. Up to this moment Palmerston had been highly elated, and he and Lord John had been exulting in the fancied glory of being the Liberators of Italy, and of having procured the complete success of their own objects. As Clarendon wrote to me, 'The Emperor must greatly enjoy the helplessness of Europe, and in feeling that he may do just what he likes with perfect impunity. Russia is crippled, Austria rotten, Germany disunited, and England, though growling, occupied in gnawing the Treaty bone he has tossed to her. All must submit to the laws made known to them through the "Moniteur."' If it were not so melancholy to see the miserable figure which England cuts in all this, it would be amusing to see it happen regnante Palmerston, and after all his incurable meddling and blustering to see him obliged to eat so much dirt. He may (though probably he does not) think he has lived too long to be reserved at the last period of his political career for such mortification. The Emperor said to somebody, 'L'Europe boudera, mais ne fera rien,' and he is quite right. We seem to have arrived at the last act of the Italian drama, but it is still very uncertain how the d�nouement will be worked out and what the Emperor's final will and pleasure will be. The Romagna seems to present the greatest difficulty; all the rest will find a tolerably easy solution. France will take what she wants of Savoy and give the rest to Switzerland, who upon those conditions is desirous of annexation, and Piedmont does not seem to care much about it. In this way the question of Savoy will be settled, if not by general consent, at least with general acquiescence and without any opposition.

March 9th.—After all it is not improbable that Palmerston will have the gratification of seeing Tuscany annexed to Sardinia. Cavour has taken the line which Clarendon and I agreed that he would very likely do, and sets France and Austria at defiance. We have seen France and Sardinia joined in making war upon Austria, and now we have France and Austria joined in diplomacy against Sardinia. Nothing can be more curious than to see the unravelling of this web. Next week the Italian States will severally vote their annexation to Sardinia, or their separate existence. If, as is almost certain, the former is their decision, the King will accept their resolution, and Piedmontese troops will march into Tuscany. Then we shall see what the Emperor Napoleon will do, and what he will permit Austria to do.

Savernake, March 18th.—The affair of Savoy has been summarily settled by the will of the Emperor and the connivance of Cavour. The whole affair now appears to have been a concerted villainy between these worthies, which as the plot has been developed excites here the most intense disgust and indignation. The feeling is the stronger because we have no choice but that of sulky and grumbling acquiescence. The one redeeming point in the French act of violence was the apparent respect paid to Treaties and to the claims of Switzerland, Thouvenel having only the other day said that Faucigny and Chablais should be ceded at once to Switzerland; and now we hear that nothing of the kind is to be done, and that France seizes everything.[1] It is in vain that the Houses of Parliament are advised to cease barking, as they certainly do not mean to bite, and that the 'Times' recommends silence and moderation; such enormities as are unblushingly exhibited to the world excite an indignation which breaks through every restraint, and people will not hold their peace, happen what may. The Opposition have turned the current of their wrath upon our Government, and have proved clearly enough that they had ample and timely notice of the Emperor's intentions, and that nevertheless they continued to urge with all their might that policy which was certain to lead to the annexation of Savoy. That the Emperor and Cavour have been plotting together seems now quite certain, but we are still ignorant, and may perhaps ever remain so, of the details of their delusive operations.

The three great subjects which have occupied public attention all this year have been the Italian and its branches, Gladstone's Treaty and Budget, and the Reform Bill. Up to the present time the two first have absorbed all interest, and the new Reform Bill has been received with almost complete apathy, nobody appearing to know or care what its effects would be, and most people misled by an apparent show of moderation and harmlessness in its details. But in the course of the last week the 'Times' set to work, in a series of very able articles, to show the mischievous and dangerous effects that the proposed franchise will produce, and these warnings, supported by ample statistical details, have begun to arouse people from their indifference and to create some apprehensions. I am informed that John Russell framed his Bill in utter ignorance of these important details, and, with the mixture of levity and obstinacy which has always distinguished him, has plunged the country into this dilemma for the sake of his own selfish and ambitious objects. But what is incomprehensible is that in such a numerous Cabinet as the present, and containing many men who certainly once had strong Conservative opinions, he should not have met with a more strenuous opposition, and have been forced to alter his most obnoxious propositions, and I think those who were better informed than Lord John, and saw whither his plan of Reform was leading them, are more to blame than himself. It is impossible to meet with any man who approves of this Bill, and who does not abhor the idea of any Reform whatever. All say that if the members voted by ballot there would be almost unanimity against it, and yet such is the disorganised state of the Conservative party, and such the want of moral courage and independence generally, that this Bill will most likely pass unaltered.

The prevailing hope is that the House of Lords will amend it, but Derby told somebody (I think it was Clarendon) that if those who dreaded the mischief of the measure in the House of Commons had not the courage and honesty to oppose it there and correct it, the House of Lords should not, so far as his influence went, incur the odium of doing the work which, the House of Commons ought itself to do. Lyndhurst told me the other day that Derby had told Lady Lyndhurst he was so disgusted with the state of affairs at home and abroad, that he had serious thoughts of withdrawing from public life, and Clarendon told me that an eminent Conservative, who had begged not to be quoted, had said that he knew Derby was violently discontented with Disraeli, and prepared to dissolve their political connexion.

Wells, March 21st.—I came here from Savernake on Monday. On Friday last in the House of Lords the Commercial Treaty and Budget, but the latter especially, were powerfully assailed by Grey, Overstone, and Derby, and very considerably damaged in argument, but probably in nothing else. The Government are as weak in the Lords as the Opposition are in the Commons, where, however, Disraeli seems to have made a very good speech against the Reform Bill on Monday night.

Torquay, March 28th.—The past week has been remarkable for the speech in which John Russell denounced in strong language the conduct of France, declared that we could no longer trust her, and that we must renew our intimacies with the other Powers. Whether all this was sincere and meant all it seems to do is yet to be discovered. The week was near being still more remarkable, for the Reform Bill was within an ace of falling to the ground by the House being counted out in the midst of a debate. This would have been very ridiculous, but would have been hailed with delight by the House of Commons, and without dissatisfaction by the country. Clarendon writes to me in a strain of bitter hostility to the Bill and disgust at everything, complains of the general apathy and the impossibility of rousing any spirit of opposition to what all abhor. Derby told him that if twenty-five or even twenty Liberals would take the lead in opposing this Bill, the whole Conservative party would support them. Clarendon wrote to me when I was at Bath that the time would probably come when Gladstone would propose a graduated Income Tax, and lo! it has nearly come, for Gladstone gave notice the other night to people to be prepared for it. The Triumvirate of Palmerston, John Russell, and Gladstone, who have it all their own way, dragging after them the Cabinet, the House of Commons, and the country, will probably be the ruin of this country. They are playing into the Emperor Napoleon's hands, who has only to be patient and bide his time, and he will be able to treat all Europe, England included, in any way he pleases. Nothing but some speedy change of Government and of system can avert the impending ruin.

London, April 2nd.—One day last week (as mentioned above), on one of the numerous discussions of the Savoy question in the House of Commons, John Russell electrified the House and rather astonished the country by delivering a very spirited speech, denouncing in strong terms the conduct of the Emperor Napoleon, and declaring the necessity of cultivating relations with the other Great Powers for the purpose of putting an effectual check upon the projects of French aggrandisement and annexation. I must own that my first impression was that this speech was made merely to deceive the House and the country, and was only a part of the collusive system between our Government and the French, by virtue of which Louis Napoleon has been enabled to work out all his objects and designs; but though it is impossible to doubt that John Russell and Palmerston have all along been aware of the Emperor's intentions with regard to Savoy, and that they have been more intent upon procuring advantages for Sardinia and provoking Austria than upon thwarting the projects of France, I am inclined to see Lord John's speech in another light from what I hear since I came to town. He made it without any previous consultation with his colleagues, it having been one of those impromptus which he is so apt to indulge in, and Palmerston, seeing the way in which it was received in the House and by the Press, approved of its tone and expressed a full concurrence with it. Flahault, who went to Paris a few days ago, called on Palmerston before he went and asked if he wished him to say or do anything there. Palmerston said he might inform the Government that Lord John's speech expressed the unanimous opinion of the Cabinet here. In my opinion his speech was a great imprudence, and will probably involve the necessity of our eating a great deal of humble pie. We have long ago declared that though we disapprove very much of the annexation of Savoy, we should take no steps to prevent it; but Lord John made a great distinction between the question of Savoy and Nice and that of Faucigny and Chablais, and though he did not commit himself to any positive course, he gave it to be inferred that something more would be required from us, in the way of opposition to the seizure of the latter, than there was any necessity for our making to that of the former. But the Emperor makes no such distinctions, and if, as is most probable, he does not admit our right to draw them, we shall be in an unpleasant fix, and have to back out of the position we have assumed in a way neither dignified nor creditable.

The accounts from Paris are that this speech has made the French very insolent, and the Emperor more popular than he has been for a long time, as even his enemies say that they will rally round him to chastise English impertinence. Then as to forming alliances with the other Powers, which of course will be taken (as was intended) as a menace to France, nothing could be more ill-advised than such an announcement, for the other Great Powers have neither the ability nor the inclination to join us in any coalition, present or prospective, against France. Russia and Austria hate us, as well they may, for we have done them both all the injury in our power, besides heaping every sort of insult upon them. Austria is totally ruined, hopelessly bankrupt and torn to pieces with internal disaffection and discontent. Russia is hampered with her great serf question, and overwhelmed with financial embarrassments, which she owes in great measure to the Crimean War, and the unfortunate dissension and estrangement between her and Austria are attributable to the same cause and to our policy. Prussia, the only one of the three that is able to make any efforts, and that has no cause of enmity against us, is always selfish and timorous, and is more occupied in trying to supplant Austria in Germany than in taking defensive measures against French ambition; nor is there in Germany any such strong sentiment of national independence as might induce the various States to sink their minor jealousies and partisanships in a general union, to meet any aggression that may proceed from France. Among the many schemes which the Imperial brain is supposed to be continually engendering, it is far from impossible that one may be the reconstruction of the kingdom of Westphalia, or at least of some Rhenish kingdom with the concurrence of Prussia, by concluding a bargain of partition with her. He might then replace old Jerome on the throne, and so get rid of his obnoxious son, of course taking as much of such acquired territory as he wanted for himself. All this is mere vague conjectural speculation, but it is on the cards, and it is at least as probable as that we should be able to form another coalition, like that which overthrew the first Napoleon, strong enough to cope with the present Napoleon. People are beginning at last to doubt whether the war we waged against Russia four years ago was really a wise and politic measure; but the whole country went mad upon that subject, I never could understand why. Palmerston took it up to make political capital out of it, and made himself popular by falling in with the public humour, and making the country believe that he was the only man really determined to make war on Russia, and able to bring the war to a successful end. Aberdeen, who was wise enough to see the folly of quarrelling with Russia and sacrificing all our old alliances to a new and deceitful one with France, was unable to stem the torrent, and fell under its violence. His fault was his not resigning office when he found it impossible to carry out his policy and maintain peace.

A propos of the Russian War, I heard lately an anecdote for the first time that surprised me. Everybody knows that we beat up for allies and even mercenary aid against Russia in every direction, but it is not known that our Government earnestly pressed the Portuguese Government to join in the war, and to send a contingent to the Crimea, and that on the refusal of the latter to do so, the Ministers made the Queen appeal personally to Lavradio and urge him to persuade his Government to comply with our wishes; but Lavradio represented to Her Majesty, as he had done to her Ministers, that Portugal had no quarrel with Russia, and no interest in joining in the war; on the contrary, Portugal was under obligations to the Emperor of Russia, and she therefore would have nothing to do with the contest. This was a most extraordinary proceeding, and it was contrary to all usage as well as all propriety to make the Queen interpose in person on such an occasion.

April 4th.—Clarendon has just been here talking over the state of affairs, in the course of which he alluded to what had passed in the autumn of '58 between the Emperor and him, and between His Majesty and Palmerston. In September he had a long conversation with the Emperor, in the course of which he asked Clarendon, 'Supposing I find myself compelled to go to war with Austria, what part would England take in the contest?' Clarendon replied that it would depend upon the circumstances of the case and the cause that would be shown for such a war, and that he must not be misled by the language of the English Press and the prejudice which no doubt existed in England against Austria and her system of government, which would not be sufficient to make us take any part against her. On comparing notes with Palmerston afterwards, Clarendon found that Louis Napoleon had put the same question to Palmerston, who had given him the same answer. When they went to Compi�gne in November of the same year, they both had conversations separately of the same character, and when they afterwards compared notes and Clarendon asked Palmerston what impression the Emperor's words had left on his mind, Palmerston replied he thought either that the Emperor had abandoned the design he had certainly been meditating to go to war, or he had resolved upon it, but did not choose to acknowledge his intentions to them, and this Clarendon said was exactly the same opinion as he had formed. This, however, was not above six weeks before his famous speech to the Austrian Ambassador (which was a declaration of war), and therefore the latter conjecture was the correct one. We talked over Lord John's speech and his letter in answer to Thouvenel. Clarendon said that this despatch was entirely written by Palmerston himself, that anybody as well acquainted with their styles as he was must be quite certain of this, but that he knew it to be the case. He had a conversation with Palmerston the other day, who praised Lord John's speech and said it would do good, and he thought the question of Savoy was in a very satisfactory state.

Palmerston, he told me, had said more to Flahault[1] than I had been apprised of. Flahault went to him, and found him just going to the House of Commons. Flahault asked him to let him get into his carriage, which he did, and when Flahault asked what he should say to the Emperor, and Palmerston told him to say that the Emperor had better read Lord John's speech, and understand that he (Palmerston) agreed in every word of it, Flahault said, 'Then you mean that you have no longer any confidence in the Emperor, or place any reliance upon his word.' Palmerston replied, 'I do mean this. After having been repeatedly deceived and misled by his professions and assurances, it is impossible that I can place any further confidence in him.' Then said Flahault, 'There will be war,' to which Palmerston rejoined that he hoped not, that nobody could be more anxious to avoid war than he was.

This was very spirited and becoming, and Clarendon said he highly approved of such a tone. I said that I had all along suspected that there was a secret understanding and collusion between Palmerston and the Emperor, and that Palmerston had given His Majesty to understand that if he would set Italy free, he might do what he pleased with regard to Savoy, but that what had recently passed seemed to negative that idea. Clarendon replied he had no doubt Palmerston had very often said to Persigny what, if repeated by Persigny to the Emperor with some exaggerations and suppressions, would convey as much to His Majesty, for Palmerston had a dozen times said to him (Clarendon) that the liberation and settlement of Italy was of far greater consequence than the preservation of Savoy to Piedmont.

April 8th.—To The Grove on Thursday afternoon, and returned yesterday. On Good Friday morning George Lewis and I were left alone, when we talked over the questions of the day, and he quite amazed me by the way in which he spoke of his principal colleagues. I asked him if John Russell was not exceedingly mortified at the ill-success of his Reform Bill and its reception in the House of Commons and in the country. George Lewis said he did not think he felt this, that at present his mind was entirely occupied with foreign politics, and he was rejoicing in the idea of having been largely instrumental to the liberation of Italy; and as to Reform, that he was satisfied with having redeemed the pledge he gave to Bright to propose a 6l. franchise, and having done this he did not care about the result, as he had never pledged himself to carry it. The most strange thing to me is, that George Lewis seemed not to be alive to the culpable levity of such conduct, or to the censure to which his own conduct is obnoxious in consenting to act with such a man, and to be a party to such a measure.

With regard to Palmerston, he said that Palmerston thought of nothing but his pro-Sardinian and anti-Austrian schemes, and he was gratified by seeing everything in that quarter turning out according to his wishes, that in the Cabinet he took very little part and rarely spoke. Gladstone George Lewis evidently distrusts, and his financial schemes and arrangements are as distasteful to him as possible. He is provoked at Gladstone's being able to bear down all opposition, and carry all before him by the force of his eloquence and power of words, and what I have said of his conduct in supporting John Russell is still more applicable to it in reference to Gladstone and his measures, which he thinks more dangerous by far than he does Lord John's Reform Bill and 6l. clause. I asked him what was to be the end of this Bill, and he said he did not expect it to pass, that probably the debates on it would be so spun out and so many delays interposed that either it would fail in the House of Commons itself, or even if it passed, the House of Lords would say it came up too late for them to examine and consider it, and it would be thrown out there. I gathered in the course of conversation that Palmerston (whose whole antecedents and recorded opinions forbid the idea of his approving such a measure) would be glad to see the franchise raised, and that 8l. and 15l. would in his view improve the Bill.

May 6th.—Since I wrote the above, nearly a month ago, I have been out of the way of hearing anything on public affairs, till a day or two ago when I called on Clarendon, when he told me some things not without interest, partly about domestic and partly about foreign affairs. The latter of course related to the inexhaustible subject of the Emperor Napoleon's projects and machinations. His Majesty, it seems, has recently had a conversation with M. de Moustier, French Minister at Vienna, in the course of which he told him that it was an absolute necessity to France to carry her frontier to the Rhine. About the same time Cavour had signified (I forget whether it was to the same de Moustier or to some other person) that Sardinia must obtain possession of Venetia. These necessities, it can hardly be doubted, are expressed and resolved upon by a common accord. Austria has been already completely crippled by the late war; if threatened in Italy she will employ all her resources in defence of her Italian territory, and she will be quite unable, even if she were willing, to join in any measures of resistance to the attempts of France upon Germany. Prussia has had the egregious folly to renew her feud with Denmark upon the affair of Schleswig-Holstein, and is about to provoke a fresh war on that question. Denmark thus threatened appeals to France for aid, which France is too happy to afford, as she will thereby in all probability find a good pretext for interference, and for the furtherance of all her designs. There seems no doubt that a Treaty of some sort has been concluded between France and Denmark. In this difficult and menacing posture of affairs, England will sooner or later have to play a part of some sort, and it is disquieting enough to reflect upon our diplomacy being under the charge of John Russell and of Palmerston.

After lingering on for several weeks with unprecedented tardiness and delay, and a languid uninteresting discussion—debate it cannot be called—the second reading of the Reform Bill has at last passed without opposition. The last nights have been remarkable for the speeches hostile to the Bill of several Liberal members, and the increasing proofs of its prodigious unpopularity. Everybody is sick of the subject, and those who desire that some modified and amended measure may pass, only do so because they have a horror of seeing another Bill brought in next year, and they hope that they may now purge this Bill of its worst and most dangerous defects, and close the subject for several years to come. Some think that it is impossible to devise any means by which this Bill can be made anything like safe and expedient, and would therefore prefer to throw it out and run all chances for the future. At least one half of the Government, with Palmerston himself at the head of the dissentients, regard this Bill with alarm and aversion, and now that the difficulty, if not impossibility, of passing it is obvious, they are prepared to make every sort of sacrifice, even of its most vital provisions. Palmerston told George Lewis so, and that John Russell himself would submit to an alteration of the franchise to the amount of 15l. for the counties and 8l. for the towns. They know that no question of resignation is involved in this discussion, and that whatever may be the fate of their Bill, they will still keep their places, which no concession will endanger, and accordingly they are ready to agree to any compromise which will secure the Bill's passing through Parliament in any shape or way; but notwithstanding this pliant disposition, it is very doubtful whether the Bill can pass. It will not commence its career in Committee till the first week in June, and it is hardly possible it can reach the House of Lords before the middle or end of July, and the Lords may very well decline to enter on its consideration at that late period.

May 9th.—A correspondence appears in the newspapers between Lord Grey and John Russell, couched in terms of no small bitterness. Such a correspondence between men of such eminence and of the same political colour shows up to the world the insincerity with which, for political motives at the time urgent, they have spoken in their places in Parliament. It is no new thing that members of the same Cabinet should often differ, and that vehemently on particular questions, and yet when these questions come under Parliamentary discussion, that they should exhibit to the world the semblance of an agreement and concurrence which is remote from the truth. But though this is well understood to be of not unfrequent occurrence, and sooner or later the details of the truth often leak out, it is much to be regretted that men should exhibit themselves and each other in the way which this correspondence does, for such exhibitions cannot fail to excite suspicions of the sincerity, conscientiousness, and truth of public men. When Governments are entirely of one party colour, either wholly Whig or wholly Tory, and when they are presided over by some man of supereminent authority, such differences and consequent difficulties are not likely to happen often; but as of late years parties have been broken up, and composite Governments have been formed, combining men of the most opposite original principles, and imbued with very different and incompatible opinions on various subjects, it must be continually happening that candid discussions and disputes in the Cabinet should be followed by insincere and untruthful declarations and argumentations in public. The understood practice from time immemorial has been, that a dissentient from the general opinion of his colleagues upon any important question must either consent to merge his own opinion in theirs, or retire from office; and then the conduct of the dissentient was regulated by his view of the importance of the matter at issue. Of course if a man were to break off from his colleagues upon every matter of difference, however small, no Government could possibly go on for many months or perhaps weeks, but it is impossible in these days not to be struck with the fact that so many men are indisposed to consider anything of sufficient importance to resign their offices rather than sacrifice their enlightened consciences and mature judgements.

May 12th.—Not more than three months ago Gladstone was triumphant and jubilant; he had taken the House of Commons and the country captive by his eloquence, and nothing was heard everywhere but songs of praise and admiration at his marvellous success and prodigious genius. There never was a greater reaction in a shorter time. Everybody's voice is now against him, and his famous Treaty and his Budget are pronounced enormous and dangerous blunders. Those who were most captivated now seem to be most vexed and ashamed of their former fascination. They are provoked with themselves for having been so duped, and a feeling of resentment and bitterness against him has become widely diffused in and out of the House of Commons, on his own side as well as on the other. It was the operation of this feeling which caused the narrow majority on the Paper Duties the other night, when it seems as if a little more management and activity might have put him in a minority, and it is the same thing which is now encouraging the House of Lords, urged on by Derby, to throw out the Resolution when it comes before them. Derby has announced that he shall exert himself to the utmost to procure the rejection of the Bill in the House of Lords, and if he perseveres he will probably obtain a very unwise and perilous success, which he will before long have to regret.

May 17th.—Clarendon dined with Derby about a week ago, when Derby explained to him all his reasons for persisting in his opposition to the Paper Duties Bill. Clarendon said he did not talk rashly and in Rupert vein, but gave a well-considered and well-argued statement of the grounds on which he purposed to proceed. Clarendon evidently sympathised with him, but not without much apprehension and doubt as to the expediency of his course. Derby appears to have taken and to be taking prodigious pains with his case, and he said that his object was to have a great financial debate in the Lords on the Treaty and the Budget. Granville tells me they shall be beaten by a large majority, and he owns that the debate will be almost all one way. There is nothing on the Treasury Bench or behind it able to grapple with Derby, Monteagle, Overstone, and Grey on such a question, though Granville expects Argyll to get up the question and to speak well on it, and he expects something from Newcastle and Ripon, but Clarendon told me (which of course he had from Lewis) the curious fact that Palmerston himself views with pleasure the prospect of the rejection of the Bill. A queer state of things indeed when the Prime Minister himself secretly desires to see the defeat of a measure so precious to his own Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Frederick Cadogan came over from Paris the other day, and told Clarendon that Cowley was in very bad spirits about the aspect of foreign affairs, that all intimacy and confidence between the Emperor and him was at an end, and that it was more and more evident that His Majesty meant to follow his own devices, whatever they might be, without reference to anybody, or caring for the opposition or the assent of any other Powers.

The Garibaldi expedition is supposed to have given great umbrage to France, but not without some suspicions that secretly she is not sorry for it, and thinks in its complications she may find matter to turn to her own account. Everybody believes that Cavour has covertly connived at it, though he pretends to oppose it. Certainly no resolute attempts were made to obstruct the expedition by the Sardinian Government, and none whatever by France, who, if she really cared to stop it, might easily have done so by sending ships from Toulon for the purpose.

Talking of Neapolitan affairs, Pahlen told me yesterday an almost incredible anecdote, but of which he said there was no doubt of the truth. There is just arrived a new Neapolitan Minister, Count Ludolph, grandson of the Ludolph who was formerly here. He has replaced the former Minister, who by his own desire was recently recalled, and he had begged for his recall because he had been grossly insulted by Palmerston at the Queen's Drawing Room, his story being that in that room, in the Queen's presence (who was of course out of hearing), Palmerston had attacked him on the proceedings of his Government and the conduct of the King, telling him that a revolution would probably be the consequence thereof, which would be nothing more than they deserved, and which would be seen in this country with universal satisfaction. The man was so flabbergasted by this unexpected and monstrous sortie that he had not presence of mind to make a suitable answer, and to riposter with the spirit which the occasion required of him. I must endeavour to find out if this is true. Palmerston has always been noted for the vivacity and often acerbity of his language in despatches, but in oral communications and in speeches he has never been reproached with intemperance or incivility, but, on the contrary, has always evinced self-control and gentlemanlike and polite behaviour and language.

May 28th.—Epsom engaged all my attention last week, and I could not find time to notice the debate in the Lords on the Paper Duties, and the extraordinary majority, so much greater than anybody expected. Lyndhurst undertook to speak on the constitutional part of the question, and got leave to speak early (between Granville and Monteagle) that he might go home to celebrate his birthday, which fell on that day, when he completed his eighty-eighth year. He made a very good speech, and met with an enthusiastic reception. Lady Palmerston was in the gallery, openly expressing her wishes that the Bill might be rejected by a large majority. Her language on this and other occasions so shocked some of the more zealous Whigs, that the Duke of Bedford was asked by one or more of them to remonstrate with her on the way she talked, but she knows very well that Palmerston is of the same mind, though he cannot avow his real sentiments in the way she does. Palmerston said to Gladstone, 'Of course you are mortified and disappointed, but your disappointment is nothing to mine, who had a horse with whom I hoped to win the Derby, and he went amiss at the last moment.' The affair has gone off very quietly, the House of Commons not being the least disposed to quarrel with the Lords about it. Even John Russell, who had talked very absurdly, held moderate and prudent language in the House.[1]

June 15th.—At Ascot last week. Palmerston was there, and went up to town on Thursday (going reluctantly) to assist at the withdrawal by John Russell of the Reform Bill. There was a Cabinet the preceding day, at which Palmerston said, 'We must now settle what is to be done about the Reform Bill.' John Russell said, 'I know what my opinion is, and if anybody wishes to hear it I am ready to give it.' They all said they did wish it, when he announced that he thought it ought to be withdrawn. Everybody agreed except Gladstone, who made a long speech in favour of going on with it, which nobody replied to, and there it ended. A discussion took place as to what should be said, and strong opinions expressed that nothing but moderate language should be employed, which John Russell agreed to, and he acted up to it by making a very becoming speech, which would have been faultless if he had not announced another Reform Bill on the earliest possible occasion. This, too, he did entirely off his own bat, and without any consultation or agreement with his colleagues. Fortunately these announcements are no longer so important or so binding as heretofore, and I think it probable, unless there is some great change in public opinion (which is not likely), that when the time draws near Palmerston and a majority of the Cabinet will not consent to a fresh attempt.

July 8th.—I have been so ill till within the last few days that I have not had energy enough to do anything. I have known but little, and that little I could not bring myself to write down here. In fact, it is high time that I should close these records once for all, which I am morally and physically incapable of continuing with any probability of making them interesting. It is not very consistent with this opinion to fill a page or two with the recent transaction in the House of Commons, with reference to the duty on paper. Everybody allows that Palmerston got out of his difficulty with consummate tact and discretion, and that Gladstone's conduct was inexcusable. The Resolutions concocted by Palmerston had been fully discussed and agreed to in the Cabinet (reluctantly of course by Gladstone), and Palmerston's speech was received with general approbation in the House. It was excellent, fair and moderate, the argument logically consistent with the Resolutions, but displeasing to Gladstone and the highflyers because it made a sort of excuse for the Lords, or rather it set forth the grounds on which the Lords might think themselves justified in acting as they did, without having any of the motives and designs which the Gladstones and Brights attributed to them. All this elicited great applause from the Opposition side of the House, and their cheers were very offensive to and grated on the ears of the ultra-Liberals. Everything would have ended quietly, and the Resolutions would have passed without a debate, but Gladstone could not stand it, and, urged by spite and mortification, he must needs get up and make a most violent speech, really, though not avowedly, in opposition to Palmerston, and with the object of provoking a long and acrimonious debate. In this he only partially succeeded, and not for long. The debate lasted one night more, but nothing could be made of the Amendments. Palmerston kept his temper and displayed great firmness and resolution. The House was with him. Bright, partly from being very unwell, and probably partly from some discretion, made a moderate speech; everybody seemed determined to bring the matter to an end, and the Resolutions were very triumphantly carried. Granville told me yesterday morning that it was a toss up whether Gladstone resigned or not, and that if he did, it would break up the Liberal party, to which I replied that I was confident he would not resign, and if he did, it would have no effect on the bulk of the Liberal party.

July 17th.—I met Charles Villiers at dinner at the Travellers' last night and had some talk with him, particularly about Gladstone. He thinks it far better that he should not resign, as he could, and probably would, be very mischievous out of office. He says people do not know the House of Commons, and are little aware that there is an obscure but important element in it of a Radical complexion, and that there are sixty or seventy people who would constitute themselves followers of Gladstone, and urge him on to every sort of mischief. They are already doing all they can to flatter and cajole him, and once out of office, his great talents and oratorical powers would make him courted by all parties, even the Tories, who would each and all be very glad to enlist him in their service. It is impossible to calculate on the course of a man so variable and impulsive, but at present it looks as if he had made up his mind to swallow his mortifications and disappointments and to go on with his present colleagues, though Charles Villiers says he is very dejected and uneasy in his mind, and very gloomy in the Cabinet.

I asked him if he had seen Senior's last Journals, relating his visit to Paris, which he had not. I told him they were very interesting, and that all his interlocutors, however varying in opinions upon other subjects, were agreed as to the certainty of the Emperor's meditating fresh wars and aggressions, and sooner or later a war with us. He said he thought it probable that any attempt on Belgium would be deferred till after King Leopold's death (who is seventy-five years old), at which time in all probability the annexation would be attempted, and with very reasonable prospects of being assented to by the Belgians themselves, an idea which had not struck me, but which I think exceedingly likely.

Buxton, August 11th.—I came here for my health and to try and patch myself up a fortnight ago, since which I have heard and learnt nothing of what is passing in the world but what I read in the newspapers. The session of Parliament was drawing to a close, and it was understood that there was to be one more fight in the House of Commons (on the removal of the Customs duties on paper), and then the remaining business was to be hurried through as quickly as possible. The Opposition made strenuous efforts to obtain a majority, and were sanguine of success. The Speaker wrote me an account of what passed, and I shall copy out the greatest part of his letter. 'The division of thirty-three on the Paper Duties was a surprise to all on the spot. As late as eleven that evening Sir George Grey told us the division seemed very doubtful. The Irishmen held off indignant at Palmerston's having mentioned with approval the landing of Garibaldi on the mainland. This was held to be an insult to the Pope, so More O'Farrell, Monsell, Sir John Acton, and eight or ten more would not vote at all. It seemed doubtful to the last. It is a great thing for the Government in many ways, not the least in having won the battle without the Pope and his men. It puts the Government in so much better and stronger a position with that party. The great result is to give some life to half-dead, broken-down, tempest-tossed Gladstone. When after the division he rose to propose the second Resolution, he was cheered by the Free-traders as he had not been cheered since the Budget Speech. Colonel Taylor tells me they had been led to success by promises from two quarters. First the paper-makers and the "Times" engaged to bring fifty men to the post, and only brought five. The Irishmen promised to be twenty-five, but were only eleven, the others standing off and not voting. I have a long letter from Cobden, angry about fortifications and Volunteers.' This morning I received another letter from the Speaker, enclosing Cobden's, which he has sent me to read. He says, 'It is written in rather a spirit of exaggeration, but it is the fault of Cobden's mind to see one object so strongly, that his view cannot embrace another at the same time.' Cobden's is well written, and contains much that is true, but he has evidently been so cajoled and flattered at Paris that he is now completely bamboozled, and so credulous that he takes for gospel all the Emperor says, and complains bitterly of 'all that is going on at home' and especially of the tone of Palmerston's and Sidney Herbert's speeches. 'Believing,' he says, 'that the new French tariff will realise a complete revolution in the commercial relations of the two countries, and having taken pains to impress this opinion on the Government, I am amazed at the course they are taking. The language of Palmerston and Sidney Herbert, coupled with the fortification scheme (he says), cuts the ground, on which I urged the Emperor to enter on the Free Trade policy, from under my feet. Nine tenths of his motives for making the plunge into that policy now were political rather than politico-economical; he aimed at conciliating the English people, and I did not hesitate to assure him that if he entered without reserve on the Free Trade path, it would be taken as a proof of his pacific intentions by the British public.'

London, November 13th.—At the end of three months since I last wrote anything in this book, I take my pen in hand to record my determination to bring this journal (which is no journal at all) to an end. I have long seen that it is useless to attempt to carry it on, for I am entirely out of the way of hearing anything of the slightest interest beyond what is known to all the world. I therefore close this record without any intention or expectation of renewing it, with a full consciousness of the smallness of its value or interest, and with great regret that I did not make better use of the opportunities I have had of recording something more worth reading.

INDEX.