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

There were two courses open to the Government, either of which might have been very naturally and not improperly taken. Palmerston might have announced that it was not his intention to produce any of the correspondence between the two Governments, and asked the House of Commons to place confidence in him, and allow him to take the steps he deemed best to satisfy the French Government, and at the same time vindicate the honour and dignity of this country, and if he had stated that he thought it would be injurious to the interests of peace and amity to produce any papers, it is perfectly certain he would have met with unanimous acquiescence. The only objection I have heard to this is that the French Government published the despatch in the 'Moniteur;' but if Palmerston had resolved upon silence here, he could have informed Cowley of his resolution, and instructed him to come to a common agreement with Walewski that they should publish nothing in the 'Moniteur,' and we should keep the correspondence from Parliament here. Not acting in this way, he ought to have sent an answer, and who can suppose that such men as Palmerston and Clarendon, whose lives have been passed in writing despatches, and who are both so remarkably expert at that work, should be unable to concoct a reply to Walewski which should be conciliatory in tone and matter, and at once suffice for the fears and exigencies of France and for the national pride and honour of England? Clarendon's private letter is said to have been excellent, and of course it must have been well adapted for its purposes. What difficulty could there have been, therefore, in converting the private into a public letter, which if it had accompanied the French letter would have pacified both the House of Commons and the country, for the Government ought not to have forgotten, as it seems they did, that the English and French Governments were not the only parties in this transaction, but there were the English Government and the House of Commons and the country, between whom accounts had to be settled. There are people who fancy that Palmerston was not sorry to be beaten on Milner Gibson's motion, thinking it better to go out upon that than upon the motion against Clanricarde on March 4 (the abolition of the Privy Seal), on which they think they certainly would have been defeated, and on which they must have resigned; but I don't think their defeat on the latter was so certain, and they might have been saved by Clanricarde's resignation before the debate came on. The conduct of those who brought forward and those who supported the vote of censure, and that of the Government in going out upon it, admits of much diversity of opinion. The friends of the Government, and those who were averse to a change, maintain that the amendment was inexcusable, and that the House of Commons had no business to meddle with the functions of the Executive, or to express any opinion as to the propriety of answering or not a despatch which ought to have been left to the discretion of the Minister, and the ex-Ministers say that the vote made it impossible for them to do anything but resign, and that their opponents must have been fully aware that this would be the consequence of their victory.

Their conduct is inexplicable to me, for I believe they were very sorry to go out, and yet if they had wished it they might have very well stayed in. According to ancient practice any vote of censure produced resignation as a matter of course, no matter what the subject of it, but it did so because a vote of censure, and indeed any adverse vote on any important measure, implied that the House of Commons had withdrawn its confidence from the Government, the fact of which rendered it impossible for them to carry on the affairs of the country, and obliged them to resign. But it is impossible to pretend that the late vote indicated the withdrawal of the confidence of the House of Commons generally. They had had two immense majorities a few days before, and they would have had another as large a few days after if they had gone on with the bill. If I had been able to advise the Queen, I would have recommended her to refuse Lord Palmerston's resignation, and have insisted on his testing the question of confidence on the Conspiracy Bill, or on some question in which the national passions were not concerned, and he could not have refused to take this course. Even after she had sent for Derby he gave her the opportunity (though not I suppose the advice to do so), for he said she had better take another day for consideration, and then if she decided on wishing him to form a Government, he would undertake it.

February 26th.—I met George Lewis yesterday, and talked over with him the whole affair. He thinks that it has all been fearfully mismanaged, and that the catastrophe might have been avoided in many different ways: first, by answering the despatch; secondly, by doing what I have suggested, producing no papers and asking for confidence; then by the Speaker's declining to allow the amendment to be put, as he well might have done, and as a strong Speaker would have done. Lord Eversley advised him to do this, and gave his strong opinion that the amendment was inadmissible. It is curious that Palmerston's overthrow should be the work of a Parliament elected expressly to support him, and immediately caused by the act of a Speaker whom he insisted upon putting in the chair, contrary to the advice of many others who thought he would prove inefficient.

I told Lewis I thought their resignation was not called for, and what I would have advised the Queen. He said the whole question was well and most calmly and dispassionately considered, and they were unanimous as to the necessity of resignation, with the sole exception of Vernon Smith, and that was without any arri�re pens�e of returning on an anticipated failure of Derby; that the Queen had begged Palmerston not to resign upon this vote, and he had returned to the Cabinet, and reported what she said, but they were all without exception for adhering to their resignation. Derby, too, had evidently wished to afford Palmerston an opportunity of recalling it, for he had begged the Queen to take twenty-four hours to consider of it; but it is probable that Her Majesty, having failed to persuade Palmerston in the first instance, had thought it useless to make any further attempts.

Lewis gave me such strong reasons for their determination, that I confess they materially shook my opinion. He said there was no possibility of mistaking the feeling there was against Palmerston, which if I had been present and seen what passed in the House that night, I could not have doubted; that the only way in which they could have stayed in was by getting somebody to move a vote of confidence, which was too dangerous an experiment, as in the present state of the House of Commons it was at least an even chance that such a vote would not have been carried, and certain that they would have had all the great guns of all sides thundering against them. He thought Palmerston's speech had been very ill advised, and had done much harm, and that it was a mistake not to have adjourned the debate, when it was very probable that they might have had an opportunity of changing the fortune of it.

CHAPTER XVI.

The Second Derby Administration—Lord Derby's first Speech—Lord Clanricarde defends himself—The New Ministry—Coincidences—Lord Derby's favourable Position—Opinion of the Speaker—Lord Derby's Liberal Declarations—Dinner to Mr. Buckle—Instability of the Government—Mr. Disraeli's sanguine Views—India—Prospects of the new Government—A Visit to the Duc d'Aumale—Delicate Relations with France—Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston—Irritation of the Whigs—Marshal P�lissier Ambassador in London—The Peelites and the Whigs—Failure of the India Bill—An Overture from Lord John Russell—Dissensions of the Whigs—Lord Derby resolves to remain in Office—Lord John Russell proposes to deal with the India Bill by Resolutions—Mistake of the Whigs in resigning on the Conspiracy Bill—Withdrawal of the India Bill—Policy of the Whigs in Opposition—Lord Cowley on the Relations of France and England—Strong Opposition to the Government—Lord Derby on the State of Affairs—Disunion of the Whigs—Lord Canning's Proclamation—Littlecote House—Vehemence of the Opposition—Lord Lyndhurst displeased—Debates on the Indian Proclamation—Collapse of the Debates—Triumph of the Ministry—Disraeli's violent Speech at Slough—Lord Palmerston's Discomfiture—Prospects of a Fusion—Success of the Government—Concessions to the Radicals—The Queen's Visit to Birmingham—Progress of the India Bill—The Jew Bill—The Jew Bill passed—Disturbed State of India—Baron Brunnow on the Russian War.

London, 27th February.1858.—All yesterday lists of the new appointments were put forth from hour to hour, unlike each other, and proving what changes had been made during the last hours. Nobody was prepared for Bulwer Lytton having no place, and still less for Lord Stanley taking office in this Government, which must have been settled at the eleventh hour. On the whole it presents a more decent-looking affair than anybody expected, but the general impression is that it cannot last, and must be overthrown by the mere weight of numbers, whenever the different sections of the House should unite on any question whatever. Their staff is not so despicable, but their rank and file are sadly inadequate if they are attacked in earnest.[1]

March 2nd.—Last night Derby made his statement. He was very nervous and unlike himself, scarcely audible at first, much less fluent than usual, and he spoke from notes, which I never saw him do before. It was, however, a very judicious and becoming speech. Granville and Clarendon both spoke very well, and the whole affair was very creditable and satisfactory, civil, courteous, and good-humoured on all sides. Clarendon made a very plausible defence of his own conduct in not answering Walewski's despatch, which was so good that Hardwicke crossed the House to compliment him, and said if that speech had been made in the House of Commons there would have been no division. The impression left on me is that though it was a pretty good defence, he would have exercised a sounder discretion if he had sent an answer, and that there was no difficulty in doing so. Clanricarde has given notice of what the 'Times' calls favouring the House with some leaves of his autobiography. He has been advised to take this course by some of his friends and colleagues, particularly Lord Lansdowne; but in spite of such respectable authority, I think it an ill-advised step, from which he is likely to derive little if any benefit. He is going to defend himself against something intangible, for no accuser will appear, and there is no charge which he is called upon to rebut. No doubt his appointment has been the real cause of the downfall of the Government. It is this which ruined the popularity of Palmerston. It is only fair to admit that they could not have been expected to anticipate all the hubbub it made, nor anything like it.

People are now wondering that Palmerston's fall has made so little sensation and the event fallen so flat, considering what his popularity was only a few months ago, but this proves what an unsubstantial and factitious popularity it was. Derby has done better than his predecessor in one way, for he has brought forward some new men who have a good reputation, and may distinguish themselves in Parliament, and show us that we have something to look to beyond the old worn out materials of which everybody is tired. The first class of this Government is not worse than that of the last, and the second class is a great deal better. There are some rather curious coincidences noticeable in this smash. The majority by which the Whigs fell was nineteen. It was the same on the China question last year, and nineteen turned out Derby in 1853. Derby has been three times called on to form a Government, and each time on the 21st of February. At the present moment there appears to be a disposition to give him what is called a fair trial, but it is difficult to say how long this will last. The Whigs are in great perplexity. Some talk of Palmerston coming back again, others want to bring about a reunion between him and Lord John, and others still talk of setting them both aside and electing a new leader of the party.

March 3rd.—The discussion, for there was no debate, on Monday has produced a very favourable effect. Derby's speech is much admired for its calm and dignified tone, and the matter of it considered judicious and satisfactory. As an exhibition the whole proceeding is thought eminently creditable to the country, and such as must strike foreigners particularly. This is unquestionably true, and it has been a very good start for Derby. As far as one can judge in so short a time, there is a growing opinion that he ought to have fair play and no vexatious opposition, and Granville this morning told me he thought he would get on very well. Palmerston has begged Cowley not to resign, which is very honourable and becoming. There are symptoms of a disposition on the part of the 'Times' to support the new Government and I have little doubt that they can secure this great advantage if they manage their affairs with common prudence, and set to work diligently to frame such measures of improvement and utility as will satisfy public opinion. I entreated Jonathan Peel to lose no time in dealing with the matter of the health of the soldiers and the mortality amongst them brought to light by Sidney Herbert's Committee. This alone, well and quickly done, would be of prodigious service to the new Government.

March 6th.—I gather from what I hear that Lord Palmerston is preparing to buckle on his armour, and to wage war against the new Government with the hope and expectation of forcing himself back into office speedily, and that the new Opposition mean to attack the new Government as quickly and as vehemently as they can. John Russell says they 'ought not to be recklessly or prematurely opposed.' Guizot it seems, has written to Aberdeen about the 'union of all shades of Liberals' as a desideratum, to which Lord John says 'whether it be possible he knows not, but that he is an obstacle to it on our side, and Palmerston on the other.'

The Speaker, with whom I had a long talk yesterday, thinks this Government never can stand, and he says, truly enough that though Derby and Co. did not make the situation which compelled the resignation of the last, they accepted it with full knowledge of the consequences of their vote, and are therefore responsible. He considers that what has happened and is likely to happen is all to the benefit of the Radicals, who well know this, and rejoice at it accordingly and he thinks Milner Gibson framed his amendment with the design of its leading to the defeat of Palmerston, and the advent of Derby to a power which he never desired to be of long duration. All this I could not gainsay, and it is certainly true that this change has only produced a fresh set of difficulties and dangers, the result of which who can foresee?

Derby's liberal declaration in his programme last Monday has been taken up and extended by his followers, but it is very improbable that the enunciation of such principles and intentions will carry with it the assent of the old and genuine Tories, many of whom will most likely ere long declare their adhesion to their old creed, and their abhorrence of the new-born liberalism of their chief, and Derby may one day find himself in a lesser degree in something like the position of Peel when he gave notice of his intention to propose the Repeal of the Corn Laws. Derby's declaration now affords a practical justification of Peel's course then, for Peel was never so much opposed to Free Trade as Derby and all his followers to Reform, and his excuse is based on similar grounds, namely, the progress and irresistible force of public opinion.

March 10th.—I dined with Grote yesterday to meet Mr. Buckle, the literary lion of the day. He is not prepossessing in appearance, but he talks very well and makes a great display of knowledge and extensive reading, though without pedantry or dogmatism. There was a small party of literary men to meet him, and Lady William Russell and I acted the part of gallery. The guests were Count Platen the Swedish Minister, the Master of the Rolls, Dr. William Smith, young Bunbury (Sir Henry's son), and Lowe. It was pleasant enough.

There is a prevailing and an increasing impression that this Government will not last long, and I think its days are numbered. The old Government are evidently impatient to resume their places, and within the last two or three days there is an evident change in their spirits and their expectations. Whether it is desirable or not that Derby should be permitted to go on for some time I know not, but I doubt if it is possible. John Russell might perhaps prefer keeping Derby in place for a time, in order to prevent Palmerston's coming back, but I do not think he will be able to do so if he wishes it, and even those Liberals who are not very fond of Palmerston seem to be indignant at a Tory party holding office with an immense majority against them in the House of Commons. It is certainly a question whether any set of men have a right under any circumstances to accept office with full knowledge that there is a majority of at least two to one against them, and if one set of ministers are bound to resign, not merely on finding the majority against them, but upon a single adverse vote, � fortiori must another set be precluded from taking office without the power of commanding the assent and support of Parliament upon any question whatever. Sir Francis Baring writes to John Russell, 'that the existence of the present Ministry is contrary to Parliamentary Government,' and this seems to be the general sentiment of the Liberal party, of course loudly insisted on by those who expect to profit by ousting them.

March 11th.—My mind fluctuates back to a notion that the Government will be able to maintain themselves for some time. Ellice said yesterday that he for one would not join in any attempt to oust them till he saw his way to the formation of a better Government, and thinks time ought to be afforded for a reunion of the Liberal party. In the afternoon I called on Disraeli, and found him rather sanguine about their prospects. He said they should settle, in fact had settled, the French question 'with flying colours.' He sees no difficulty about finance, as there can be no quarrels on the score of principles, and he will only have to provide for the expenses either by some increased taxation, or if that is opposed, by a loan, and he does not think the Palmerstonians will venture to refuse the supplies, or that they would succeed in such an attempt. His Indian Bill he thinks will be a better and more popular measure, and he knows of nothing else but the chapter of accidents on which they will have any serious difficulty.

Afterwards I fell in with Charles Villiers, and talked over the fall of the Government, which he attributed, as I do, to the enormous and inconceivable blunders which his friends committed. He is always sensible, unprejudiced, and the most satisfactory person to talk to I am acquainted with. John Russell is in great indignation at Disraeli's speech at his election, and his attributing all sorts of bad motives to the Whigs in their Reform of 1831, which was certainly very imprudent to say the least of it, for in his condition it was most desirable for him to avoid giving offence to any of the influential people, whose hostility may be very dangerous to him. I had not read his speech when I saw him, or I should have told him so.

March 12th.—It is remarkable how completely the affairs at home have superseded the interest belonging to those of India. Nobody seems to think about what so recently absorbed everyone's thoughts and feelings. This is, however, in great measure owing to the general belief that the great question of suppressing the rebellion and re-establishing our rule is virtually settled, and though we may yet have a great deal of trouble and even difficulty, all serious danger is at an end, and that we are as secure of possessing India as of any of our colonies. The apprehensions I had on the subject, and which I have expressed, have been very far from realized, and those who took more sanguine and confident views of the issue of the contest have been justified by the event.

March 17th.—The new Government is looking up. On Monday evening Bernal Osborne attacked Disraeli in his usual style, and gave him an opportunity of making a speech in reply, which everybody acknowledges to have been most able and successful. Bernal was very bad, Palmerston spoke feebly, professed moderate intentions towards the new Government, but clearly indicated that he meant to take office again if he could. His speech was tamely received, and furnished a fresh proof of the loss of his popularity and influence. Last night again, in a little skirmish between Disraeli and George Lewis, the former had the best of it. Clanricarde having had the egregious folly to announce to the House of Lords his intention to make 'a personal statement,' in which he was unaccountably supported by such men as George Lewis and Lansdowne amongst others, found out that everybody thought he was making a great fool of himself and withdrew it, but his colleagues are annoyed at his putting himself forward to ask questions of Derby. He sits on the front Opposition bench in the midst of his late colleagues, who would be glad to be rid of him, particularly as they know that in the event of their return to office he would be left out.

March 20th.—I went on Friday with M. de Jarnac to Orleans House to pay a visit to the Duc d'Aumale and see his interesting collection of books and pictures. He is very courteous, obliging, and intelligent, and the Duchess very civil and pleasing. His house was formerly occupied by his father, Louis Philippe, improved and enlarged by Lord Kilmorey, who lived there with Miss Hoste, and bought from him by the Duke, who has filled it full of objects of historical or artistic interest, especially of memorials of the great Cond�. The family portraits, of which there is a vast collection, are particularly curious. He has two sons, who bear the fine titles of Prince de Cond� and Duc de Guise, but it is melancholy to contemplate the avenir of these boys, whose high birth is their misfortune, and to whom no profession or occupation seems open. They have lost their own country by no fault of their own, and are so situated that they cannot or will not get adopted in any other.[1] It is a false position if ever there was one. The family appear to have been alarmed by the recent events in France, and the indirect effect which those events might have upon them, for they have reason to believe that they are exposed to a constant system of espionnage by the French Government, who wish very much to implicate them if possible in some of the plots that they believe to be constantly going on here, and great vigilance on their part is necessary not to commit themselves in any way to unknown Frenchmen who approach under pretences of attachment to their family or to make appeals to their charity.

The other day I got a note from Lord Derby about a Council, at the end of which he earnestly begged me if I had any influence with the 'Times' to get them to abstain from writing any more irritating articles about France, for that these articles provoked the French to madness, and, as matters are, that nothing but the utmost care and moderation on both sides enabled the two Governments to go on in harmony. I accordingly sent his note to Delane, who promised to attend to it, though it was hard to leave the French press without replies. It is curious that I should be found acting a friendly part towards Derby's Government, he being of all men the one to whom I have felt the greatest political repugnance; but I am now so free from all political predilections, and regard constant changes as so objectionable, that I wish this Government to be fairly tried, especially as it appears to me quite as good as any other we are likely to have; disposed to work hard and promote good measures, and to be unable, even if they were disposed, to do any harm.

I find a disposition to carp at the settlement of the French quarrel, though without any good reason. Lord Malmesbury's letter might have been better composed, and more showy, but the object was to close the quarrel in a manner that would satisfy the pride and allay the irritation of this country, without being so exacting towards France as to pique her into fresh ebullitions offensive to us, and this has been done, though it cannot be said with truth that they had settled the dispute 'with flying colours.' The French Government have had the last word, and exhibited some spleen, which is not very unnatural considering the part they have had to play, eating humble pie and retracting almost everything they said.

The Duke of Bedford is in town, having been urgently pressed to come up and see what he could do to effect a political reconciliation between Lord John and Palmerston, which he has certainly not effected, and probably will fail in effecting. Lord John said some months ago that he never would take office again but as Premier, but what the Whigs want is that he should join them, consent to co-operate in ousting Derby, and then to take office under Palmerston; but if he would not do this before the present session began, much less would he be inclined to do so now. He knows very well that they are only trying to make it up with him, because they feel that they cannot do without him, and as they still prefer Palmerston, and mean to stick to him, and to come back with him as their chief, there is very little chance of any negotiation being brought to a successful issue. The best chance of the Whigs being reunited is, that the present Government should take sufficient root, and stay in office long enough to show that nothing but a complete reconciliation of the Liberals of all shades and opinions can drive them out, and for this time is required. The notion the late Government cherished of being able to turn out their opponents in a very brief space is already gone, and they find that the majority of the House of Commons will be no party to such an overthrow.

March 21st.—The Duke of Bedford has just been here; he has been occupied with vain attempts to bring about the reconciliation so much desired by his political friends, but without success or any hope of it; he finds the estrangement between Palmerston and Lord John great as ever, and even between Lord John and Clarendon, the latter complaining bitterly that Lord John 'went out of his way to insult him,' which meant that in his speech the other day he spoke civilly of Malmesbury, saying he had no doubt he would uphold the honour and dignity of the country.' All this shows the excessive soreness and ill-humour of the outgoing party, and though Clarendon expresses the most unalloyed satisfaction at being out of office, it proves there is the amari aliquid to detract from his pleasure at being free; and it is not unnatural that the great part he has himself had in bringing about the catastrophe should make him very sore and uneasy, and a blow has been given to his reputation the effects of which may be hereafter serious.

March 25th.—Marshal P�lissieris going to replace Persigny here as Ambassador, a strange choice. He is a military ruffian, who knows no more of diplomacy than he does of astronomy. Persigny goes because he cannot agree with Walewski; I don't know the details of his dissatisfaction. His departure is regretted, as he is believed to be honest and true, and sincerely anxious to promote a good understanding between the two countries.

The Duke of Bedford has just been here; he came from Lord Aberdeen, who tells him the Peelites are all verging towards a union with Lord John, some more, some less; Graham is devoted to him, Sidney Herbert and Cardwell perfectly well disposed, the Duke of Newcastle gradually becoming so, and Gladstone at present the least friendly, but Aberdeen thinks is getting more friendly, and will eventually join his standard, and Aberdeen himself is doing all he can to bring about this union. He is going to speak to the Queen about it, with a view of reconciling her to Lord John without knowing how necessary it is. The Duke said he rather doubted the expediency of Aberdeen's speaking to Her Majesty, but I told him it was better he should, and very necessary to take all means to remove her feeling against Lord John. I also told him what had passed between the Queen and Clarendon, and how he had endeavoured to persuade Her Majesty that it would be impossible for himself to be Prime Minister, and that if Palmerston failed from any cause, her only course would be to send for Lord John, and to do so frankly and graciously. I begged him to let Lord John know this, as it was so desirable to bring about a reconciliation between them, which this fact would be calculated to promote. The Duke owned it was very handsome conduct on the part of Clarendon, as it is indeed on the part of Aberdeen, after all that Lord John did in breaking up his Government; but Aberdeen is a gentleman and a patriot, sincerely attached to the Queen, and to the best interests of the country, and while he has retired altogether from public life and the turmoil of politics, he is anxious still to exercise the great moral influence which he possesses to advance the public interests according to the dictates of his judgement and his conscience.

Hatchford, March 30th.—On Friday last Disraeli brought on the Government India Bill, which Ellenborough told some of his friends would be 'a great success,' and which everybody expected would be an improvement on Palmerston's. Never was there a greater failure; the bill was received with general aversion and contempt. The Radicals, who want to keep the Government in for the present, could not stomach it, Roebuck pronounced it a sham, and Bright, who detests Palmerston, said he preferred his bill of the two. It is evidently impossible that this bill can pass, and everybody sees what a fix it places public affairs in, and what difficulties and uncertainties present themselves on all sides. The only people who are pleased are the Palmerstonians. They think that when this bill has been rejected or withdrawn theirs will pass, and this will, ex necessitate, compel Derby to retire and open the way to Palmerston's return to office. They are therefore chuckling over the dilemma, but it may be without its leading to the realization of their hopes. There are a great many men in the House of Commons, Peelites or Radicals principally, but also some others, who cannot endure the notion of Palmerston's coming back, and who will oppose his bill, after the other has been swept away, merely to prevent his return. What the Radicals would like is that both bills should be referred to a Select Committee, and a third bill be concocted out of the two; but this scheme would not be likely to meet with general approbation, for it would be in fact a delegation of the proper functions of government to the House of Commons. It appears not unlikely that both bills will fail and that no measure at all will pass this year. The Government people are extremely dejected at the state of affairs, but it is said they do not mean to resign upon the defeat of their bill.

Meanwhile John Russell has made a sort of overture to Granville, i.e. he sent George Byng to him on Sunday to invite him to say what he thought would be the most eligible course to adopt in the present state of affairs, and with reference to the Government bill. This was not very judicious on his part, and Granville was an odd man to select, being in a different House of Parliament, and so bound to Palmerston that he could not avoid communicating to him the overture and his reply to it. George Byng says Granville appeared a good deal surprised, but he thought rather pleased. Granville said he could give no immediate answer, but would write to him, which he did the next day, and told him George Lewis would go down to Pembroke Lodge to see Lord John. I have no idea that anything will come of this, for none of the late Cabinet can or will transfer their allegiance from Palmerston to Lord John, unless the former consents to it, and abdicates his position of chief of the Whig party, which he seems to have no thoughts of doing, and it is impossible to conciliate their rival claims and pretensions.

April 2nd.—A letter from the Duke of Bedford this morning says that Lord John is inclined to throw out the India Bill, as it is too bad to admit of any improvement, and that he thinks if he does this Palmerston will support him; but the Duke adds that it is rumoured that the Government will not go out if their bill is defeated. It is easy to understand that Palmerston can desire nothing so much as that Lord John should take the lead in opposing the India Bill, and that he should support him, because in that case, and the defeat of the bill by a large majority, which probably would happen, and the Government going out, he would infallibly be sent for again, and in re-forming his Government he would no doubt invite Lord John to join it, but this would only lead to a fresh series of difficulties, and most likely to a long course of abortive negotiations. How the junction between the two leaders is to be effected it is difficult to conceive, although there are several ways in which it might be brought about, if they were disposed to make mutual concessions. The starting point might be the complete union of the whole Whig and Liberal party, which all profess to desire most anxiously, and which the mutual antipathies and disagreements of the two leaders at present prevent. If Palmerston would consent to go to the House of Lords as Premier, and to leave Lord John with a high office (India, for example) as leader in the House of Commons, something might be done. Lord John might possibly be induced to cede his claim to the highest place on this condition, but it is not unlikely that he would require more than that: first, that Clarendon should not be at the Foreign Office, which Palmerston would no doubt not agree to; and secondly, certain places and seats in the Cabinet for the Peelites, who have recently consented to follow his standard and cast their own lots with his. Then various complications present themselves connected with these questions.

April 4th.—The Duke of Bedford has written to Lady Derby that her lord must make up his mind to be beaten on his India Bill, but that he hopes he will not think it necessary to resign upon it when he is. Brougham writes from Paris that the feeling against us there has been greatly exaggerated, that the Emperor alone is friendly to us, but that though the general sentiment is unfriendly, nobody dreams of going to war with us, nor indeed with any other Power.

April 8th.—Derby made a striking speech at the Mansion House the other night, which has been severely ridiculed by the 'Times,' but which nevertheless contained a good deal of truth. He said that there were very few questions nowadays in which different Governments could act differently, and he invited not only every sort of criticism, but of suggestion, as to the Indian Bills and measures now before Parliament. The inference deducible from his speech (and in which I have since been confirmed) is that, happen what may, he does not mean to resign, and that the Government will not go out, unless they are positively turned out. They say this unlucky India Bill was the sole work of Ellenborough, and that the democratic clauses are the result of an old fancy of his, but nobody can be desirous of admitting the paternity of such a measure.

April 16th.—I have been confined to the house for several days, and unable to mix in the world and hear what is going on, but have seen enough to know that there is nothing but confusion, perplexity, and irritation in the political world. During the brief recess everybody was speculating about what would be done when Parliament met again, what was to be the fate of the rival India Bills, and how far the Government would be affected by the result of contests concerning them. The Government hangers-on affected to be very well satisfied with the state of affairs, and proclaimed their intention not to go out whatever might happen with regard to their bills. The Palmerstonians evidently expected that such storms would arise as the Government would not be able to weather, and that something would turn up advantageous to them. John Russell, who must be doing something, said that the Government bill was so bad that no alterations could make it tolerable, and that he was disposed to move some Resolutions, which might be the foundation of a really good measure. He concocted these Resolutions, and wrote word to the Duke that 'he had written to George Lewis and to Macaulay, who both approved of his scheme.' Accordingly, as soon as Parliament met he announced that Resolutions ought to be drawn up, and that he was ready to draw them up. This produced great excitement. The Government saw in this move a plank of safety for themselves, and Disraeli said he was ready to receive Lord John's Resolutions, or to draw up Resolutions of his own; many people said that if Resolutions were to be drawn up at all, it ought to be by Government, and not by any independent member, and it was eventually settled that Disraeli was to do it. Everybody saw that this, as far as it went, was advantageous to the Government; it gave them certainly a reprieve, and possibly an opportunity of ridding themselves of the Indian difficulty altogether for this year, and the consequence was a burst of indignation and resentment against Lord John for thus coming to their aid as it was called, and concerting such a measure (as he was accused of doing) with Disraeli himself. The 'Times' attacked him with the utmost bitterness, and there is a general clamour against him on the part of the late Government and their friends. It is not very easy to divine his true motives in this matter. To judge by the asperity with which he has spoken of the Government bill, one should not suppose he could be moved by any auxiliary purpose to them, and I do not believe there has been any concert, direct or indirect, between them; but as all parties agree that the Government have derived advantage from his move, the rage he has excited is not unreasonable, and the breach between him and the Palmerstonian Whigs is much widened, and become more difficult to heal. Granville, who I suppose speaks the sentiments of his colleagues, says that it is evident they could not return to office with the same Government exactly as before, and that it is not desirable to turn the Government out at present, even if they could, and he thinks it would not be wise to attempt to carry Palmerston's India Bill, in which it is not sure they should succeed. He thinks there was concert between Lord John and Disraeli, not direct, but through Horsman, and he says that George Lewis, so far from approving his Resolutions, strongly protested against them; but it is not impossible to reconcile two statements which seem at first sight to be directly opposed to each other. Lord John says he imparted to George Lewis and Macaulay his scheme (i.e. of drawing up Resolutions), not the Resolutions themselves, while George Lewis seems to deny approval of the Resolutions; but this is only a possible solution of the apparent contradictions.

I told Granville that all that was now happening only served to confirm my original opinion, that they were wrong in resigning, and that there was no occasion for their doing so, and they now saw how difficult it was, when they had let this Government in, to get them out again, and he not only had not a word to say in reply, but all he did was rather indicative of concurrence in my opinion. In the most palmy days of party government, and when the old traditions with regard to the relations of Government with the House of Commons were in full force, it was not considered as an invariable and unavoidable necessity that a Government when beaten on an important question must go out. I recollect the Government of the day in 1815 being beaten on the Income Tax, without therefore resigning, and it is so obvious that the vote on the French despatch did not imply any general withdrawal of confidence and support, that I never shall believe they would have resigned as they did unless they had thought they should gain more strength and power by doing so without losing their places, and consequently that they were caught in a trap of their own setting.

April 24th.—The events of the past week have been Disraeli's Budget, which has been received with favour and excited no opposition in any quarter, and the withdrawal of the Government India Bill, which was done by Disraeli, rather unwillingly; but their maxim seems to be 'anything for a quiet life,' and they agree to whatever is proposed or opposed in any influential quarter. The general notion is that they are safe for this session, but it is a very inglorious safety. It now appears as if they would scramble and hobble on until the whole Liberal party is reunited, and a reconciliation effected between Palmerston and John Russell, to bring about which it is clear that much exertion is being made.

While I was at Newmarket this week I had several letters from the Duke of Bedford, all bearing upon this matter. He writes on the 16th: 'I hear that the feeling against John has been very strong and that lies have been told as usual. It is said that he has been in communication with Derby indirectly, through Lady Derby, and that he wrote to Disraeli. If he did, it was only on a matter of ordinary courtesy, to ask him to postpone the second reading of the India Bill, to give time for a different course which he intended to suggest and did the first day the House met. John has been left by circumstances or by his old colleagues to pursue his own independent course, and ought not to be found fault with, if he pursued that course, as he did in this instance, after conferring with the friends I named to you, and receiving their approval. No doubt his move was very successful to the Government, and helped them out of an enormous difficulty, but I can see no harm in that.' There was a great deal more about the communications between Lord John and George Lewis, which now only signifies as demonstrating the extreme difficulty of getting at the truth. It is evident that there is a great desire on the part of the Whigs to bring about a reunion with Lord John and those who follow him, in order to get the Government out, for which the rant and file are getting more and more impatient. Lewis told me last night that they are holding constant Cabinets, which always ended with the same resolution, not to do anything, or to make any serious attack; and they have made up their minds to acquiesce in Derby's going on through this session; but nothing can exceed the contempt and aversion with which Lewis speaks of the Government and of all their proceedings, certainly not without reason, for there is no example of any Government consenting to hold office on terms so humiliating, and to such a powerless existence. They dare not originate anything, and they submit to everything that anybody proposes or suggests, having seemingly no object but that of currying favour, and avoiding to give offence. The way in which Disraeli withdrew his India Bill upon a few words spoken by John Russell is a curious exemplification of their forlorn state.

Lord Cowley, whom I saw yesterday, is desirous, like everybody else, to see the end of this feeble rule; but he thinks Palmerston's disposition is very unbending, and doubts his and Lord John's being brought together, notwithstanding that Lady Palmerston tells the Duke of Bedford that Palmerston 'has a great affection for John.' Cowley talked a great deal about French affairs and the state of things between the two countries, and he expressed great apprehensions lest Malmesbury should make too many concessions to the French Government,[1] which, however, he meant to prevent if he could. He mentioned one or two odd things. First of all he told me that he had foreseen all the effects produced by the Walewski letter, and had done all he could to prevent its being sent, and he was amazed at Clarendon having taken it so quietly, and that he should have seen no impropriety or danger in it, but on the contrary thought it would do good. Then with regard to Walewski's other letter in reply to Malmesbury, which, objectionable as it was, had been greatly softened from the original draft, had it been despatched as at first composed by Walewski, he said it would have raised an inextinguishable flame here. Cowley said that the Emperor's nerves were shaken to pieces by the attentat, and he was greatly changed.