March 6th.—After a great struggle John Russell was persuaded to put off his Reform Bill, but only till the end of April, so that in a few weeks the same embarrassment will begin again. The satisfaction at its being deferred at all is great and general, and everybody thinks that some expedient will be devised for putting it off again, when the time comes, and so that we shall be rid of it for this year. All the Cabinet was for putting it off, except Graham and Aberdeen. The former has devoted himself to Lord John, and goes heart and soul with him. Why Aberdeen took that view I cannot imagine, unless he wished to bring about a crisis, and to make his escape by favour of it. My own opinion at present is, that on April 27 Lord John will insist on bringing it on, and abide the consequences. The tenour of his speech and still more that of Aberdeen, the same night, lead me to that conclusion. The Radicals with old Hume at the head of them, approved of the course Lord John took, but expressly with the understanding that he really meant and would bring it on at the period to which it was postponed; and as he is sure to be incessantly urged on by his entourage to be firm when the time comes, and he will be very reluctant to encounter the indignation and reproaches of his reforming friends and adherents, the chances seem to me to be in favour of the battle taking place. I think his speech on putting it off was not at all good, nor what he ought to have said. He laid himself open to an attack from Disraeli, which was very just, and he could not answer it. It was quite absurd to ground the postponement on the war and its exigencies, and it was moreover not the real and true reason. He put it off because he was importuned by everybody to do so, because Hayter proved to him that he would infallibly be defeated, and because there was no other way of preventing a break-up of the Government. He might have anticipated Disraeli's philippic by reverting to what he had before said, repeating his own conviction that the war afforded no reason for not going on with the Bill; but that he found so many of his own friends and such a general concurrence of feeling in the House of Commons on the other side, added to great indifference in the country, that he had thought it right to defer to those opinions, and give up his own to them. Such a defence of his conduct as this would have been more effective and more consistent with the truth, but it would have involved something like an acknowledgement of error, from which it is probable that his pride and obstinacy revolted, so he made what I think was a very bad speech. If he does bring it on again in April, I expect he will be defeated, and then retire. In any case his retirement will lead to Palmerston's elevation, as leader of the House of Commons if Lord John goes alone, as Prime Minister if Graham and Aberdeen go with him, and there seems no alternative, unless Lansdowne can be induced to replace Aberdeen, which some think not impossible, though it would only be for a short time.

CHAPTER VI.

Dinner to Sir Charles Napier—A Ministerial Indiscretion—Doubts as to the Reform Bill—Discontent of Lord John Russell—The Secret Correspondence with Russia—War declared—Weakness of the Government—Mr. Greville disapproves the War—Divisions in the Cabinet—Withdrawal of the Reform Bill—Blunder of the Government—The Fast Day—Licences to trade in War—Death of the Marquis of Anglesey—Mr. Gladstone's Financial Failures—Dissolution of Parties—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—Lord Cowley's Opinion of the Emperor's Position—The House of Commons supports the War—Disraeli attacks Lord John Russell—A Change of Plans—Lord John Russell's Mismanagement—Attacks on Lord Aberdeen—Popularity of the War—Government Majority in the Lords—Attitude of the German Powers—A Meeting of the Liberal Party—An Appointment cancelled—Expedition to the Crimea—English and French Policy united in Spain—Close of the Session—The Character of Lord Aberdeen's Government—Effect of the Quarrel with Russia—Lord Palmerston's Resignation—Waywardness of the House of Commons.

London, March 13th, 1854.—The only event of recent occurrence was the dinner given last week to Sir Charles Napier at the Reform Club, with Lord Palmerston in the chair. Everybody disapproves of the whole proceeding, which is thought to have been unwise and in bad taste. The only Ministers there besides Palmerston were Graham and Molesworth, and the former made an excessively foolish, indiscreet speech, which has been generally censured, and to-night he is to be called to account for it in the House of Commons. It is marvellous that a man of mature age, who has been nearly forty years in public life, should be so rash and ill-judged in his speeches.[1] There seems now to be a better chance of John Russell's again putting off his Reform Bill next month. There are not two opinions, except among the extreme Radicals, of the expediency of his doing so, and his best friends (including his brother) greatly regret that he did not put it off sine die instead of to another fixed day.

March 20th.—There has been a little episode, not very important, but which being entirely personal caused some noise in the world. About a week ago, or perhaps more, appeared the Petersburg 'Gazette' with a sort of manifesto, complaining bitterly of the conduct of the British Government, which was said to be the more inexcusable as a confidential correspondence had taken place between the two Governments, and we had been all along informed of their views and intentions. The 'Times' published this (as did all the other papers), and with it a peremptory denial of its truth, stating that John Russell, then Foreign Secretary, had sent an indignant refusal to the proposals made to us. Derby took this up in the House of Lords, complaining of State secrets having been imparted to the 'Times,' and insinuating his belief that Aberdeen had communicated them. Aberdeen denied the imputation with some resentment, and said that a flagrant breach of confidence had been certainly committed, and he had reason to believe that the culprit was a man formerly in the Foreign Office as clerk, though now out of it, who had been appointed by Lord Malmesbury. On this Malmesbury flared up, and desired to know his name, which Aberdeen said he did not know. On a subsequent night Malmesbury again took the matter up, and challenged Aberdeen to give the name and produce his proof. Aberdeen said he had received the information in a way which left no doubt on his mind of its truth, and he was willing to leave the matter to the gentleman himself, and if he denied it, he would acknowledge that he was mistaken and had been misinformed. By this time everybody was aware that a young man of the name of Astley was the accused party. He wrote a letter to Malmesbury denying the charge, but his letter was not very distinct. However, Malmesbury read it in the House, and called on Aberdeen to retract the charge, which he immediately and completely did, and there the matter ended; but though the man is thus acquitted, and the Opposition papers abuse Aberdeen (who in fact was very imprudent to mention it), there seems no doubt that he really did babble about this matter, though it is very certain it was not from him the 'Times' got its information.[1] The story told is this: Astley talked of the correspondence to some person in a railway carriage. That person told it to Lady Ashburton, who repeated it to Clarendon. When thus talked of, it might easily get to the 'Times;' and the only wonder is, it did not get into many other papers besides.

Lord John Russell continues in a very perplexed and uncertain state about his Reform Bill, and hesitates whether to bring it on or not next month. On one hand he is urged to do so by his little knot of domestic adherents, by Graham vehemently, and to a certain degree by Aberdeen; on the other he is entreated and argued with by all the rest of his colleagues, by his brother, by Hayter, and by an immense majority of his political friends and supporters. Still he hesitates. He has got a notion, and others tell him so, that his character is concerned in bringing it on, and that he is bound to risk everything to maintain it. Graham is quite inconceivable; always rash at one moment and cowardly at another, he is now, and on this question, in his rashest mood, and he has persuaded himself, and tries to persuade Lord John, that if he perseveres and is beaten (which he cannot disguise from himself is probable, if not certain) he will only have to go out in order to return in triumph as Prime Minister. If a dissolution is proposed, and the Cabinet consent to it, he fancies a new Parliament will give him everything; if the Cabinet will not dissolve, Lord John, Graham and Aberdeen would retire, the Government be broken up, and Lord John would have Parliament and the country with him in forming another. All this I believe to be pure delusion. By persisting in his course he may, and probably would, break up the Government, but he would destroy himself, he would never be forgiven by his party or by the country at large for breaking up the Government at such a moment as this, and all his visions of success and power would soon be dispersed. Whatever else might happen, he would be excluded from office, probably for ever. His discontent with his present position the more inclines him to take this hazardous step, because he wants a change of some sort.

The Duke of Bedford came to me the other day to tell me Lord John was determined no longer to go on as he now is, and it seems that he is moved principally by pecuniary considerations.[2] He is poor and has a large family. While he is in office he is obliged to incur expenses by giving dinners and parties, and this additional expense is defrayed by the Duke, but in a very unsatisfactory way. Lord John sends him a sort of estimate or account of his extra expenses, and the Duke pays the money. It is not surprising that Lord John dislikes such assistance as this, and though he never complains, he is probably mortified and provoked that his brother does not once for all give him a sum of money or a large annuity. Everybody else is amazed that he does not do this; but though he is much attached to Lord John, admires and is proud of him, his love of money is so great that he cannot bring himself, even for his brother, to do a generous thing on a great scale. His colossal fortune, which goes on increasing every day, and for which he has no use, might well be employed in making his brother easy, and in buying golden opinions for himself; but the passion of avarice and the pleasure of accumulation outweigh all such considerations, and he falls in readily with Lord John's notion of taking an office for the sake of its emoluments. The present idea is to have this matter settled before Easter, to turn out Mr. Strutt from the Duchy of Lancaster, and put Lord John in the place, with an increased salary during his occupation of it. Nothing, however, is settled about it yet.

The publication of the secret correspondence with Russia has excited great interest, and does great credit to the Government, but it increases the public indignation against the Emperor, because it exposes the extreme duplicity of his conduct; and as he must have been aware that such would be the inevitable result of publicity, it is difficult to conceive what induced him to provoke it, unless Walewski's conjecture is the true one. He thinks that the Emperor thought it would make bad blood between us and France, fancying that we had not imparted the correspondence to the French Government, in which he was mistaken, as we had done so.

March 29th.—The die is cast, and war was declared yesterday. We are already beginning to taste the fruits of it. Every species of security has rapidly gone down, and everybody's property in stocks, shares, &c., is depreciated already from twenty to thirty per cent. I predict confidently that, before many months are over, people will be as heartily sick of it as they are now hot upon it. Nobody knows where our fleets and armies are going, nor what they mean to attempt, and we are profoundly ignorant of the resources and power of Russia to wage war against us. As the time for action approaches, Austria and Prussia grow more reluctant to engage in it. The latter has proclaimed her neutrality, and unless some events should make a change in her policy, I do not believe the former will ever be induced to act with us and against Russia. The Government here are in a very weak unsatisfactory state. They are supported in carrying on war, but in every other respect they are treated with great indifference, and appear to have very little authority or influence either in Parliament or in the country. Nobody seems to have risen in estimation, except perhaps Clarendon, who has done his work well and got credit for it. Palmerston and Graham have positively disgraced themselves by their dinner to Napier, and the foolish speeches they made both there and in the House of Commons afterwards. I do not know what Palmerston's popularity might turn out to be if it should be tested by some change which brought him forward, but he certainly has greatly lost ground this year by his whole conduct from his resignation down to this time. Gladstone, the great card of the pack, has forfeited by the failure of his financial schemes a good deal of the credit he had obtained. John Russell has offended everybody by his obstinacy about his ill-timed Reform Bill, so that the Government does not stand very high, and is only strong in the weakness of all other parties. They are constantly beaten on small matters in the House of Commons, which produces a bad effect. Up to this moment nobody knows what John Russell means to do about the Reform Bill; if he puts it off again, he ought to do so to-morrow, when the discussion will take place about the declaration of war.

April 2nd.—The debates in both Houses were marked by great bitterness on the part of the Opposition, by Derby in one House, and by Disraeli and Layard in the other. The war fever is still sufficiently raging to make it impossible for any man who denounces the war itself to obtain a patient hearing. Nobody ventures to cry out against it but Bright in the House of Commons, and Grey in the House of Lords, but already I see symptoms of disquietude and alarm. Some of those who were most warlike begin to look grave, and to be more alive to the risks, difficulties, and probably dangers of such a contest. I cannot read the remonstrances and warnings of Bright without going very much along with him; and the more I reflect on the nature of the contest, its object, and the degree to which we are committed in it, the more uneasy I feel about it, and the more lively my apprehensions are of our finding ourselves in a very serious dilemma, and being involved in great embarrassments of various sorts. Amongst other misfortunes, one is the discredit into which Gladstone has fallen as a financier. Notwithstanding his extraordinary capacity, most people who are conversant with the subject of finance think he has greatly mismanaged his affairs, and suffered his notions or crotchets to get the better of his prudence, and consequently that he has prepared for himself as Chancellor of the Exchequer very great difficulties. His Budget last year was so popular, and his wonderful readiness and skill in dealing with everything relating to finance excited so much admiration, that his reputation was prodigious, and he was not only the strength of the Government, but was marked out as the future Prime Minister whenever changes took place. All this prestige is very much diminished; and although his failures are in great measure attributable to accidents over which he had no control, many who are not unfriendly to him think he has been rash, obstinate, and injudicious, and no longer feel the same confidence in him which they did a short time ago.

April 3rd.—The Duke of Bedford has just been here, as uneasy about the state of affairs and as disgusted and alarmed at the war as I am. He does not know what Lord John will do about the Reform Bill, but fears rather than hopes as to his intentions. Aberdeen had desired that there should be a Cabinet before Easter, and that Lord John should then determine what he would do, but Palmerston requested that the final decision should only be made on the 26th, the day before that on which it is to come on. What his object is, they do not know. The Duke in talking to Lord John suggested the certainty of his breaking up the Government by bringing on his measure, and the enormous evil this would be, to which Lord John replied that if he knew what the internal state of the Government was, he would perhaps not think the evil of the dissolution so great. The fact is, that when the Opposition, as is their wont, taunt the Government with their internal disagreement and want of cordiality and union, they are much more right than they themselves are aware of. The Duke told me that the Queen told him the other day that she had herself written to Lord John urging him to give up bringing on his Bill. Not long ago the Queen was in favour of proceeding with it, but circumstances were very different at that time.

April 15th.—This has been a week of excitement. It had been settled that on Monday last John Russell should announce his intention with regard to the Reform Bill. His uncertainty still prevailed, and he got into such a state of mind about it that it made him ill. He could not sleep, and was in a terrible state of vexation and perplexity. Aberdeen then proposed to him to give up the Bill, but to obtain from the Cabinet a unanimous consent to his pledging them to go on with it hereafter at some indefinite time. On Saturday there was a Cabinet, at which he made this proposal, but Palmerston and Lansdowne both refused their consent, and Lansdowne was in conversation with his friends very vehement about it. Graham appears to have been reasonable at this Cabinet, and ready to adopt the course proposed to Lord John. It was eventually settled that he should announce the abandonment of the Bill, and make the best statement he could, not pledging the whole Cabinet as he had intended; but before this he urged them to accept his resignation, which they refused, and then Palmerston begged he might resign, which they refused equally. So matters stood on Saturday night, and everybody believed it was settled. On Sunday Lord John's doubts and fears returned, his mind became unsettled again, and he was inclined to withdraw from his agreement and to go on. To the surprise of the whole House of Commons, when Monday came, Lord John only said he would make his statement the next day. Everybody saw something was wrong, and the curiosity and excitement were very great. All Monday and Tuesday mornings were passed in conferences and going backwards and forwards, the Duke of Bedford being called in to work upon Lord John. He did his best, and at last on Tuesday morning he and others finally persuaded Lord John to adhere to what had been determined and withdraw his Bill. This he did in a very good speech, full of an emotion and manifestation of sensibility which succeeded completely with the House, and he was greeted with prodigious cheering and compliments and congratulations on all sides. Nothing could in fact go off better, or in a way more gratifying to him, and the Government appears to have been strengthened by the operation. His emotion was sincere, because he is no actor, but it was in my opinion totally uncalled for; and as there is but a step between the sublime and the ridiculous, it might just as well have appeared ridiculous; but fortunately for him his audience were disposed to take it au grand s?rieux. Even his brother, partial as he is to him, takes the same view of this that I do, and has written to me that as Lord John has often been abused when he did not deserve it, so he has now been overpraised.

April 24th.—When this Government was formed, its principal merit was supposed to be its great administrative capacity, and the wonderful way in which the business of the country was to be done. It has turned out just the reverse of what was expected, for they commit one blunder after another, and nothing can be more loose, careless, and ignorant than the way in which their business is conducted. All sorts of mistakes and embarrassments are continually occurring in the House of Commons, and I have had occasion to see ample proofs of what I say, in all that has been done and is doing about licences and trade permissions, consequent on the recent declarations and Orders in Council.[1] Now another matter has occurred, discreditable from the carelessness which has been evinced. When it was thought necessary to order a fast day for the war, the Queen set her face against it. She thought it very absurd (as it is) and objected in toto. Aberdeen with some difficulty overcame her objections, setting forth that it had been done by George III., and that the religious part of the community would make a clamour if it were not done. So she gave way, but still insisted it should not be a 'fast,' so they settled it should be a day of 'humiliation.' The Archbishop of Canterbury fully concurred, and the proclamation was issued accordingly. But the other day the merchants took alarm, and represented that, as the word 'fast' was omitted, the case would not come within the provisions of Masterman's Bill, and that bills of exchange, &c., would be payable on the day itself, and not the day before as provided by that Act, and that all sorts of confusion would arise. The Bank of England took the Solicitor General's opinion, who thought that such would be the law. A great difficulty arose, for time pressed. The Chancellor thought the case would stand, and was for taking the chance, but the Cabinet on Saturday decided that it would be safer to correct the error even thus late. Aberdeen went to the Queen and told her, and this afternoon there is to be a Council to turn the 'day of humiliation' into a 'fast day,' in order that 'merchants' bills may be presented on one day instead of another, and that banking operations may not be deranged. The ridicule this throws on the religious part of the question is obvious, and the effect it ought to have is to discontinue these preposterous observances, which all sensible people regard as a mockery and a delusion. But all this ought to have been provided for, and the law officers ought to have foreseen the consequences and advised accordingly. In Peel's time this never would have happened; but with a nominal Premier, a Home Secretary who will give himself no trouble about the details of his office, and an Attorney General who does nothing, knows nothing of law, and won't attend to anything, it is no wonder that such things and many others occur.

To return to the question of trading licences. When we went to war, the Government, I believe very wisely, resolved to relax belligerent rights and give all possible latitude to trade, with no more restrictions and reservations than were essentially necessary for carrying on the war. But this resolution involved a revolution of the old system and the necessity of completely constructing a new one, and as they long ago knew war was inevitable, they ought to have well considered all this, and framed their regulations before they issued their orders. But not a bit of this was done, and the consequence was a state of unparalleled confusion and embarrassment, applications from all sides, and hosts of petitions for leave to export goods of different descriptions. The Government at last set to work to deal with these cases, but in a very irregular, unbusinesslike way. Some two or three of them met in Committee at the Council Office, and with the help of Cardwell, President of the Board of Trade but not in the Cabinet, and Dr. Lushington, who has nothing to do with the Government, they have contrived to scramble through the business; but the laches and indifference of those who ought to be most concerned, and the loose way of proceeding, have been very striking. Some would not come at all, some came for a short time, different people attended on different days, so that different opinions prevailed, and no regular system was established. The other day, on Cardwell's saying these questions would be taken up as soon as Parliament met and Government called to account, I suggested to ---- that, such being the case, he ought to get Lord John Russell to attend the Committee. He said he would ask him, 'but John Russell could not bear details; he doubted if he would come, and, if he did, would be of no use, as he would be sure to go to sleep;' and this is the way business of the greatest importance is transacted.

May 3rd.—The death of Lord Anglesey, which took place a few days ago, has removed one of the last and the most conspicuous of the comrades of the Duke of Wellington, who all seem to be following their commander very rapidly. I have lived with Lord Anglesey for so many years in such intimacy, and have received from him such constant kindness, that I cannot pass over his death without a brief notice.

A more gallant spirit, a finer gentleman, and a more honourable and kindhearted man never existed. His abilities were not of a very high order, but he had a good fair understanding, excellent intentions, and a character remarkably straightforward and sincere. In his youth he was notoriously vain and arrogant, as most of his family were, but as he advanced in age, his faults and foibles were diminished or softened, and his virtues and amiable disposition manifested themselves the more. He distinguished himself greatly in the command of the cavalry in Sir John Moore's retreat, but was not employed in the Duke's army during the subsequent years of the Peninsular war. In the Waterloo campaign he again commanded the cavalry, not, as was supposed, entirely to the Duke's satisfaction, who would have preferred Lord Combermere in that post. He lost a leg at the battle of Waterloo; for this wound Lord Anglesey was entitled to a very large pension, of which he never would take a shilling. He was a great friend of George IV., and exposed himself to unpopularity by taking the King's part in the Queen's trial; but their friendship came to an end when Lord Anglesey connected himself with the Whig party, and when he went to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant he deeply offended the King by his open advocacy of the Roman Catholic cause in 1829. The Duke of Wellington, then Minister and about to give up the Catholic question, quarrelled with Lord Anglesey and recalled him. For some years past they had not been on very friendly terms. Lord Anglesey was jealous of the Duke, and used to affect to disparage his capacity both as a general and a statesman, and this political difference completed their mutual estrangement. These hostile feelings did not, however, last long; Lord Anglesey had a generous disposition, and was too fair and true to do permanent injustice to the Duke. I do not know how the reconciliation between them was brought about, but their temporary alienation was succeeded by a firm and lasting friendship, and the most enthusiastic admiration and attachment entertained by Lord Anglesey towards the Duke. For many years before the death of the latter, the two old warriors were the most intimate friends and constant companions, and every vestige of their former differences and antipathies was effaced and had given way to warm sentiments of mutual regard. When the regiment of Guards became vacant, King William sent for Lord Anglesey and announced to him that he was to have it; he of course expressed his acknowledgements; but early the next morning he went to the King and said to him that he felt it his duty to represent to him that there was a man worthier than himself to have the regiment, that Lord Ludlow had lost his arm at their head, and that he could not bear to accept that to which Lord Ludlow was so justly entitled. This remonstrance, so unselfish and honourable, was accepted, and the regiment was conferred on Lord Ludlow.[1]

May 7th.—The failure of Gladstone's Exchequer Bill scheme has been very injurious to the Government, and particularly to him. The prodigious applause and admiration with which he was greeted last year have given way to distrust and apprehension of him as a finance minister, and the repeated failures of his different schemes have in a very short time materially damaged his reputation, and destroyed the prestige of his great abilities. All practical men in the City severely blame him for having exposed himself to the risk of failure, and reproach him with the folly of trying to make too good a bargain, and by so doing exposing himself to the defeat he has sustained. The consequences will not probably be serious, but the Government is weakened by it, and the diminution of public confidence in Gladstone is a public misfortune.

Next in importance to the financial difficulty is the Oxford Bill, with which Government have got into a mess, and they are struggling through the measure with doubtful and small majorities, having been beaten on an important point, and now quite uncertain if they shall be able to carry it. I fell in with Graham yesterday, and spoke to him about these things, when he replied that Gladstone's failure was very unfortunate, but he had no doubt he would make a great speech in his own defence on Monday night. With regard to Oxford, he said it was quite true that they could not depend on carrying the clauses of their bill, but that was because in the present state of the House 'they could not carry a turnpike bill,' they were absolutely without power, and 'it was a state of things that could not go on.'[1] Last night I had a talk with Charles Wood on the same subject, and he said that the truth was, a revolution had silently been effected. Parties were at an end, and the House of Commons was no longer divided into and governed by them; and that the predicament in which this Government is placed would be the same with every other, and business could no longer be conducted in Parliament in the way it used to be. All this is in my opinion quite true, and what has long struck me. Whether the extreme elasticity of our institutions, and the power of adaptation to circumstances which seems to pervade them, will enable us to find remedies and resources, and that the apparent derangement will right itself, remains to be seen. But it is a condition of affairs full of uncertainty, therefore of danger, and which makes me very uneasy whenever I think of it. It is evident that this Government is now backed by no great party, and that it has very few independent adherents on whom it can count. It scrambles on with casual support, and its continuing at all to exist is principally owing to the extreme difficulty of forming any other, and the certainty that no other that could be formed would be stronger or more secure, either more popular or more powerful.

May 7th.—It is scarcely a year ago that I was writing enthusiastic panegyrics on Gladstone, and describing him as the great ornament and support of the Government, and as the future Prime Minister. This was after the prodigious success of his first Budget and his able speeches, but a few months seem to have overturned all his power and authority. I hear nothing but complaints of his rashness and passion for experiments; and on all sides, from men, for example, like Tom Baring and Robarts, one a Tory, the other a Whig, that the City and the moneyed men have lost all confidence in him. To-morrow night he is to make his financial statement, and intense curiosity prevails to see how he will provide the ways and means for carrying on the war. Everybody expects that he will make an able speech; but brilliant speeches do not produce very great effect, and more anxiety is felt for the measures he will propose than for the dexterity and ingenuity he may display in proposing them. Parliament is ready to vote without grumbling any money that is asked for, and as yet public opinion has not begun to waver and complain; but we are only yet at the very beginning of this horrible mess, and people are still looking with eager interest to the successes they anticipate, and have not yet begun to feel the cost.

May 10th.—Gladstone made a great speech on Monday night. He spoke for nearly four hours, occupying the first half of the time in an elaborate and not unsuccessful defence of his former measures. His speech, which was certainly very able, was well received, and the Budget pronounced an honourable and creditable one. If he had chosen to sacrifice his conscientious convictions to popularity, he might have gained a great amount of the latter by proposing a loan, and no more taxes than would be necessary for the interest of it. I do not yet know whether his defence of his abortive schemes has satisfied the monetary critics. It was certainly very plausible, and will probably be sufficient for the uninformed and the half-informed, who cannot detect any fallacies which may lurk within it. He attacked some of his opponents with great severity, particularly Disraeli and Monteagle, but I doubt if this was prudent. He flung about his sarcasms upon smaller fry, and this certainly was not discreet. I think his speech has been of service to his financial character, and done a good deal towards the restoration of his credit.

May 12th.—Cowley called on me yesterday, when we talked over the war with all its etceteras. He said the Emperor had been most reluctant to go into it, but was now firmly resolved to pursue it vigorously, and not to desist till he had obtained fair terms of peace; above all things he is bent on going on with us in unbroken amity. Cowley thinks his political position as secure as any position can be in France, and certainly the country seems satisfied with his rule. His social position is unimproved and rather worse; his marriage was a fatal measure; he would have done far better if he could have married the Hohenlohe girl, who was dying to be Empress, and Cowley thinks the Queen was wrong to prevent the match. In that case the Court might have been very different. In the beginning, after his marriage, he attempted to purify it as well as he could, and to get rid of all the disreputable women about it; but by degrees they have all come back again, and now they are more encanaill?es than ever.

The French Government have given a strong proof of their goodwill to us by recalling Baraguay d'Hilliers from Constantinople, and not sending another ambassador, as they find none can possibly live on good terms with Stratford. Cowley says the war might have been prevented, he thinks, and particularly if Stratford had not been there. The Emperor would have made greater concessions if Stratford had not been at Constantinople, and another ambassador would have striven to preserve peace instead of being, as he was, bent on producing a war.

Edward Mills tells me Gladstone's recent speech has immensely raised him, and that he stands very high in the City, his defence of his measures very able, and produced a great effect; he said he lately met Walpole, who told him he had the highest admiration of Gladstone, and thought he had more power than ever Peel had even at his highest tide.

May 28th.—I have been so much occupied with the very dissimilar occupations of preparations for Epsom races in the shape of trials, betting, &c., and the finishing and correction of an article in the 'Edinburgh Review' on King Joseph's Memoirs, that I have had no leisure to think of politics, or to record what has been going on in the political world, nor in truth has much material been furnished either by domestic or foreign transactions. The last fortnight in Parliament has been going on much in the way in which the present Government always goes on, and Gladstone, whom I met at dinner the other day, repeated to me very much what Graham had said some time before, about their utter inability to carry their measures in the House of Commons. There is, however, one important exception to this rule, and that is one of vital importance. On everything which relates to the war, and on all questions of supply, they can do whatever they please, and have no difficulty, and encounter no opposition. Tom Baring's motion on Monday last exhibited a striking proof of this; he introduced it by an able speech, and he mustered all the support that could be got, and yet he was defeated by above 100. I met Disraeli in the street the next day, when he said, 'Your Government is very strong.' I said, the war which was supposed to be their weakness turns out to be their strength. They can carry everything which appertains to that, and nothing else. And so it is; no sooner do they get a great majority on some important question than they find themselves in a minority, perhaps more than one, on something else. John Russell got beaten on his Oaths Bill the other night, a victory which was hailed with uproarious delight by the Opposition, though leading to nothing, and only mortifying to John Russell personally. These defeats, however, do not fail to be morally injurious to the Government, and to shake their credit. It was an ill advised measure, which drew down upon itself those who are against the Jews and those who are against the Catholics. Palmerston has been showing ill humour in the House of Commons, and has ceased to be so very popular as he used to be there. They have great difficulty in getting on with the University Bill, and Gladstone told me the other night he was very doubtful if they should be able to bring it to a successful end. All the Tories and High Churchmen are against it of course, and the Dissenters regard it with no favour because it does not do for them what they desire; so it is left to the support of the friends of Government and those who sincerely desire a good measure of reform for those bodies.

June 5th.—I was at Epsom all last week. In the beginning of it or the week before there was a great passage of arms in the House of Commons between John Russell and Disraeli, not a very creditable exhibition, but which excited greater interest than more important matters. Though Disraeli began the attack, Lord John threw the first stone of offence, which he had better have let alone. In reply to this Disraeli broke out with inconceivable violence and made the most furious assault upon John that he could, saying everything most offensive and provoking. Lord John made a rejoinder, and was followed by Bright, whose speech was very hostile and spiteful, and much more calculated to annoy Lord John than that of Disraeli, though much less vituperative. Disraeli seems inclined to have recourse to his old tactics against Peel, and to endeavour to treat John Russell, and Gladstone when he can, in the same way, hoping probably to re-ingratiate himself with his own side by giving them some of those invectives and sarcasms against their opponents which are so congenial to their tastes. This course will not raise him either in the House or in the country, and he will not find in Lord John a man either so sensitive or so vulnerable as Peel, and he can make out nothing against a man who refuses place, patronage, and emolument, and gives his gratuitous services at a great personal sacrifice because he thinks it his public duty to do so. There is nothing new in the condition of the Government; they are very firmly seated in their places, the House of Commons supporting them by large majorities in all their great measures and those which involve a question of confidence; but having no dependable majority on miscellaneous questions, nor even knowing whether they can carry any measure or not, it is idle to twit them with being a Government on sufferance and Lord John with not 'leading' the House of Commons. A revolution has taken place in the conditions of the political existence of governments in general and their relations with Parliament, and there is at present no likelihood that any government that can be formed will find itself in different circumstances, or that the old practice by which a government could command the House of Commons on almost everything will ever be restored. Whether the new system be better or worse than the old may be doubtful, but governments must make up their minds to conform to it for the present at least. In the course of the next few days the division of the Colonial from the War Department will take place. There seems little doubt that Newcastle will elect to take the War Department, and Clarendon told me yesterday he thought he would be the best man for it, warmly praising his energy, industry, and ability, and his popular and conciliatory qualities. Their great object is to prevail on Lord John to take the Colonial Office, which I expect he will eventually do, but not without much reluctance and hesitation. Granville tells me he is in a dissatisfied state of mind, in which he will probably long remain, especially as his entourage will always do their best to foment his discontent.

June 11th.—Yesterday and the day before the world was made acquainted with the recent arrangements and appointments, which have been received with considerable disapprobation.[1] Nobody can understand what it all means, and why John Russell, if he was to take office, was to insist on so strange an arrangement, and such a departure from the invariable practice of putting a peer in the office of President of the Council. Nothing can be more ungracious than the air of the whole proceeding: he turns out Granville to make room for himself, and turns out Strutt to make room for Granville. It seems that they wanted him to be Colonial Secretary, but this he would not hear of on the score of his health, and as it is now admitted as an axiom that the leader in the House of Commons has enough to do, and cannot efficiently discharge the duties of a laborious department, it was reasonable enough that Lord John should decline the Colonies; but there seems no sufficient reason for his not taking the Duchy of Lancaster, for the more completely the office is a sinecure, the more consistent his taking it would appear. However, he would be President of the Council or nothing. I have been amazed at his indelicacy and want of consideration towards Granville, who deserved better treatment at his hands. Granville has always been his steady and stout adherent, defending his Reform Bill, holding himself his especial follower in the Coalition Cabinet, and ready to support him or go out with him if necessary. It was therefore particularly odious to insist on foisting himself into Granville's place, and inflicting on him the mortification of going downstairs. Granville behaved very well about it, with great good humour, only anxious to do whatever was best for the general interest, and putting aside every personal consideration and feeling; and his conduct is the more meritorious, because he dislikes the arrangement of all things. Aberdeen behaved very kindly to him, and told him, if he objected to the change, he would not consent to it, and, cost what it might, would tell John Russell he could not and should not have the place. Granville proposed to go out, at least for a time, but Aberdeen said he could not spare him, and nothing could be more flattering than all he expressed of his usefulness in the House of Lords, and of the value of his services. Personally, therefore, he loses nothing; for though he preferred the Council Office to the Duchy, his conduct has raised him in everybody's estimation, and he will play a part even more prominent than he did before.