Chapter 21

Successes in India, China, and Syria--The Hereditary Pashalik of Egypt--Lord Palmerston's Hostility to France--Lord Palmerston and the Tories--His extraordinary Position--A Communication from M. Guizot--Death of the Duchess of Cannizzaro--Her History--Dinner with Lady Holland--Macaulay's Conversation-- Opening of the Session--A Sheriffs' Dinner--Hullah's Music Lecture--Tory Successes--Duke of Wellington ill--Irish Registration Bill--Opposed by the Conservatives--Conservative Government of Ireland--Petulance of Lord Palmerston--Double Dealing of Lord Palmerston--Ill Temper of the French--M. Dedel's account of the State of Affairs--M. Dedel's account corrected--Termination of the Disputes with France--Bad News from China--Hostility of the United States--The Sultan's Hatti- sherif--The Hatti-sherif disapproved by some Ministers--Peel's Liberality--The Hatti-sherif disavowed--The Bishop of Exeter left in the lurch--Poor Law Amendment Bill--Lord Granville's Illness--Death of Mrs. Algernon Greville--Loss of 'The President'--Government defeated--China Troubles--Danger of the Government.

January 7th, 1841 {p.360}

Yesterday arrived (through the French telegraph) the news of the death of the King of Lahore, the surrender of Dost Mahomed, and the settlement of the Chinese quarrel, all coming just in time to swell out the catalogue of successes to be announced in the Queen's Speech. In France the aspect of affairs is improving, the King has given answers on New Year's Day which he would not have ventured to make a short time ago, and His Majesty assures Lord Granville that the war fever is rapidly diminishing. The French hardly trouble themselves now (except in an occasional undergrowl in some Liberal paper) about Syria, and the Government considering Mehemet Ali's destiny decided, only desire to be re- admitted into the great European Council, for the purpose of participating in the measures to be adopted for determining the condition of the Christian population of Syria, and for securing Constantinople from any exclusive protection or influence.

[Page Head: LORD PONSONBY'S VIOLENCE.]

At this moment, however, everything is unsettled with regard to Egypt, and Lord Ponsonby has been acting in his usual furious style with such effect that it is not at all certain the question will be settled without a good deal of trouble. Upon the receipt, at Constantinople, of Napier's unauthorised Convention with the Pasha, Ponsonby instantly assembled the ambassadors, moved that it should be rejected and disavowed, and signified the same to the Ministers of the Porte, who, of course, desired no better than to acquiesce. At Ponsonby's instigation, Redschid Pasha wrote to say that the Sultan utterly disavowed this Convention; that he might be disposed, out of deference to his allies, and at their request, to grant some temporary favour and indulgence to the family of the Pasha, but as to the hereditary possession of Egypt, _he had never heard of_, or contemplated, any such thing, nor would ever listen to it; and he reminded the Allied Powers that such a grant would be in direct contravention of the principle of the Treaty itself, which had for its object the maintenance of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. It remains to be seen what will be done at Constantinople when the intelligence of Stopford's Convention (so to call it) arrives there, which, in fact, differs in no respect from that of Napier; but it is very extraordinary that Ponsonby should write word that the Sultan had never _heard_ any question of the hereditary grant of Egypt, when, in the middle of October, a despatch was written to him (which was at the same time communicated to the French Government) ordering him to propose to the Sultan this restitution. Unless, therefore, this despatch was not sent, or he took upon himself to disobey his instruction, it must be false that the Turkish Government never heard of such a question. Lord John Russell, who went to Broadlands the other day, wrote to Melbourne that he found Bülow, Neumann, and Esterhazy there, and there seemed to be a great deal of discussion going on between them all, and much doubt as to the question of _hérédité_, but that he was of opinion that this question admitted of no doubt, and that we were bound to insist upon it after the assurances we had given to France. Of Palmerston's opinions he did not say a word. However, whether Palmerston wishes to push matters to further extremities against the Viceroy or not, he will hardly attempt it, for, easy as he has hitherto found it, with the opportune aid of events, to baffle all opposition in the Cabinet, he would certainly meet with a resistance to any such design that he would not be able to overcome. His successes have not made him more moderate and conciliatory towards France, and I have no doubt that if he had the drawing up of the Queen's Speech, he would take an insulting and triumphant tone in it, which would fan the expiring flame of passion and hostility, and widen the breach between the two countries.

[Page Head: LORD PALMERSTON AND THE TORIES.]

The other day Lord Clarendon wrote to him, sending a sort of message from the French Court (through Madame de Montjoie) expressive of a hope that a conciliatory disposition would prevail; to which he responded in a strain of insolent invective against France and her designs, saying that her object was to extort concessions from us which we should never make, and that now we were strong in our alliance with the other Powers we might defy her to injure us. This letter Clarendon showed to Melbourne, who had asked him if he knew what Palmerston's feelings were (he himself knowing nothing), and he was, of course, struck with the bitterness and asperity of his tone. Melbourne told Clarendon that Palmerston was still very sore at the articles which had appeared in the 'Times,' and at the communications that had taken place between parties here and their French correspondents, and he particularly mentioned Reeve's with Tocqueville--Lord Lansdowne having probably shown Palmerston the letter which Tocqueville wrote to Reeve[1] just before the great debate in the Chamber. Clarendon said he could not imagine what Palmerston had to complain of in the 'Times,' as, though there had been some articles attacking him, the far greater number had been in his favour. Melbourne said there had been a great deal the other way, and that Palmerston and his Tory friends with whom he had communicated had been constantly surprised to find that there was an influence stronger than their own in that quarter.

[1] [This was a very remarkable letter M. de Tocqueville wrote to me in November, showing the danger of driving France to extremities, which might involve the overthrow of the Government in that country. Tocqueville was always penetrated with the conviction that the throne of Louis Philippe rested on no solid foundation; and undoubtedly the Treaty of July 1840 was a severe blow to its stability, and led to further disputes, and more fatal consequences. The letter in question was shown by me to Lord Lansdowne, and I was told it was read to the Cabinet. At any rate, it was read by Lord Melbourne, who attached great importance to it.--H.R.]

January 9th, 1841 {p.363}

The other day at Windsor, when Clarendon was sitting talking with Melbourne, the latter in his lounging way, as if thinking aloud, said, 'In all my experience, I never remember such a state of things as the present; I never remember, in the course of my political life, anything at all like it; it can't last--it's impossible this Government can go on; Palmerston in communication with the Tories--Palmerston and Ashley--' and then he stopped. Clarendon said, 'What! you think Palmerston and the Tories will come together?' To which Melbourne nodded assent. 'And which,' Clarendon persevered, 'will come to the other: will Palmerston go to Ashley, or will Ashley come to Palmerston?' To which Melbourne chuckled and grunted, laughed and rubbed his hands, and only said, 'Oh, I don't know.' These are the sentiments of the Prime Minister about his own Government--a strange state of things: while Palmerston is in confidential communication with the Tories, or some of them, for the purpose of obtaining their support to his policy, half of his own colleagues, though committed, being adverse to it, and regarded by him as his worst adversaries. He and John Russell, the two Secretaries of State-- the latter leader of the House of Commons--pass some days together in the house of the former, without exchanging one word upon the subject of foreign policy, and Lord John is reduced to the necessity of gathering in conversation from Neumann and Esterhazy what Palmerston's views and opinions are. These two diplomats expressed the greatest indignation at Ponsonby's proceedings, and Palmerston himself has renewed to Bourqueney the assurances of his resolution to adhere to the engagements he had already made to France with regard to Egypt. Melbourne, however, acknowledged that he was entirely in the dark as to Palmerston's real views and opinions, as he believed was every one of his colleagues. He has no intimacy, no interchange of thought and complete openness with anybody, and all they know is (and that only as soon as he thinks fit to impart it) his notions with regard to each particular question as its exigencies become pressing. His position, however, is now a very remarkable one. Belonging to a Government almost every member of which dislikes or distrusts him, he has acquired, by recent events, a great reputation, and is looked upon generally as a bold, able, and successful statesman. In the event of a dislocation of parties, he is free to adopt any course, and to join with any party.[2] Almost all the domestic questions which have hitherto excited interest have been settled, compromised, or thrown aside, and a sudden interest has been awakened, and attention generally drawn to our foreign policy and international relations. All that has recently occurred--our treaties and our warlike operations--are not looked upon as the work of the Government, but as that of Palmerston alone--Palmerston, in some degree, as contradistinguished from the Government. All this confers upon him a vast importance, and enables him, neither unreasonably nor improbably, to aspire to head and direct any Government that may hereafter be formed by a dissolution and fresh combination of parties.

[2] [I believe at this time, Lord Palmerston, irritated by the opposition and distrust of his own colleagues, and encouraged by the applause of the Tories, who were delighted at the rupture of the alliance with France, and eager to bully that country, did contemplate a junction with the Tory party. But to this there was an insurmountable obstacle, the deep distrust and dislike of Sir Robert Peel, who thought Palmerston a dangerous and mischievous Foreign Minister, and the hostility of Lord Aberdeen. In fact, when these statesmen came into office a few months later, they applied themselves mainly to obliterate the traces of Palmerston's quarrels. Nothing would have induced Sir Robert Peel to take Palmerston into his Cabinet. It was otherwise, some years later, when Lord Stanley had succeeded to the leadership of the Conservative Party, and at that time the negotiations between him and Lord Palmerston were renewed, though without any result.--H.R.]

January 13th, 1841 {p.365}

Notwithstanding the comparative tranquillity which now prevails in France, the madness of that people having taken another turn, and venting itself upon a reckless expenditure, and the extravagant project of fortifying Paris, Guizot is evidently aware of, and alarmed at, certain intrigues now at work, for the purpose of his ejection. Of these Molé is the object or the agent, or both. Guizot sent over the other day to Reeve a paper, cleverly done, in which Molé's position was discussed, and the morality as well as possibility of his coming into office with the aid of a coalition.

[Page Head: THE DUCHESS OF CANNIZZARO.]

The other day died the Duchess of Cannizzaro, a woman of rather amusing notoriety, whom the world laughed with and laughed at, while she was alive, and will regret a little because she contributed in some degree to their entertainment. She was a Miss Johnstone, and got from her brother a large fortune; she was very short and fat, with rather a handsome face, totally uneducated, but full of humour, vivacity, and natural drollery, at the same time passionate and capricious. Her all-absorbing interest and taste was music, to which all her faculties and time were devoted. She was eternally surrounded with musical artists, was their great patroness, and at her house the world was regaled with the best music that art could supply. Soon after her brother's death, she married the Count St. Antonio (who was afterwards made Duke of Cannizzaro), a good-looking, intelligent, but penniless Sicilian of high birth, who was pretty successful in all ways in society here. He became disgusted with her, however, and went off to Italy, on a separate allowance which she made him. After a few years he returned to England, and they lived together again; he not only became more disgusted than before, but he had in the meantime formed a _liaison_ at Milan with a very distinguished woman there, once a magnificent beauty, but now as old and as large as his own wife, and to her he was very anxious to return. This was Madame Visconti (mother of the notorious Princess Belgioso), who, though no longer young, had fine remains of good looks, and was eminently pleasing and attractive. Accordingly, St. Antonio took occasion to elope (by himself) from some party of pleasure at which he was present with his spouse, and when she found that he had gone off without notice or warning, she first fell into violent fits of grief, which were rather ludicrous than affecting, and then set off in pursuit of her faithless lord. She got to Dover, where the sight of the rolling billows terrified her so much, that, after three days of doubt whether she should cross the water or not, she resolved to return, and weep away her vexation in London. Not long afterwards, however, she plucked up courage, and taking advantage of a smooth sea she ventured over the Straits, and set off for Milan, if not to recover her fugitive better half, at all events to terrify her rival and disturb their joys. The advent of the Cannizzaro woman was to the Visconti like the irruption of the Huns of old. She fled to a villa near Milan, which she proceeded to garrison and fortify, but finding that the other was not provided with any implements for a siege, and did not stir from Milan, she ventured to return to the city, and for some time these ancient heroines drove about the town glaring defiance and hate at each other, which was the whole amount of the hostilities that took place between them. Finding her husband was irrecoverable, she at length got tired of the hopeless pursuit, and resolved to return home, and console herself with her music and whatever other gratifications she could command. Not long after, she fell in love with a fiddler at a second-rate theatre in Milan, and carried him off to England, which he found, if not the most agreeable, the most profitable business he could engage in. The affair was singular and curious, as showing what society may be induced to put up with. There was not the slightest attempt to conceal this connexion; on the contrary it was most ostentatiously exhibited to the world, but the world agreed to treat it as a joke, and do nothing but laugh at it. The only difference 'the Duchesse' ever found was, that her Sunday parties were less well attended; but this was because the world (which often grows religious, but never grows moral) had begun to take it into its head that it would keep holy the Sabbath _night_. The worst part of the story was, that this profligate blackguard bullied and plundered her without mercy or shame, and she had managed very nearly to ruin herself before her death. What she had left, she bequeathed to her husband, notwithstanding his infidelities and his absence.

January 21st, 1841 {p.367}

[Page Head: MACAULAY'S CONVERSATION.] [Page Head: MACAULAY'S MEMORY.]

I dined with Lady Holland yesterday. Everything there is exactly the same as it used to be, excepting only the person of Lord Holland, who seems to be pretty well forgotten.[3] The same talk went merrily round, the laugh rang loudly and frequently, and, but for the black and the mob-cap of the lady, one might have fancied he had never lived or had died half a century ago. Such are, however, affections and friendships, and such is the world. Macaulay dined there, and I never was more struck than upon this occasion by the inexhaustible variety and extent of his information. He is not so _agreeable_ as such powers and resources ought to make any man, because the vessel out of which it is all poured forth is so ungraceful and uncouth; his voice unmusical and monotonous, his face not merely inexpressive but positively heavy and dull, no fire in his eye, no intelligence playing round his mouth, nothing which bespeaks the genius and learning stored within and which burst out with such extraordinary force. It is impossible to mention any book in any language with which he is not familiar; to touch upon any subject, whether relating to persons or things, on which he does not know everything that is to be known. And if he could tread less heavily on the ground, if he could touch the subjects he handles with a lighter hand, if he knew when to stop as well as he knows what to say, his talk would be as attractive as it is wonderful. What Henry Taylor said of him is epigrammatic and true, 'that his memory has swamped his mind;' and though I do not think, as some people say, that his own opinions are completely suppressed by the load of his learning so that you know nothing of his mind, it appears to me true that there is less of originality in him, less exhibition of his own character, than there probably would be if he was less abundantly stored with the riches of the minds of others. We had yesterday a party well composed for talk, for there were listeners of intelligence and a good specimen of the sort of society of this house--Macaulay, Melbourne, Morpeth, Duncannon, Baron Rolfe, Allen and Lady Holland, and John Russell came in the evening. I wish that a shorthand writer could have been there to take down all the conversation, or that I could have carried it away in my head; because it was curious in itself, and curiously illustrative of the characters of the performers. Before dinner some mention was made of the portraits of the Speakers in the Speaker's House, and I asked how far they went back. Macaulay said he was not sure, but certainly as far as Sir Thomas More. 'Sir Thomas More,' said Lady Holland, 'I did not know he had been Speaker.' 'Oh, yes,' said Macaulay, 'don't you remember when Cardinal Wolsey came down to the House of Commons and More was in the chair?' and then he told the whole of that well-known transaction, and all More had said. At dinner, amongst a variety of persons and subjects, principally ecclesiastical, which were discussed--for Melbourne loves all sorts of theological talk--we got upon India and Indian men of eminence, proceeding from Gleig's 'Life of Warren Hastings,' which Macaulay said was the worst book that ever was written; and then the name of Sir Thomas Munro came uppermost. Lady Holland did not know why Sir Thomas Munro was so distinguished; when Macaulay explained all that he had ever said, done, written, or thought, and vindicated his claim to the title of a great man, till Lady Holland got bored with Sir Thomas, told Macaulay she had had enough of him, and would have no more. This would have dashed and silenced an ordinary talker, but to Macaulay it was no more than replacing a book on its shelf, and he was as ready as ever to open on any other topic. It would be impossible to follow and describe the various mazes of conversation, all of which he threaded with an ease that was always astonishing and instructive, and generally interesting and amusing. When we went upstairs we got upon the Fathers of the Church. Allen asked Macaulay if he had read much of the Fathers. He said, not a great deal. He had read Chrysostom when he was in India; that is, he had turned over the leaves and for a few months had read him for two or three hours every morning before breakfast; and he had read some of Athanasius. 'I remember a sermon,' he said, 'of Chrysostom's in praise of the Bishop of Antioch;' and then he proceeded to give us the substance of this sermon till Lady Holland got tired of the Fathers, again put her extinguisher on Chrysostom as she had done on Munro, and with a sort of derision, and as if to have the pleasure of puzzling Macaulay, she turned to him and said, 'Pray, Macaulay, what was the origin of a _doll_? when were dolls first mentioned in history?' Macaulay was, however, just as much up to the dolls as he was to the Fathers, and instantly replied that the Roman children had their dolls, which they offered up to Venus when they grew older; and quoted Persius for

'Veneri donatae a virgine puppae,'

and I have not the least doubt, if he had been allowed to proceed, he would have told us who was the Chenevix of ancient Rome, and the name of the first baby that ever handled a doll.

[3] [He had been dead three months.]

The conversation then ran upon Milman's 'History of Christianity,' which Melbourne praised, the religious opinions of Locke, of Milman himself, the opinion of the world thereupon, and so on to Strauss's book and his mythical system, and what he meant by mythical. Macaulay began illustrating and explaining the meaning of a _myth_ by examples from remote antiquity, when I observed that in order to explain the meaning of 'mythical' it was not necessary to go so far back; that, for instance, we might take the case of Wm. Huntington, S.S.: that the account of his life was historical, but the story of his praying to God for a new pair of leather breeches and finding them under a hedge was mythical. Now, I had just a general superficial recollection of this story in Huntington's 'Life,' but my farthing rushlight was instantly extinguished by the blaze of Macaulay's all-grasping and all-retaining memory, for he at once came in with the whole minute account of this transaction: how Huntington had prayed, what he had found, and where, and all he had said to the tailor by whom this miraculous nether garment was made.

January 30th, 1841 {p.370}

[Page Head: M. GUIZOT'S ESTIMATE OF LORD HOLLAND.]

Parliament opened on Tuesday last with a very meagre speech, on which no amendment could be hung. The Duke spoke extremely well in the House of Lords, and Peel the same in the House of Commons. Both approved (the Duke without any qualification, Peel more guardedly) of the foreign policy of the Government, and both said everything that was conciliatory, nattering, and cordial to France. John Russell and Palmerston both spoke in the same tone, the latter especially, and his speech was totally free from anything like triumph or exultation; in short, nothing could be more favourable for Government than what passed, and nothing more creditable to the country. It was temperate and dignified, and exhibited a strong contrast to the fury and bluster of the French debates and the Press, and consequently displayed the superiority in every respect of our national character over theirs. At present everything promises a very easy session, and the Conservatives are confessedly reduced to look to the chapter of accidents for some event which may help them to turn out the Government and get hold of their places.[4] Lord John said something about Lord Holland in the House of Commons, but Melbourne could not be prevailed upon to say anything in the House of Lords. Lady Holland was satisfied with Lord John's speech, but though it was a prettily turned compliment, it was of no great service in relieving him from the charges which have been levelled at him in some of the newspapers.[5]

[4] [It is curious that a session which was destined to witness the important proposals of the Whigs in the direction of free trade, and to end so disastrously for the Liberal party, and so well for the Conservatives, should have begun thus tamely.]

[5] [Lord Holland had been attacked for the part he took in opposition to the Treaty of July in the preceding year, and for his earnest endeavours to avert a rupture with France. The best answer to these aspersions on the conduct of a most excellent man and true patriot occurs in a letter from M. Guizot to Lady Holland of January 3, 1841, which has recently been published. I transcribe the following sentences:-- 'J'ai ressenti un vrai, un vif chagrin quand j'ai vu le nom qui vous est cher compromis d'une façon si inconvenante dans nos débats. J'aurais voulu raconter moi-même, à tout le monde, sa bienveillance si sincère pour la France, son désir si persévérant de maintenir entre nos deux pays une amitié qu'il regardait comme excellente pour tous les deux, et en même temps sa constante préoccupation pour son propre pays, son dévouement si tendre pour la Reine, son attachement si fidèle pour ses collègues. Je n'ai rencontré personne qui sût concilier à ce point tous les devoirs, tous les sentiments, toutes les ideés. Dans la confiance de nos entretiens j'ai bien souvent regretté que tout le monde ne fût pas là pour l'entendre, tout le monde, Anglais, Français, ceux dont il ne partageait pas les opinions comme ceux qui étaient de son avis. Il aurait exercé sur tout le monde une influence bien salutaire, et les absurdes propos qui out été tenus, depuis qu'il n'est plus là, auraient été complètement impossibles.']

February 1st, 1841 {p.371}

The Sheriffs' dinner at the Lord President's on Saturday.[6] It must be owned they decide very conscientiously. One man asked for exemption because he had, by keeping away Conservative votes, decided an election in favour of a Whig candidate, and, though otherwise disposed to let him off, they made him Sheriff directly on reading this excuse. I sat next to Palmerston. It was amusing to see how everything is blown over, and how success and the necessity of making common cause has reconciled all jarring sentiments; and it was amusing to hear Melbourne in one house and John Russell in the other vigorously defending and praising Palmerston's policy. It must be owned that Palmerston has conducted himself well under the circumstances, without any air of triumph or boasting either over his colleagues or his opponents or the French. He has deserved his success by the moderation with which he has taken it. I saw Bourqueney last night, delighted with all that was said in Parliament, especially, of course, by the Duke and Peel, but well satisfied with John Russell and Palmerston, and he owned the tone of the latter was unexceptionable.

[6] [The list of Sheriffs for the ensuing year is settled at an annual dinner attended by the Cabinet Ministers, when the three names designated by the judges for each county are passed in review, excuses considered, and one of the number chosen to be submitted to the Queen.]

February 4th, 1841 {p.372}

Went the night before last to Exeter Hall, to hear Mr. Hullah[7] give a lecture on the teaching of vocal music in the Poor Law schools (and elsewhere). Very interesting, well done, and the illustration of his plan by the boys of Dr. Kay's school and other (adult) pupils of Hullah's was excellent. The plan has been tried with great success in France, Germany, and Switzerland, and the Education Committee are disposed to assist in giving it a trial here. These plans, which are founded in benevolence and a sincere desire for the diffusion of good among the people, merit every encouragement, and will in the end get it, for there is, in the midst of much indifference and prejudice, a growing disposition to ameliorate the condition of the masses, both morally and physically.

[7] [I had myself put Mr. Hullah in relation with the Government, and with Mr. Eden, who tried his system of musical instruction (based on Wilhem's plan) at the schools at Battersea. Indeed, I persuaded Hullah to go to France to study Wilhem's system, which was in operation there. Lord Lansdowne saw that musical education was a neutral ground on which all parties (those most divided) might agree; and he took up this idea with success. Sydney Smith went to this lecture, to Hullah's great delight, and it was very successful. Mr. Hullah, after a long and useful career, died in 1884.--H.R.]

[Page Head: IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.]

Yesterday all the Tories were in high glee at their success at the Canterbury and Walsall elections, the former not having been expected by either party, and nevertheless they had a majority of 165 votes. It is certainly curious, for the Government have a right to be popular, or, at least, to expect that no tide of unpopularity should rise against them; and after all their successes, and the declared inability of their opponents to find fault with them, it is strange that they should lose ground to the extent that they have. The Government see all the danger of their position, and how very probable it is that they may be reduced to the necessity of resignation or dissolution, and, though they have no hopes of bettering themselves by the latter, they have made up their minds to try the experiment, in order that they may give the Queen no reason to accuse them of unnecessarily deserting her, and not exhausting every expedient to retain their places before they give them up. They are, however, very much divided upon the question of what to dissolve upon, some being for so doing on Stanley's Irish Registration Bill, if then defeated, while others (more judiciously, _meâ sententiâ_) are against going to the country on any Irish question.[8]

[8] [The Irish system for the registration of voters differed materially from that of England. In Ireland, every person claiming to vote for the first time was obliged to prove his title; in England, all claims were admitted that were not objected to, and other abuses had crept in. Attempts had been made by the Government to remedy this evil, but in vain; and in 1840 Lord Stanley, then in Opposition, took it in hand, and brought in an Irish Registration Bill, which was opposed by O'Connell and by Lord Morpeth, then Irish Secretary, but on two successive divisions Ministers were beaten. This Bill was, however, withdrawn. In 1841 Lord Stanley and Lord Morpeth both brought in Irish Registration Bills; the former was meant to clear the Register of fictitious voters, the latter was a Reform Bill in disguise, for it extended the franchise to leaseholders rated at £5 a year. The contest between these two rival Bills occupied the early parts of the session. The second reading of Lord Morpeth's Bill was carried by 299 to 294, but eventually the qualification clause was struck out of the Bill in Committee by a division of 300 to 294 on April 29. (See Walpole's _History of England_, vol. iii. p. 520.)]

February 9th, 1841 {p.373}

The Duke of Wellington had an attack the other night in the House of Lords, and was taken home speechless, but not senseless. It was severe, but short, and after the stomach was relieved, he rapidly recovered, and in a day or two _pronounced_ himself as well as ever. Of course the alarm was very great. He is very eager about politics, and the Tory language is that of exceeding gloom about the general aspect of affairs, while their own affairs, as far as elections are concerned, flourish. In Monmouthshire the Whig has resigned without a contest; the Tories affect to consider Morpeth's Registration Bill as a revolution, while the Whigs pretend that Stanley's will make every county in Ireland a close Orange borough. Perhaps the debates may strike out something approaching to the truth. Great disquietude at the French armaments, considerable uneasiness at the dispute with America, and much disgust at our having been apparently bamboozled by the Chinese, form the principal topics of political grievance and complaint.

February 12th, 1841 {p.373}

The other day I met Lord Howick, and had a talk with him about the Irish questions now pending. The Government are much pleased with his support of Morpeth's Bill. As he stands, as it were, midway between the two Bills, I asked him to explain to me the merits of the question, which he did, as it seemed to me, fairly enough. He approves of the machinery of Stanley's registration, and of Morpeth's definition of the franchise, not binding himself to _amount_, but not objecting to that proposed. He showed me a letter he wrote to Stanley, in a very amicable strain, setting forth the danger which he thought would attend any settlement of the question which did not embrace a definition of the franchise, and entreating him to reconsider the question, for the purpose of coming to some arrangement. The answer was not encouraging, for it consisted of a note from Lady Stanley to Lady Howick, in which she said that Stanley had got the gout in his hand, and could not write, but desired her to say that he entirely disagreed with Howick. Howick talked sensibly enough about it, and asked me if I could not do anything to bring about a compromise, his notion being that there should be a committee above stairs to take evidence as to the effect of the £5 franchise, and that only the principle of definition should be admitted. I told him I had no means whatever, had no access to any of the leaders, that the only men to whom I could talk were Graham or Fitzgerald, and that if I fell in with either, I would see if any possibility presented itself.

February 14th, 1841 {p.374}

[Page Head: SIR JAMES GRAHAM ON IRISH AFFAIRS.]

The day before yesterday I met Graham by accident at Boodle's, so I took the opportunity of talking to him about these Bills, and I soon found that there is no possibility of any compromise. He expressed the greatest alarm and disgust at Morpeth's measure; said that he had never seen Stanley so determined, and that he and Peel both entirely agreed with him; that he could not understand how John Russell, or indeed any member of Lord Grey's Government, could consent to such a violation of the principle of the Reform Bill, and to the formation of a new franchise, which, if granted, must entail similar concessions in England and Scotland; that the intention of the framers of the Reform Bill was that, in the counties, property and not numbers should have influence, and the effect of this Bill would be to transfer influence from property to numbers. He spoke much of the unpopularity of the Government, which he attributed to the Irish connexion, and thought that this Bill would do them great harm in England. When I urged the importance of settling affairs in Ireland, and not leaving such a question as this to unite all the country against them, if they came in again, and to revive the great power of O'Connell, which had for some time been waning, and I pointed out the great danger that might arise from Ireland in the present unsettled state of Europe, he said, rather than consent to such a measure as this, he was prepared to encounter every difficulty and danger; he would never consent to transfer power from the landed interest to the multitude; and as long as the priests interfered in Irish elections, it could not be expected that landlords would not counteract that influence by diminishing as much as they could the numbers of those who were made to act under it; that the old saying that Cromwell had confiscated too much, or exterminated too little, was the truth; he saw no way of pacifying that country, and as to concessions they must have a limit, every concession had been made that could be reasonably desired, and he would do no more. If they came into power, he would be prepared to govern equitably, without fear or favour, encouraging, without reference to political or religious opinions, all those who supported the British connexion, and with a determination to uphold without flinching the national institutions. I asked him if he thought no transaction could be effected with the Irish priests, so as to reconcile them to Government; but he said that none was, he thought, now feasible. He had been for the measure, but now England would not grant an establishment to the Catholic clergy, and if she would, they would not accept it, for they never would abandon the advantages they enjoyed under the present system of voluntary contributions, which was in most cases more profitable than any provision which could possibly be held out to them.

The result of all this presents very serious matter for reflexion, for this Irish question will probably draw a broad line of separation between parties, afford respective rallying- points, and secure a formidable and united opposition if the Tories come in; and one cannot regard without the greatest apprehension the prospect of a systematic determined hostility on the part of the Irish masses towards this country with the certainty almost that the ground on which the battle will be fought will be that of maintaining the Irish Church. This is in point of fact the interest which the Tory or English party regard. Ireland is denied her share in representation, hers is made an exceptional case, because she is under Catholic influence, and because that Catholic influence will, they suspect, if ever it is strong enough, exert its strength in overturning the English Church. I do not think anybody of sense and information believes that the Irish Catholic clergy or laity have any disinclination to British connexion, except so far as they are in their own eyes degraded or injured by it. There exists, and there ever will exist, that one deep feeling, constantly kept burning in the minds of the laity by the undying zeal of the clergy, that Catholic Ireland is insulted and impoverished by the vast Protestant ecclesiastical establishment, that in the most important, the most heart-stirring of all interests, an interest at once temporal and spiritual, they are stripped of those equal and essential rights which are possessed by England and Scotland. I have never doubted that sooner or later this contest would arise, and that the end of it will be, however long in coming, the downfall of the Church of England in Ireland, as fall it ought.[9]

[9] [This prediction was fulfilled in 1868. But the measure was not followed by that cessation of discord which Mr. Greville hopefully anticipated from it.]

February 27th, 1841 {p.376}

The debate lasted four nights on Morpeth's Bill, and Ministers got a majority of five, both sides bringing down the sick and the dying without remorse. A close division and parties nicely balanced, extinguish all feelings of humanity. The best speeches were Charles Buller's, Sheil's, Follett's, Peel's, and John Russell's. It is supposed this will bolster them up for the Session, but something still depends on Stanley's Bill.

[Page Head: SETTLEMENT OF THE EASTERN QUESTION.]

Foreign affairs have assumed a better aspect. A negotiation is going on _here_ for the purpose of inviting France to join the alliance, and take part in the final settlement of the Eastern Question, which she desires no better than to accept, and then to disarm; indeed, she has already begun to do so. The delay is occasioned by some difficulty as to the forms to be adopted. The French want some phrases, which don't seem unreasonable in themselves, but about which the Russian makes a difficulty. There is to be a Note, and in this Note Bourqueney wishes it to be expressly stated that the integrity of the Ottoman Empire is now secured, but Brunnow makes this strange objection, that they should thereby be admitting the _de jure_ occupation of Algiers by the French. This seems such a frivolous objection that it is difficult to conceive it can be the real one. The wonder is that Palmerston, who carries everything with so high a hand, does not overrule it _auctoritate suâ_. He has been showing off his flippancy lately not only to France, but to Austria, writing despatches to Lord Granville, which are in such a tone that he complains bitterly of being instructed to read them to Guizot; and, with regard to Austria, this occurred: Metternich wrote some letter complaining of delay in settling the question of Mehemet Ali's hereditary possession of Egypt, which, it seems, nettled Palmerston, and he wrote a remarkably clever but very insolent answer, in which he reviewed the vacillations and inconsistencies of the Austrian Cabinet in a very offensive style. This despatch was read by the Cabinet; and I fancy generally disapproved, very much so by Melbourne, who however did not interfere, and let it go. But Frederick Lamb, who has all the confidence and courage which Melbourne wants, very quietly put it in his drawer, and wrote word to Palmerston that circumstances were changed and he should not give it to Metternich. Melbourne was very much pleased at this, and said it was very judicious; but he forgot that it was his business to stop it in the first instance, and that, thinking it imprudent, as Prime Minister he ought to have put his veto on it. But he is only Prime Minister in name, and has no authority. He is all in all at Buckingham Palace, but very little in Downing Street.

March 2nd, 1841, Tuesday {p.378}

[Page Head: THE PROTOCOL DELAYED.]

On Sunday I met Bourqueney at dinner. He was very gloomy, talked of the debate in the Chamber and the declarations in favour of keeping up the _isolement_ as '_très-grave_,' and then complained bitterly, but obscurely, of the difficulties he encountered here, and how hard it was, after the unanimous expressions in both Houses of Parliament, that such obstacles should be cast in the way of a settlement, hinting at Palmerston as the cause, but without being explicit; indeed, it was in the carriage going to Lady Holland's, and there was not time for more. To-day, however, I have heard more; and it seems that Palmerston has been at his tricks again, though I don't yet know precisely what he has done. My brother keeps writing me word that his tone in his communications to the French Government, through Lord Granville, is very offensive; but here he appeared to be really anxious to conciliate. It is, however, quite impossible to make out what he is at. He has contributed more than anybody to give this Government a _federal_ character; for in the Foreign Office he has resolved to be, and he is, wholly independent of his colleagues. He tells them as much or as little of his proceedings as it suits his purpose or his fancy to do; and they are now so well aware of this, and have so little confidence in him, that when he does tell the Cabinet anything they feel no security that they are acquainted with the truth or, at least, the whole truth. In the pending matter, Esterhazy and Bülow have been vehemently urging the completion of an arrangement, but the Cabinet settled that no overture should be made to France without previously ascertaining that she would accept it when made. All very proper! It was settled that the other Powers should beg Palmerston to invite France in all their names to join in a Convention for securing the free navigation of the Bosphorus; and this Convention was arranged at a Conference some day last week, and at the same time a Protocol--which was to _precede_ it--stating that, the objects of the July alliance being completed, the alliance was at an end. All this was agreed to, and on Saturday at the Cabinet the Convention was read and approved of; but objections were made to the Protocol on the ground that questions might still arise requiring the intervention of the alliance, that no certain intelligence had yet arrived either of the evacuation of Syria by Ibrahim or the publication of the firman by the Sultan, and, therefore, it would be imprudent to break up the alliance just at this moment, and this operation might as well be deferred for a brief space. Such was the general sentiment. Melbourne said, 'Are you sure France will take the Convention?' to which Palmerston replied, he had no doubt she would, as it had been put into his hands by Esterhazy, who had probably already communicated it to Bourqueney. But he did not tell the Cabinet that he had agreed at the Conference to the Protocol likewise, and had left his foreign colleagues under the impression that it would be agreed to by the Cabinet.

On Sunday night Bülow and Bourqueney met Normanby at Lady Holland's, when they both spoke to him in the strongest terms, more especially Bülow; who said it was very painful to him to complain to Normanby of the conduct of Palmerston, and he would not repeat what had passed at the Conference, but he must tell him if Palmerston continued to conduct himself as he did, the most fatal consequences would ensue, and the affairs of Europe would become more embroiled and be in a more perilous state than they had ever been yet. He frightened Normanby so much that the next morning he went off to Melbourne, told him what had passed, and entreated him to interfere. Melbourne promised he would, but of course he will not; and Palmerston will probably not care a straw what he says, or be in the slightest degree biassed by any opinion he may express. As far as I can guess, Bourqueney's excessive discontent arises from this: He very naturally wants this Protocol, and Bülow and Esterhazy, no doubt, told him that Palmerston had consented to it and would propose it to him; whereas, in their conference on Sunday, Palmerston probably offered him the Convention but did not say a word about the Protocol, and this both he and Bülow consider a great breach of faith. Notwithstanding the good reason which there really is for not formally dissolving the alliance till all the arrangements concerning Egypt and Syria are completed, it is easy to understand that in the present temper of France it would be impossible for Guizot to enter into any relations with the other Powers till their separate and exclusive alliance is at an end. It is no wonder, therefore, that Bourqueney looks upon the Protocol as an essential condition of his acceptance of the Convention; and if he has been first given to understand that the Protocol was admitted, and then told by Palmerston that it could not be, he might naturally be indignant. One never knows what else Palmerston may have said nor what tone he may have taken.

[Page Head: A MISREPORTED SPEECH.]

While these difficulties are obstructing a pacific arrangement here, they are rendered much more serious by the discussions in the French Chamber on the Secret Service money, when the insolent and extravagant speeches in favour of keeping up the _isolement_ and the state of armed observation were hailed with vociferous applause; and this frantic violence is the Parliamentary response to the calm and dignified expression of peace and goodwill to France which marked our first Parliamentary night, and in which the leaders of all parties joined with equal cordiality. If this goes on, and if Guizot is not strong enough to give effect to his pacific disposition and to venture upon a reconciliation, all amicable feelings towards France will be swallowed up in a general sentiment of indignation at her insolence; and instead of wasting any more time in fruitless endeavours to bring her back into the councils of Europe, we shall begin to think of the means of securing ourselves against any possible effects of her ill- will and obstinate resentment. Those who have most strongly advocated the French alliance will be soon ready to cement that of the four great Powers, to curb the extravagant pretensions and mischievous designs of France, if the latter does not come to her senses and descend from her high horse very soon.

March 4th, 1841 {p.381}

Yesterday morning Dedel, who was pretty accurately acquainted with all that has lately passed, called on me. His account confirmed my notions. The other Ministers of the Conference had told Bourqueney what he was to expect at his conference with Palmerston. When, therefore, the latter tendered him the draft of the Convention, he said, 'This is very well, but have you nothing else to give me?' 'No,' said Palmerston; 'what do you mean? I know of nothing else.' 'Have you not also a Protocol, announcing the _clôture_ to propose to me?' 'Oh no; that is impossible. There has been a question of such a Protocol, but great difficulties have arisen. Chekib says he cannot agree to such a Protocol without previous application to his Court and receiving a specific authority.' On this, Bourqueney very indignantly said, 'he must know it was quite useless to offer him the one without the other, as the formal termination of the alliance of July was an indispensable preliminary of any convention to which France could be a party.' A warm conversation followed, in the course of which (as Dedel says), Bourqueney saying, 'Nous ne sommes pas pressés,' Palmerston replied in his most insolent tone, 'Et nous ne sommes pas pressés non plus; si vous ne craignez pas les bâtiments anglais, vous sentez bien que nous ne craignons pas les bâtiments français....'[10]

[10] [This was untrue, as appears by the next entry.]

March 5th, 1841 {p.381}

[Page Head: PROTOCOL AND CONVENTION SIGNED.]

At the Cabinet dinner the day before yesterday, Palmerston announced that 'everything was going on well, everybody satisfied,' and as this rose-coloured aspect of affairs was so inconsistent with the gloom and discontent of Bourqueney and Bülow, and the account given me by Dedel, I resolved to call on Bourqueney, and find out from him in what position the affair stood. I did so, and the result proved with what caution one ought to listen to the reports of persons the best informed, and who relate what they have heard with the most veracious intentions. Instead of correcting or expunging what I have said above, I shall put down the substance of what Bourqueney said to me, which agrees with much of Dedel's account, but differs in some very important particulars. I told him that I had (as he would be sure) no desire to _fourrer_ myself into his affairs, but that I thought a little conversation between us might be useful in promoting the object we had in common--that of restoring amicable relations between the two countries; and having seen how annoyed he was on Sunday last, and knowing what had passed, I wished to know if he was not _now_ better satisfied than he was _then_; and that as I, and those with whom I communicated, only knew what passed between him and Palmerston, or at the conferences, from Palmerston's own reports, when he told his colleagues just what he pleased and no more, and as I had heard from other quarters an account of his interview on Sunday with Palmerston, I wished to know what had really passed. He had, he said, been extremely annoyed and disappointed, after being told that he was to have the Protocol (by Bülow and Esterhazy, of course), when Palmerston told him this was out of the question, as Chekib refused to sign it without orders. He then gave me the conversation between himself and Palmerston, which does not appear to have been acrimonious, and instead of Palmerston's having made that insolent speech which was put in his mouth when Bourqueney said, 'Mais nous ne sommes pas pressés,' he only said, 'Ni nous non plus, c'est l'Autriche et la Prusse qui sont pressées;' so that all the offensive part was a fabricated addition, and I have no doubt of this by Bourqueney's way of speaking of it. He said, moreover, 'Il faut rendre justice à Lord Palmerston, son ton a été excellent, et jamais il n'a prononcé le mot de désarmement;' that if he had, or had attempted to impose any condition, he should at once have rejected all overtures; but nothing of the kind had been attempted, and he admitted that every respect had been shown to France, and a sincere desire evinced to renew relations with her. He said, 'Enfin vous êtes triomphants, et nous sommes humiliés,' and you can well afford to treat us 'avec des égards;' but he seemed to think that in point of fact the Conference was already practically dissolved, for both Bülow and Esterhazy had declared (in their anxiety for the _clôture_, as an indispensable preliminary to the Convention, for which their eagerness is intense), that, happen what might, they would take no farther part in Eastern affairs. On the whole, the prospect is good, and it is but just to Palmerston to say that he does not seem to have acted unfairly or insolently, or to be obnoxious to any reproach in his relations with Bourqueney.

March 12th, 1841 {p.383}

The Protocols were duly signed and the Convention sent to Paris. They were well received by Guizot, who returned them for some verbal alterations which have been agreed to, and if no new difficulties arise in the East to prevent a settlement, our relations with France will be restored. But within these few days a whole budget of bad news has poured in--from China, where the admiral has resigned on the plea of ill-health, having done nothing but lose half the troops he took out, and leaving affairs in a very uncertain and unsatisfactory state. I had a letter from Emily Eden[11] yesterday, in great disgust at the waste of time, money, and life, and the failure hitherto of all the objects we had in view. The Chinese have bamboozled and baffled us, that is the plain truth.

[11] [Miss Emily Eden had accompanied her brother, Lord Auckland, to India, where he was Governor-General. This impression of the state of our relations with China appears to have been erroneous. On February 1st, Captain Elliot annexed the island of Hong Kong, which has been permanently united to the British Empire, and on April 18th Her Majesty's forces occupied Canton.]

Then the violence and bad spirit displayed in America have produced no small consternation here, though everybody goes on saying that a war between the two countries, and for so little cause, is impossible.[12] It does seem impossible, and the manifest interest of both nations is opposed to it; but when a country is so mob-governed as America, and the Executive is so destitute of power, there must be great danger. However, the general conviction is, that the present exhibition of violence is attributable to the malignity of the outgoing party, which is desirous of embarrassing their successors, and casting on them the perils of a war or the odium of a reconciliation with this country, and strong hopes are entertained that the new Government will be too wise to fall into the snare that is laid for them, and strong enough to check and master the bad spirit which is rife in the Northern States. The real difficulty arises from the conviction here, that in the case of M'Leod we are in the right, and the equally strong conviction there, that we are not, and the actual doubt on which side the truth lies. Senior, whom I met the other day, expressed great uncertainty, and he proposes, and has written to Government on the subject, that the question of International Law shall be submitted to the decision of a German University--that of Berlin, he thinks, would be the best. This idea he submitted to Stevenson, who approved of it, but the great difficulty would be to agree upon a statement of facts. Yesterday Lord Lyndhurst was at the Council Office, talking over the matter with Sir Herbert Jenner and Justice Littledale, and he said it was very questionable if the Americans had not right on their side; and that he thought, in a similar case here, we should be obliged to try the man, and if convicted, nothing but a pardon could save him. These opinions casting such serious doubts on the question of right, are at least enough to restrain indignation and beget caution.

[12] [This refers to the case of one M'Leod, who had been engaged as a member of the Colonial forces in repelling the attack made upon Canada from United States territory, and who had consequently acted as an agent of the British Government. But M'Leod was arrested at New York in 1841 upon a charge of the murder of one Durfee, who was killed during the capture of the 'Caroline.' The American authorities refused to give him up on the demand of the British Minister, who alleged that M'Leod's deed was a legitimate act, done in obedience to his superior officers. He was tried, and fortunately acquitted; but Mr. Webster, the American Secretary of State, subsequently admitted that individuals concerned in a public transaction under the orders of their Government could not be held responsible to the ordinary tribunals of law for their participation in it. See Halleck's _International Law_, vol. i., p. 430; and Hale's _International Law_, p. 261.]

Besides China and America, two days ago appeared the Sultan's firman restoring the Pasha, but on terms which he was certain not to accept. This document, which arrives just as we are renewing our relations with France, and which carries on the face of it the strongest marks of Lord Ponsonby's interference and influence, is well calculated to obstruct the arrangement, and so it appeared to Clarendon, to Lord Lansdowne, to Melbourne, and to John Russell. Clarendon immediately appealed to Lord John, who, however, took it very quietly, and was averse to saying or doing anything; and when he spoke to Melbourne, the latter said Palmerston had shown him Ponsonby's private letter, in which he said that he had nothing to do with it, that it was all Stürmer's[13] doing, and that for some time past he had not been able to make Redschid Pasha mind a word he said. On the other hand, Lord John also spoke to Palmerston, when Palmerston said not a word of Ponsonby's letter, but told him it was the best possible arrangement; that Mehemet Ali had not understood it at first, but that he would in the end be quite satisfied with it, and that it was the only way of preventing confusion. Of course Melbourne and Lord John were quite content, and fully partake of Palmerston's entire satisfaction. Yesterday morning, however, I found that Francis Egerton was full of indignation at this fresh outrage, as he considered it, of Ponsonby's, and had taken a resolution to bring the matter forward in the House of Commons, but previously to speak to the Duke and Peel. Nothing was done last night, and this morning he came and told me that they both agreed with him, but that the Duke urged the necessity of extreme caution, and of previously ascertaining the sentiments of the other Allies, as we must not do or say anything which might disturb our harmony with them. This caution, and not any indisposition to take the matter up, was the reason no notice was taken in the House of Commons last night, and they are now waiting for further information to determine what course to take.

[13] [M. Stürmer was the Austrian Internuncio at Constantinople.]

March 14th, 1841

[Page Head: BAD EFFECT OF THE HATTI-SHERIF.]

On Friday, Francis Egerton put questions to Palmerston, and Peel took a part. He told me that he was much surprised at the way in which Palmerston received as well as answered them, as they had intended nothing hostile and thought it was doing him a service, and affording him an opportunity of explaining away the bad effect of the Hatti-sherif, but that he took it very ill, and answered with evident embarrassment. From his manner, and the way in which Labouchere cheered when Palmerston said that their intention had been to give a _bonâ fide hérédité_ to Mehemet Ali, he inferred there was some disagreement in the Cabinet.

Yesterday Reeve went off to Paris, having had a conference with Lord Lansdowne, who not only expressed his dissatisfaction with the firman, but authorised him to say so to M. Guizot, and to assure him that this was the sentiment of the Government, and that it was quite inconsistent with any instructions to Ponsonby _which he had ever seen or heard of_.

The Tories were extremely dissatisfied with Palmerston's answers the other night, but they have an extraordinary reluctance to provoke any discussion on foreign affairs, though he is so vulnerable on all points. It is, however, highly probable that the matter will not be suffered to rest here. In such a manner does one bold, unscrupulous, and able man predominate over his colleagues, one of whom is John Russell, not less bold at times, and as able as himself; but of a quiet disposition, shrinking from contest, controversy, and above all, I take it, from the labyrinth of underhand dealing which he must thread and disentangle, if he insists upon a regular settlement of accounts with Palmerston. There is no other way of accounting for his acquiescence in the latter's proceedings. As for the rest, Melbourne is too indolent, Lansdowne too timid, and the others too indifferent to interfere. Clarendon has the will and the courage, but he can do nothing alone, and he cannot rouse anybody else to take part with him. If Lord Holland were still alive, something might now be done.

[Page Head: FRESH OBSTACLES.]

The other night Peel, who has been a good deal nettled by the attacks on him in a series of letters, signed 'Catholicus,' in the 'Times,' made a very striking speech upon the education and recreation of the people, which was enthusiastically cheered by the Whigs, but received in silence by the Tories. He made a sort of reply in this speech to the charges of irreligion insinuated in these letters, and took the opportunity of expressing those liberal sentiments which mark his own identification with the progress of society, and which render him, from their liberality and wisdom, the object of such suspicion, fear, and dislike with the Tory democracy who reluctantly own him for their leader.

March 16th, 1841 {p.387}

On Friday last, after the House of Lords was over, the Ministerial Lords gathered on the bench and had a sort of Cabinet, a practice in which Melbourne takes pleasure. Clarendon held forth about the state of the Eastern Question, and said all he thought without reserve. He worked up Lansdowne to a considerable amount of zeal and resolution to bestir himself. The next day Lansdowne called on Melbourne, and he owned to Clarendon that he was shocked and surprised to find that Melbourne had never had any communication with Palmerston on the subject, and, in point of fact, knew very little about what was going on. The next day there was a Cabinet, when both Lansdowne and Clarendon expressed their opinion with vivacity, complaining of the proceeding at Constantinople, and urging the necessity of some decisive step being taken here to correct its effects. Palmerston knocked under; that is, he made no defence and no resistance, and ostensibly acquiesced in the opinions expressed, and promised to act in conformity with them. Though no reliance can be placed on him, and none is placed, it would appear as if he was become aware of the necessity of making his actions correspond with his professions and with the opinions which have been so strongly expressed in all quarters; for I met Bourqueney last night, who told me that he really did think they were at last making progress towards a satisfactory conclusion, that he had received his instructions (which I already knew were to say the French Government would hear of nothing till this Hatti-sherif was disavowed) and had instantly got the Conference convened, and that a formal notification had been made by the Four Powers to the Turkish Ministers of their disapprobation of the firman, and this seems to have been done in a way he considers satisfactory.

March 19th, 1841 {p.388}

The Bishop of Exeter got a heavy fall in the House of Lords the other night on the St. Sulpice question.[14] He brought it forward in an elaborate speech the week before, with his usual ability and cunning; and he took the Duke of Wellington in; for, after hearing the Bishop protest, and apparently make out, that 'a great blow had been struck at the Reformation,' he got up, and, in total ignorance of the subject, committed his potential voice and opinion to an agreement with the Bishop's dictum. The truth, however, was that there was no case at all; the Government had not only done what they were justified in doing, but they had acted in precise conformity with the conduct held by all their Tory predecessors, colonial secretaries, and with that of the Duke of Wellington himself, who had forgotten all that had occurred and the part he had previously taken. The consequence was that the Tories resolved to throw the Bishop over, and so they did, greatly to his rage and disgust and to the satisfaction of all the bigots; not even a solitary Bishop or high Tory had a word to say in his favour. He was detected in the course of the debate of having sent a report to the 'Times' of his former speech containing a very essential paragraph which he had omitted in the speech itself. He tried to back out of it, and brought the 'Times' reporter as his witness; but he stood convicted in general opinion.

[14] [This related to the Catholic foundation of St. Sulpice in Canada.]

Reeve is gone to Paris. He saw Guizot on his arrival, who announced to him what he meant to do. He waits till the Four Powers have settled the Eastern Question, in which he will not meddle in the slightest degree; and when it is settled, he will be ready to join in the Convention. Bourqueney has signed the document _de bene esse_; this is his wisest and most dignified course.

March 30th, 1841 {p.388}

Nothing new for the last fortnight, the Eastern Question apparently progressing to a settlement through some not very important obstacles, and, what is of much greater consequence, a fair prospect of an amicable arrangement with America. The new President's inaugural speech, pedantic and ridiculous as it was, had the merit of being temperate; and Webster had already written to Evelyn Denison, desiring him not to judge of the real sentiments of America by the trash spoken and the violence exhibited in Congress, or by the mob of New York. John Bull, too, who had begun to put himself into a superfine passion, and to bluster a good deal in the French vein, is getting more tranquil, and begins to see the propriety of going to work moderately and without insisting on having everything his own way.

[Page Head: DEBATE ON THE POOR LAW.]

In Parliament there has been nothing of interest but the Poor Law Bill, debated with great heat, and the several clauses carried by majorities very little indicative of the real opinion of the majority of the House. But the truth is that the Tories are (generally) behaving very ill on this question, and their shabbiness is the more striking because the Government have behaved so well. The Tories are just as anxious for the passing of the Bill as their opponents, or more so, nevertheless they stay away or abuse and oppose the clauses, in order to curry favour with their own constituencies and to cast odium on their opponents, by which they may profit in the event of a general election. There is probably not a man of them who would not be annoyed and disappointed to the greatest degree if the Bill should be impaired in its leading principles and material provisions. The Government might, if they had chosen it, have proposed the law as an experimental measure for a short period, so as to cast upon their opponents the ultimate responsibility of the measure, but they dealt with it liberally and wisely, and without reference to temporary interests or party purposes, which, so far from eliciting a corresponding spirit from their opponents, only afforded them the opportunity (of which, without shame or decency, they are availing themselves) to convert it into a source of unpopularity against the Government who bring it forward.

April 5th, 1841 {p.390}

While the American question looks well, the affairs of the East are all unsettled again. The Pasha has, with all humility, declined the conditions of the Sultan's Hatti-sherif, and the whole thing remains still to be adjusted. Nobody, however, cares or thinks much about it at all, for the Eastern business is become as tedious as a twice-told tale. No more danger to the peace of Europe is apprehended from it; nobody cares a straw for Sultan or Pasha, and still less for the repose of the countries they misgovern or the happiness of the people they oppress.

Sir Robert Peel has dined at the Palace for the first time since the Bedchamber quarrel, and this is deemed important. All domestic interest is absorbed in the blow which has fallen upon Lord Granville at Paris, in the shape of a paralytic stroke, which, from the character of the man, his social position, and the important and unhappy consequences of this affliction to a numerous class of people, excites a very deep and general interest.

May 2nd, 1841 {p.390}

The approach of the Newmarket meetings usually absorbs my thoughts, oppresses me with its complicated interests, and destroys all my journalising energies. After a month's interval, I take up my pen to note down the events that have occurred in it. I went to Newmarket on Saturday before the Craven Meeting, and on Sunday morning received a letter informing me of the sudden death of my sister-in-law (Mrs. Algernon Greville), which obliged me to return to town. This grievous affliction, so heavy and irreparable to those whom it immediately concerns, matters but little to the mass of society, who for the most part good- naturedly sympathised with the sufferers; but the object, so precious to the narrow circle of her own family, was too unimportant to the world at large to be entitled to anything more than a passing expression of regret. I went down to the funeral, and was unutterably disgusted with the ceremony, with the bustling business of the undertaker, mixing so irreverently with the profound grief of the brothers and other relations who attended, the decking us out in the paraphernalia of woe, and thus dragging us in mourning coaches through crowds of curious people, by a circuitous route, that as much of us as possible might be exhibited to vulgar curiosity. These are things monstrous in themselves, but to which all-reconciling custom makes us submit.

[Page Head: LOSS OF THE 'PRESIDENT.']

This is not the only misfortune which has fallen upon individual heads; but of all occurrences that which has excited the greatest interest has been the loss, as it must now be concluded, of the 'President' steamer, with, among others, the Duke of Richmond's young son on board. Day after day people have watched and enquired with the most intense interest for the arrival or for news of this vessel, and are only now slowly and reluctantly abandoning all hope, while the wretched parents have been for weeks past agitated with all the alternations of hope and despair, and suffering a protracted torture worse than any certainty. So much for private woes.

In the world of politics we have had an interval of repose till after the recess, when Government sustained two defeats on the Irish Registration Bill,[15] and Walter came in for Nottingham on an Anti-Poor-Law cry, and by the union of Chartists and Tories to defeat the Whig candidate. After the first division, Clarendon wrote to me as follows: 'The defeat last night was a signal one. We have had a Cabinet about it, and I went there fully expecting that resignation would be the order of the day--_the word never crossed the lips of anyone!_ Various expedients were suggested, but, except by me, the thought of going out was not entertained. The result is, that another trial of strength is to be had, and if we are beaten the Bill is to be withdrawn for the year. How Stanley's is afterwards to be opposed remains to be seen, but for that we trust to luck and O'Connell's ingenuity in devising delays--not very creditable or satisfactory, but as John has to defend his course, he is the best judge of what he should do. He quite scouted to me afterwards the idea of resigning, though he admitted the Tory chances had advanced prodigiously, and that Peel's language was quite that of determination, and of a man ready to take the government.' Nobody has a guess what will happen--whether Government will try and go on, dissolve or resign; and a thousand speculations, and, of course, lies, are afloat.

[15] [Lord Morpeth's Irish Registration Bill was withdrawn, two amendments having been carried by the Opposition by 291 to 270 votes. Mr. Walter was elected at Nottingham by a majority of 296 over the Government candidate.]

The affairs of the East are still unsettled, but there seems a chance of their being patched up, though not in a way very creditable or consistent. Metternich is now threatening the Porte, that unless she consents to what the Conference shall suggest he will quit the concern. Palmerston, meanwhile, talks of again licking Mehemet Ali, while Ponsonby is as furious as ever at Constantinople, and would blow up the coals again if he knew how. The manner in which things are mystified, and facts perverted from the truth, is curiously exemplified in the matter of the recent Hatti-sherif. It was affirmed, when the severity of its terms was objected to and Ponsonby blamed, that Ponsonby had had no hand in it whatever. This was true, but how? He insisted upon a _much more severe_ clause being inserted, on the Pasha's being made a mere stipendiary of the Porte, and his revenue being levied by Turkish officers; and because the Turkish Minister would not go this length, Ponsonby flew into a rage, and refused to sanction the Hatti-sherif with his approval unless this clause was added, so that he had nothing to do with it, only because it was not so stringent and violent as he wished to make it.

May 3rd, 1841 {p.392}

[Page Head: DEFEAT OF THE MINISTRY.]

Great agitation yesterday at the clubs, and excessive interest and curiosity about coming events, on which hang the existence of the Government. The Tories are talking of a vote of want of confidence, and wish to follow up their successes by this decisive blow. There is the greatest difference of opinion among the Whigs as to the necessity of resigning, and, above all, as to a dissolution. The event of the day was the resignation of Gordon, Secretary of the Treasury, who could not stand the Corn alteration that is threatened. Nobody thinks Ministers will carry their Budget, and that will probably be their _coup de grâce_.[16]

[16] [It turned out to be so. On April 30th the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget. He proposed to meet the deficiency in the revenue of £2,421,000 by an increase of the duty on Colonial timber and a reduction of the duty on Baltic timber, and by a reduction of duty on foreign sugar. The debate lasted eight nights, and on May 18th Ministers were defeated on the sugar question by a majority of 36. On May 7th Lord John Russell had given notice of a resolution to reduce the duties on corn to a fixed sum. On May 24th Sir Robert Peel gave notice of a vote of want of confidence in the Government, on which the House divided on June 4th, Ministers being beaten by a majority of _one_.]

APPENDIX.

The Royal Precedency Question.

[As Mr. Greville's pamphlet on the Precedency Question is now rarely to be met with, it may be convenient to reprint it in this place. It is a tract of considerable originality and research, and it was carefully revised and approved by Lord Wensleydale and some of the most eminent lawyers of the time when it was written. This essay has therefore a substantial legal and historical value. Moreover, its application is not exclusively retrospective or confined to the peculiar case of the precedency of the late Prince Consort at the time of his marriage, which gave rise to warm debates, for it deals with the precedency of the members of the Royal Family, not being sons or daughters of a sovereign, or standing in close propinquity to the throne. In the course of years these personages have become numerous, and for the first time in our history (at least, since the reign of James I.), between twenty and thirty grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the reigning sovereign are in existence, whose claims to precedency will have to be considered. By the 31st Henry VIII., which assigns places in Parliament and Council to the sons, brothers, uncles, and nephews of the king, after these degrees are past, peers or others of the blood royal are entitled to no place or precedence, except what belongs to them by their personal rank or dignity. The mere fact of their descent, in a more remote degree, from the sovereign, gives them in law no precedency at all, although it may be conceded to them by custom, and the respect willingly paid to members of the Royal Family. Nor are they entitled to bear the title of 'Royal Highness' unless it be conferred upon them by the Crown. Thus, if I am not mistaken, the late Duke of Gloucester, who was a nephew of George III., was not a 'Royal Highness' until he married the Princess Mary, the king's daughter, when that distinction was conferred upon him. In two or three generations from the present time it is not improbable that the descendants of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert will exceed a hundred persons, and, although they will doubtless all look back with pride to their illustrious ancestry, they will have no rank or precedency, in the strict sense of the term, except such as may be conferred upon them personally by the Crown. For these reasons, it appears to me that Mr. Greville's remarks on the subject may have some future interest.--H.R.]

In the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4th February, when Prince Albert's Naturalisation Bill was under discussion, Lord Brougham said:--

'That these questions of precedence were of a very difficult and doubtful nature. It was therefore a great convenience to submit them to the House, because it enabled Parliament to make that quite certain, which, if dealt with under the common law of the country, might be open to objection.'

The interest which has been excited by this question, and the doubts which prevail, even among the learned in the law, as to the actual extent of the Royal prerogative in the matter of granting precedence, are sufficient to provoke an enquiry into the opinions of writers upon constitutional law, an examination of the ancient practice, and of some of the cases which seem to bear immediately upon the point, in order, if possible, to arrive at something like a reasonable conclusion as to the power actually possessed by the crown, and the manner in which, and extent to which, it might be just and expedient to exercise it upon the present occasion.

The first question which presents itself is, What have been the ancient prerogatives of the Crown in granting dignities or pre- eminencies of any description; and, secondly, In what respect, if at all, these prerogatives have been limited or restrained by any Parliamentary enactment. By the laws of England, the Sovereign is considered the fountain of honour and of privilege, and the constitution has entrusted to him the sole power of conferring dignities and honours, in confidence that he will bestow them on none but such as deserve them.[1]

[1] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 271.

The King may create new titles, and has the prerogative of conferring privileges upon private persons,[2] _such as granting place or precedence to any of his subjects_. He may make an _Arch_-duke, who would not, however, take place of any duke his ancient.[3]

[2] Ibid. i. 272, 4th Inst. 361.

[3] 4th Inst 363.

The King could create a peer, and give him precedence over all other peers of the same rank,[4] a prerogative which was not unfrequently exercised in ancient times. Henry VI. created Henry Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and Praecomes totius Angliae, and afterwards Duke of Warwick, with a right to sit in Parliament after the Duke of Norfolk, but _before_ the Duke of Buckingham; the same King created Edmund of Hadham Earl of Richmond, and gave him precedence over all other earls, and Jasper of Hatfield Earl of Pembroke with precedence next to the said Earl of Richmond.[5] There appears to have been no limit to the authority of the Crown in granting honours, titles, dignities, and offices, excepting only that it could not grant new offices with fees annexed, because that would be a tax upon the subject, which can only be imposed by Act of Parliament. Assuming, then, that such was the extent of the prerogative previously to the 31st of Henry VIII., the next question is, Whether it was restrained by that statute; and if it was, within what limits it was thenceforward confined? The preamble asserts the prerogative of the Crown in the strongest terms; probably for the express purpose of guarding against any inference that it was thereby abridged or restrained. It is difficult to believe that, in passing the Act entitled 'for placing the Lords,' Henry VIII. felt any doubt as to the possession, or scruple as to the exercise, of the prerogative of his progenitors, and still less that he had the remotest idea of divesting himself of an iota of his own. The despotic temper of the King, the subservient character of his Parliaments, and his habitual employment of them as the most obsequious instrument of his will, make it probable that he adopted this, merely as the easiest and most convenient mode of settling a difficult and complex question, but without the slightest misgiving as to his own power, or any notion of restraining himself from granting any privilege or precedence it might at any subsequent period be his pleasure to bestow. The circumstances under which the provisions of this Act were carried into operation were remarkable, and give it much more the appearance of a decree of the King, or a resolution of the Lords, than of an Act of the Three Estates. The assent of the Commons seems to have been assumed as a matter of course, and as soon as it had passed the Lords (which it did very hastily), it was immediately put in force, 'Concerning the passing it, it is observable, that on Monday, 1st May, the Lord Chancellor quandam introduxit billam concernentem assignationem locorum, &c., which was that day read twice; the next day it had a third reading, and on Friday a fourth; on the morrow, the Lord Cromwell is placed before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the others are placed according to the Act, being before placed without regard to their offices, but it was not returned from the House of Commons with their assent till the Monday following.'[6]

[4] Ibid.

[5] 4th Inst 361.

[6] Selden, Titles of Honour, p. 117.

The preamble of the Act is in the following terms:--

'For in as much as in all great councils, or congregations of men, having sundry degrees and offices in the commonwealth, it is very requisite and convenient that an order should be had and taken for the sitting of such persons, that they knowing their places may use the same without displeasure, or let of the council, therefore the King's Most Royal Majesty, _tho' it appertaineth unto his prerogative Royal, to give such honour, reputation, and placing to his counsellors, and other his subjects as shall be seeming to his most excellent wisdom_, is, nevertheless, pleased and contented for an order to be had and taken in this his Most High Court of Parliament, that it shall be enacted by the authority of the same, in manner and form as hereafter followeth:--'

Then come nine sections settling the places in which the Royal Family, great officers of state, and others, are to sit in the Parliament Chamber, and the tenth section enacts that, 'as well in all Parliaments as in the Star Chamber, _and in all other assemblies and conferences of council_, the Chancellor, Lord President, Privy Seal (that is the Chancellor, President, and Privy Seal, above all dukes, not being the king's sons, &c., and the Great Chamberlain, Marshal, Lord Steward, Chamberlain, and Chief Secretary, being a Baron above all others of the same degree), shall sit and be placed in such order and fashion as is above rehearsed, and not in other place by authority of this present Act.'

There exists what may be deemed very fair evidence to show that in those days the Royal prerogative _as to precedence_ was never supposed to be abridged by this Act, but on the contrary that it still continued to flourish in undiminished force. Only two months afterwards Henry was divorced from Anne of Cleves, when, as is well known, he bribed her into compliance with his wishes by a liberal grant of money and of honours. By his letters patent he declared her his adopted sister, and gave her _precedence_ before all the ladies in England, next his queen and daughters, and therefore before his nieces[7] and their children, who were directly in the succession to the crown.[8] On the 3rd November, 1547, Edward VI. granted to his uncle, the Duke of Somerset, immediately after his victory in Scotland, letters patent of precedence, in the following terms:--

[7] The Duchess of Suffolk, and the Countess of Cumberland, daughter of Charles Brandon and Mary, Queen Dowager of France.

[8] Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 565.

'As our most dear uncle Edward, Duke of Somerset, by the advice of the Lords, we have named ... to be governor of our person and protector of our realm ... during our minority, hath no such place appropriated and appointed to him in our High Court of Parliament, as is convenient and necessary, as well as in proximity of blood unto us, being our uncle ... as well as for the better maintaining and conducting of our affairs. We have, therefore, as well by the consent of our said uncle, as by the advice of other the Lords and the rest of the Privy Council, willed, ordained, and appointed, that our said uncle shall sit alone, and be placed at all times ... in our said Court of Parliament, upon the bench or stole standing next our seat royal, in our Parliament Chamber.... And further, that he do enjoy all such other privileges, pre-eminences, &c. &c. _The statute concerning the placing of the Lords in the Parliament Chamber and other assemblies of council, made in the thirty-first year of our most dear father, of famous memory, King Henry VIII.; notwithstanding_.'[9]

[9] Rymer 15.--Collins' Peerage.

This instrument must, under the circumstances, be taken as the act of Somerset himself; and it is inconceivable that he should have had the audacity to attempt in his own behalf, that for which the plenitude of Henry VIII.'s power had been deemed insufficient, or to have perpetrated in the name of a minor king, a direct and useless violation of a recent statute--more especially when the same object might have been as easily accomplished by the authority of Parliament, where the Protector's popularity would have ensured a ready compliance with his wishes. This view of the case receives confirmation from the total absence of any allusion to this grant in the charges which were soon afterwards urged against him--everything that malice could devise was raked together for the purpose of swelling the articles of impeachment; but neither when he was degraded from the Protectorate, nor afterwards when he was deprived of life, was any accusation brought against him, tending to show that these letters patent were considered illegal or unconstitutional. Nearly a century later, Lord Coke lays it down that no Act of Parliament can bind the king from any prerogative which is inseparable from his person, 'but that' (Mr. Hallam adds) 'was before he had learned the bolder tone of his declining years.'[10]

[10] Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. 84.

The order of Baronets was a new creation by James I., but his decision of the controversy which arose touching a point of precedency thereupon, shows the prevailing notions of the royal prerogative.

'The King's most excellent Majesty, having taken into his royal audience and censure a certain controversy, touching place and precedence, between the younger sons of viscounts and barons, and the baronets, being a degree by His Majesty recently created, which controversy did arise out of some dark words contained in the letters patent of the said baronets. His Majesty well weighing that the letters patent of the Baronets have no special clause or express words to give them the said precedence, and being a witness unto himself, which is a testimony above all exception, that his princely meaning was only to give and advance the new dignity of His Majesty's creation, but never therewithal tacitly and obscurely to injure a third party.'[11] ... And then he goes on to give precedency to Knights of the Garter, Privy Councillors, Judges, &c.; over the younger sons of Viscounts and Barons, 'in all places, and upon all occasions, any constitution, order, degree, office, service, place, employment, custom, use, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding.' From Henry VIII. to James I. were the high and palmy days of prerogative, when the authority of the Crown was something even more transcendental than that of Parliament itself, and when it was no doubt held that, while the Crown could dispense with the provisions of an Act of Parliament, an Act of Parliament could never bind the prerogative of the Crown; but when Lord Coke began to adopt his 'bolder tone' he laid down very different law, and he says expressly, in speaking of the Act of Henry VIII., 'But Henry, though standing as much upon his prerogative, as any of his progenitors, finding how vexatious it was to himself, and distasteful to his ancient nobility, to have new raised degrees, raised to precedency of them, and finding that this kind of controversy for precedency was of that nature, that it had many partakers, spent long time, and hindered the arduous, urgent, and weighty affairs of the Parliament, was content to bind and limit his prerogative by Act of Parliament, concerning the precedency of his great officers, and his nobility.'[12]

[11] Titles of Honour, p. 119.

[12] 4th Inst. 362.

Whatever may have been the constitutional notions of the sixteenth or the seventeenth century, there can be no doubt that the lawyers of the nineteenth would hold, according to Lord Coke's latter dictum, that the prerogative of the Crown is limited and restrained by the 31st Henry VIII., and it is only worth while to ascertain what it previously was, in so far as such an enquiry can assist in the solution of the present question; for the same lawyers would probably be unanimous in declaring that, except so far as it was expressly limited and restrained by that statute, the prerogative still remains undiminished and in all its pristine vigour--that Queen Victoria possesses all the power which Henry VIII. enjoyed, saving that of which he was specifically divested by this Act.

The Act 'for placing the Lords' restrains the Queen from granting any precedence in Parliament _or in the Council_, over any of the Royal and official personages and others, who have places assigned to them therein. She may make any man a Privy Councillor, but she cannot authorise him to sit in a higher place than that to which he is by law entitled, or above those whose places are marked out by the statute. If Prince Albert, for example, was to be made a Privy Councillor, not being a peer, he would, _of absolute right_, be entitled to no place but that of a junior Privy Councillor, or to such as a Knight of the Garter might claim; and all the persons specified in the Act would have _an absolute right_ to take precedence of him _in Council_. And it is worth while to consider in what a curious predicament he might have been placed, if the Bill for his naturalisation had passed with those amendments as to his precedence which are said to have been contemplated by the Opposition Lords--that is, supposing always the rule of precedence established by law to be carried inflexibly into operation.

If the status of Prince Albert had been fixed immediately after all the members of the Royal Family, and immediately before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and if Her Majesty should be hereafter pleased to make both Prince George of Cambridge and Prince Albert members of her Most Honourable Privy Council, in what order of precedence would these princes be obliged to take their respective seats at the board? In order clearly to comprehend this point, it is necessary to explain the ancient usage as to Royal precedence, and the manner in which it has been affected by the 31st Henry VIII. The Royal Family are to be considered in two lights, according to the different senses in which the term _Royal Family_ is used--the larger sense includes all who may _possibly_ inherit the Crown; the confined sense, those within a certain degree of propinquity _to the reigning Prince_, and to whom the law pays an extraordinary respect; but, after that degree is past, they fall into the rank of ordinary subjects. The younger sons of the king, and other branches of the Royal Family, not in the immediate line of succession, were only so far regarded by the ancient law as to give them a certain degree of precedence over peers and other officers, ecclesiastical and temporal. This was done by the 31st of Henry VIII., which assigns places in the Parliament Chamber and Council to the king's sons, brothers, uncles, and nephews, &c.--'therefore, after these degrees are past, peers, or others of the blood royal, are entitled to no place or precedence, except what belongs to them by their personal rank or dignity, which made Sir Edward Walker complain that, by the creation of Prince Rupert to be Duke of Cumberland, and of the Earl of Lennox to be duke of that name, previous to the creation of James to be Duke of York, it might happen that their grandsons would have precedence of the grandsons of the Duke of York.'[13]

[13] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 226.

Prince George of Cambridge, then, being neither son, brother, uncle, or nephew to the Queen, and having no personal dignity, is not entitled to any precedence over the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the great officers of state; the 31st Henry VIII. would place him below them all; but the 3rd Victoria (supposing such an Act to have passed) would have placed Prince Albert below Prince George, but above the Archbishop, who is himself above Prince George, thus giving to the Master of the Ceremonies the solution of a somewhat difficult problem of precedence--namely, how to place A above B, B above C, and C above A. This _reductio ad absurdum_ at least proves that the amended Act would not only not have settled the question of precedence satisfactorily, but would not have settled it at all.

It may seem surprising or paradoxical to assert, and many may with difficulty believe, that Prince George of Cambridge is entitled to no precedence of his own, inseparable from his royal birth, but such, nevertheless, is undoubtedly the fact. By law, he can only take _royal_ rank as the son, brother, uncle, or nephew, of the reigning sovereign, none of which he is, and he derives none whatever from having been nephew of William IV. and George IV., and grandson of George III. The princes of the Blood Royal have, as to precedence, a moveable and not a fixed status, constantly shifting, with their greater or less propinquity to the actual sovereign; and in the event of Prince George's succession to his father's dukedom, he would only be entitled to a place _in Parliament and in the Council_, according to the ancienty of his peerage.

The practice, however, does not wait upon the right, and is regulated by the universal sense and feeling of the respect and deference which is due to the Blood Royal of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury does not take a legal opinion or pore over the 31st of Henry VIII. to discover whether he has a right to jostle for that precedence with the cousin, which he knows he is bound to concede to the uncle, of the Queen; but he yields it as a matter of course, and so uniform and unquestionable is the custom, that in all probability neither the Prince nor the Prelate are conscious that it is in the slightest degree at variance with the right.

The obscurity which involves the question of precedence, and the prevailing doubts as to the extent of the Royal prerogative, proceed, in a great measure, from the intermixture of law and custom, by which the practice is regulated and enforced. The table of precedence, the authority of which is recognised for all social and ceremonial purposes, rests upon statutory enactments, ancient usages, and the king's letters patent; usage creeping in to disarrange the order, and break the links of the chain forged by the law; for, while the 31st of Henry VIII. places earls after marquises, custom interposes and postpones the former to the eldest sons of dukes (and so of Marquis's eldest sons and viscounts), though these are only commoners in the eye of the law. Now, as no custom (unless expressly saved) can prevail against the force of a statute, this renders it still more clear, that nothing was intended by the 31st Henry VIII. but 'the placing the Lords' in Parliament,[14] and that the question of general precedence (with all the prerogatives of the Crown thereunto appertaining) was left untouched by it.[15] In point of fact, the royal prerogative always has been, and still continually is exercised, in violation of the order of the established table; for when the King, by his Royal warrant, gives to one of his subjects, having neither rank nor dignity, the place and precedence of a duke's or an earl's son, the individual thus elevated supersedes all those (below that rank) whose place and precedence is determined either by law or custom.

[14] Lord Herbert, in his Life of Henry VIII, says, in allusion to this statute, 'it was declared also how the Lords in Parliament should be placed,' p. 218.

[15] Lord Coke clearly distinguishes between precedence in Parliament and Council and general precedence:--Thus far for avoiding contention about precedency in Parliament, Star Chamber, and all other assemblies, Council, &c. Now, they that desire to know the places and precedency of the nobility and subjects of the realm, as well men as women, and of their children (which we have added the rather, for that the contention about precedency between persons of that sex is even fiery, furious, and sometimes fatal), we will refer you to a record of great authority in the reign of Henry VII., entitled.'--4th Inst. 363.

The result, then, appears to be that, in the olden time, the king had unlimited power in matters of honour and precedence, and could confer whatever dignity or pre-eminence he thought fit, upon any of his subjects. That this power has been expressly restrained, quoad the Parliament Chamber and the Council, but exists unfettered in all other respects.

In Parliament (should Prince Albert be created a peer), he would only be entitled to a seat at the bottom of the degree to which he might belong, and he would be expressly prohibited from sitting nearer to the throne. In the Privy Council likewise (if made a Privy Councillor) he would be entitled to no especial place, but everywhere else, at ceremonials of every description, at royal marriages, christenings or funerals, at banquets, processions, and courtly receptions, at installations and investitures, at all religious, civil, or military celebrations, upon all occasions, formal or social, public or private, the Queen may grant to her husband an indisputable precedence and pre-eminence over every other subject in the realm. It will probably be less difficult to obtain a concurrence of opinion as to the extent of the Queen's constitutional right in granting precedence, than as to the manner in which it would be morally fit, and just to others, that this right should be exercised.

The bill, as originally introduced in the House of Lords, was undoubtedly liable to serious objections; but it is difficult to discover any valid reason why the Prince, Consort to the Queen, should not be invested for his own life with the highest personal dignity which it is in the power of the Crown to confer.

It has been said, that to place Prince Albert before the princes of the blood royal would be an invasion of the _birth right_ of these illustrious persons. This seems to be the result of a confused notion, that a privilege of precedence is identical with a beneficial interest--it may be a man's birth right to succeed in some contingency to the throne, or to a title or to an estate, and it would be injurious, and therefore unjust, to thrust any interloper between him and his chance, however remote it might be, of such succession. But the same Act which limits the prerogative of the Crown, confers on the Royal Dukes and Great Officers of State the only right of precedence which they possess, and while they can claim no more than was given to them, the Crown is as surely entitled to all that was left to it by that Act. No individual can insist upon an indefeasible right never to be preceded, under any circumstances, by any other individual not having a status defined by this Act, and as the uncles of the Queen, and the hereditary Earl Marshal of England, occupy their respective steps in the ladder of precedence, by the self-same title, there would be no greater violation of birthright in placing an individual without a status before the Duke of Sussex, than there would in placing him before the Duke of Norfolk; if there be any injustice at all, the difference would not be in the principle, but in its local or personal application.

The question, then, is one of expediency, and of propriety, to be determined with reference to its own special circumstances, and according to the analogies which can be brought to bear upon it; there is not only no case exactly in point to refer to, but there is none sufficiently analogous to be taken as a precedent. When Queen Anne came to the throne, Prince George of Denmark was the only prince in England (all his children being dead), and no new Act was necessary to give him precedence, if the Queen had desired it, inasmuch as there was nobody for him to precede. The condition of a Queen Consort is certainly very different from that of a Prince Consort; but upon the broad principle of moral fitness, there seems no reason why the husband of the Queen regnant should not be invested, by virtue of his _consortium_, with the highest dignity, over other men, just as the wife of the king is participant by virtue of her marriage of divers prerogatives over other women. For the prerogatives with which the law invests her are allotted to her not upon her own account, but upon that of the king; she is considered as a _feme sole_, and has certain capacities and rights, 'in order that the king whose continual care and study is for the public, should not be troubled and disquieted on account of his wife's domestic affairs.' And the law, which out of respect to the king makes it high treason to compass or imagine the death of his wife, when she becomes a widow ceases to surround her with this protection. It is the king alone, his dignity and his comfort, which the law regards, and the privileges and pre-eminences of his family are conferred or established in such modes and proportions as may be most conducive thereto.

The principle on which precedence is established is that of propinquity to the sovereign, and no propinquity can be so close as that of the husband to the wife, nor does it seem unreasonable that all other subjects should be required to yield the outward forms of honour and respect to the man who is elevated to a station so far above them, whom she is herself bound to 'love, honour, serve, and obey,' and who is superior to her in their natural, while still subordinate in their civil and political relations. Many people who are not unwilling to concede a high degree of precedence to the Prince, are very sensitive about the dignity of the heir apparent, and while they are content that he should precede his other children, would on no account allow him to be superior in rank to a Prince of Wales. The difficulty in these cases is to establish a principle; but that difficulty is rendered much greater if, when the principle is once admitted, it is not taken with all its legitimate and necessary consequences. If the Prince is entitled to claim precedency over any of the blood-royal of England, above all others, he may claim it upon every moral ground over his own children, nor is there any civil or political consideration in reference to the heir apparent, requiring that an exception should be made in his behalf. There seem to exist confused notions of something very extraordinary and transcendant in the status of a Prince of Wales, but the difference between him and his younger brother is not very great; and the only positive privilege with which the law certainly and exclusively invests the heir apparent, is that of making it high treason to attempt his life.[16]

[16] It is also treason to kill certain judicial officers when in actual execution of their offices.--Hale, P. C. 13.

The heir apparent is Prince of Wales, and Duke of Cornwall, but he is not necessarily either the one or the other, and except on a certain condition he cannot be the latter.[17] For as the king _creates_ his elder son, or heir apparent, Prince of Wales, he has the power of withholding such creation, and though the eldest son of the king is Duke of Cornwall by inheritance, the dukedom is limited to the first begotten son of the king.[18]

[17] Two months elapsed between the death of Frederick Prince of Wales, and the creation of his son, George III., Prince of Wales.

[18] If, for example, George IV. had died in his youth, his next brother might have been heir apparent, with no other title than that of Bishop of Osnaburgh. Henry VIII. after the death of Prince Arthur, and Charles I. after that of Prince Henry, were Dukes of Cornwall, but by special new creation.--H., P.C. 13.

The Prince of Wales has no right or privilege beyond those of any other subject; he owes the same faith and allegiance to the sovereign; and since 1789 none have ever ventured to assert that he could claim the regency rather than any other subject. His political condition, therefore, is little if at all different from that of the rest of the Royal Family. His personal propinquity to the sovereign must be less than that of his father, and the question is, whether there is anything so peculiar in his status as to supersede those natural relations of father and son, which, according to all human custom, as well as divine injunction, involve the duty of honour from the latter to the former.

The son's enfranchisement from parental rule when he arrives at years of discretion does not exempt him from the honour he is bound by the law of God and nature to pay to his parents.[19] The son is under a perpetual obligation to honour his father by all outward expressions, and from this obligation no state can absolve him. 'The honour due to parents' (says Locke) 'a monarch on his throne owes his mother, and yet this lessens not his authority, nor subjects him to her government.'[20] The monarchical theory ascribes to the King of England two bodies or capacities, a natural body, and a politic or mystical body, and 'from this mystical union of the ideal with the real king, the enquirer after constitutional information is led through childish reasoning and unintelligible jargon, to practical consequences founded on expediency.'[21] These practical consequences are the complete subordination of the natural to the politic capacity of the sovereign, and that moral revolution which supersedes the duty of the son to the father by the superior duty of the subject to the sovereign. Nothing less transcendental seems sufficient to cancel the force of this natural obligation, and while father and son are both in the condition of subjects, the filial and parental relations need not be outwardly reversed.

[19] Locke, vol. iv. p. 347.

[20] Ibid. vol. iv. p. 376.

[21] Allen on the Royal Prerogative, p. 29.

If the Queen, therefore, should be advised to grant to her Royal Consort letters patent of precedence immediately next to her own person, and at the same time make him a Privy Councillor, there would be no practical difficulty with regard to his place at the Council Board, notwithstanding the legal exception; there custom has in a great measure superseded law. The occasions are very rare when any of the Royal Dukes are present; and upon all others, the Prince would sit upon the right hand of Her Majesty, and precedence would be conceded to him as a matter of course. The Council Board is no longer what it was in the days of Henry VIII., at which time the King sat there regularly in person. The greater part of the Privy Councillors were in constant attendance upon him.[22] They resided in the Court, and accompanied him wherever he went; much (though far from all) of the most important business of the State was transacted there, and the order of sitting, when the members had to deliver their opinions seriatim, beginning with the lowest, was not unimportant. Councils are now merely formal assemblies, for the expedition of certain orders, which must emanate from the sovereign in person.

[22] Sir H. Nicholas' Preface to Council Register, vol. i. p. 13.

When any of the Royal Dukes are present, they sit next the Queen on her right hand, the Lord President always next her on her left. And, although the Lord President and the Chancellor (when present) sit on either side of the Queen, all the other officers are indiscriminately placed. It would not probably be deemed advisable to go back to the end of the seventeenth century for a precedent, or it would be found that Prince George of Denmark sat in council, without taking any oaths; not, therefore, as a Privy Councillor, but _pro honoris causâ_. He always, however, occupied the place of honour, and his attendance was very regular, though there is no record of his having ever taken the oaths; and, at the accession of King William, when all the other Privy Councillors were sworn, it is expressly stated that Prince George was not.[23]

[23] He was first brought into Council by James II. in person, and placed on his right hand, but not sworn.

It is much to be regretted that such heat and irritation have been manifested in the discussion of this question, and certainly between the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament. Prince Albert may well have thought his reception neither cordial nor flattering; but the truth is, that any mortification which either the Prince or the Queen may have felt (and in her it is only natural, whether just or not) is at least as attributable to the really objectionable nature of the propositions which were made, as to the opposition which they encountered.

Nothing herein is more to be deplored than that any mistaken zeal should misrepresent the conduct, or any hasty impression misconstrue the motives, of the Duke of Wellington. His whole life has been a continual manifestation of loyalty and of superiority to petty purposes, and unworthy inducements; but his notions of loyalty are of a nature which mere courtiers are unable to comprehend, because he always considers the honour and the interests of the Crown, in preference to the personal inclination of the sovereign.

Of all men who ever lived he has sought the least the popularity he has so largely acquired--the tide of which, sometimes diverted by transient causes, has always returned with accumulated force. With him it is no 'echo of folly, and shadow of renown,' but a deep, affecting, almost sublime national feeling, which exults in him as the living representative of national glory. If there be an exception in any place to this universal sentiment, let us hope that the impression will not endure, that the cloud of momentary error will be dispersed, and that justice, ample and not tardy, will be rendered to

'The noblest man That ever lived in the tide of time.'

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

INDEX.

Abbotsford, visit to, iii. 291

Aberdeen, Rt. Hon. Earl of, Foreign Secretary in Sir R. Peel's Administration, ii. 37; and the Spanish quarrels, 73, 74; at the Château d'Eu, 200; communications of, with the 'Times,' 200; Scotch Church Patronage Bill, 206; handsome behaviour of, to Lord Palmerston, 406; communications of, with the 'Times' on the Corn Laws, 311; reluctance of, to distrust M. Guizot, iii. 53; negotiations with, on the formation of a Government (1851), 383

Acland, Sir Thomas, motion of, i. 92

Adair, Sir Robert, anecdotes, iii. 212

Adelaide, Queen, at Exeter Hall, ii. 97

Afghanistan, expedition to, i. 241; events in (1842), ii. 85, 89; withdrawal from, 99, 101; recapture of Ghuznee and Cabul and release of the prisoners, 123, 125; indignation in England, 136

Aix-la-Chapelle, visit to, ii. 167

'Alarm,' accident to, at the Derby, ii. 284; wins at Newmarket, 302; wins the Emperor's Cup, 396

Alava, General, i. 241; conversation with, 241, 242

Albert, H.R.H. Prince, betrothal of, to the Queen announced,