CHAPTER XV.

Opening of the Session--Prevailing Distress--Lord John reconciled--Ministerial Speculations--Contemplated Transfer of India to the Crown--Military Position in India--Conversation with Mr. Disraeli--Bill for the Dissolution of the East India Company--Difficulties of Parliamentary Reform--The Relief of Lucknow--Lord Normanby's 'Year of Revolution'--Brougham's Jealousy of Lord Cockburn--Refutation of Lord Normanby's Book--The Crown Jewels of Hanover--Labour in the French Colonies--The Death of General Havelock--Gloomy Prospects in India--Inadequate Measures for the Relief of India--Lord John Russell hostile to Government--Death of the Duke of Devonshire--Mr. Disraeli suggests a Fusion of Parties--Marriage of the Princess Royal--Weakness of the Government--Excitement in France against this Country--Petition of the East India Company--Drowsiness of Ministers--Decline of Lord Palmerston's Popularity--Effect of the Orsini Attempt on the Emperor Napoleon--Opposition to the Conspiracy Bill--Review of the Crisis--Lord Derby sent for by the Queen--Refusal of the Peelites--The Catastrophe unexpected--The Defeat might have been avoided--Mismanagement of the Affair--Ministers determined to resign.

[Sidenote: A BAD WINTER.]

_London, December 4th_, 1857.--Parliament opened yesterday, very quietly, and at present a quiet session seems probable, but such appearances are often fallacious. The most alarming consideration is the probability of a very hard and hungry winter for the working classes, vast numbers of people being already out of employment. I met Sir James Shuttleworth yesterday, who knows a great deal about Lancashire, where he lives, and he told me that though the distress was considerable and threatening to increase, the conduct of the people was admirable. There was no disaffection or bad feeling towards the upper classes and employers; they seemed to have greatly improved in good sense and reflection, and were satisfied of the sympathy felt for them, and the disposition entertained by the rich to do all in their power to alleviate the distress of the poor. And he stated (what seemed to me a curious fact) that they preferred that the time of working should be shortened, or even mills closed, rather than a general reduction in the rate of wages. This moral condition of the labouring classes is a most satisfactory sign of the times.

The Duke of Bedford has just been here, and tells me Lord John is in a better frame of mind, and has already done two sensible things. He has given notice to some of his supporters that he will have nothing to do with the organisation of any party, and he has responded to an invitation of Vernon Smith's by a promise to impart to him his opinion and advice upon Indian affairs, and the best mode of providing for the future government of that country.

_December 6th._--John Russell has begun well in the House of Commons and _si sic omnia_ he will put himself in a good position, but it is impossible to rely upon him. At present his disposition to the Government appears friendly. I had a conversation about him and his future relations with the Government last night with B----. I infer from what dropped from him that he thinks the probability of Palmerston's breaking down is not a remote and unlikely one. I do not think he considers him broken in health, but that he thinks the strength of his intellect is impaired, and that he begins to show signs of decay to those who have the means of observing them. He particularly noticed the failure of his memory, and he said, what I have no doubt is true, that he will never be himself conscious, still less acknowledge, that his faculties are less vigorous and active than they were. What the nature and amount of the decay in him is I know not, and they will not say, but from the uneasy feeling, and these speculations as to future contingencies among his colleagues, I am sure they are prepared for something. B---- said if the case occurred there were only two men who could be Minister, Derby or Clarendon, and he fancies that John Russell might be induced to take office under Clarendon, and he does not believe that Clarendon really means what he says when he expresses his extreme reluctance to take the post, or that he would not in reality prefer it even to the Foreign Office. He treats his scruples as a sort of _nolo episcopari_, in which I think he is partially, but not entirely, right. There can be no doubt that in the present state of affairs it is much to be desired that Palmerston should be able to go on. I was amused by a trifling incident, so very Palmerstonian, told me the other day. I have already alluded to the bad writing in the Queen's Speech, and it seems one phrase was criticised and altered in the Cabinet, but when he got back to his office he altered the alteration, and made it as it was before. I am not sure that the alteration was not the one suggested by B---- upon the strength of my criticism, and that Palmerston declined to alter the passage.

[Sidenote: TRANSFER OF INDIA TO THE CROWN.]

_December 7th._--I called on Lord Grey in the morning and dined with Lyndhurst in the evening, and had much talk with both of them about the pending questions, Reform, India, Bank Act. Lord Grey is bringing out a book upon Reform. Lyndhurst is decidedly against any strong and subversive measure about India, and is for improving and not upsetting the present system. Public opinion, led by the Press, has hitherto leant to the dissolution of the Company and the Directorial Government; but as time advances and the extreme difficulty of concocting another system becomes apparent, people begin to dread the idea of destroying an ancient system, without any certainty of a better one replacing it, and I think there is a general feeling of alarm at the notion of the Indian Empire being placed under the direction of such a man as Vernon Smith; more, indeed, than is quite just and called for, as his talents, though of a second-rate calibre, are not so low as is supposed, and he is not the cipher in his office he is thought to be, but is well enough acquainted with all its details, and always able to explain everything to the Cabinet clearly and correctly. But these merits, which are those of a diligent clerk, are far from being sufficient to qualify him for having the direction of an office which circumstances have rendered by far the most important and difficult in the whole Government. Till recently the Board of Control has been looked upon as a very subordinate department, and one of mere routine, which anybody might fill. I remember when John Russell offered it to Graham some years ago, he treated the proposal as an insult.

_December 8th._--I went to the House of Lords last night and heard for the first time Ellenborough speak--an admirable style of speaking. It was a good night for Canning. The 'Times' has turned right round and defends him, finding the Government are in earnest in doing so. The account of Lucknow just come by telegram is very alarming, and keeps one in a state of nervous excitement, difficult to describe.

_London, December 17th._--Though the last advices from India were satisfactory as far as they went, it is generally understood that the next mail must bring the account of a bloody battle at or near Lucknow, in which, though no one doubts that the British will be victorious, it is certain that there will be great loss of life. Sanguine people and the Press, with hardly any exception, imagine that this anticipated victory will terminate the contest and leave only some straggling conflicts to go on for a short time longer, ending by a speedy suppression of the rebellion. In this expectation I do not share, but, on the contrary, believe it will be a protracted affair, not indeed doubtful in its ultimate result, but which will cost as much time and money and many men, for all who know anything of the matter tell us that the wear and tear in India is enormous, and that a continual stream of reinforcements must be poured into the country to keep the army in a state of efficiency. Captain Lowe, lately aide-de-camp to poor George Anson, and who was in the storm of Delhi, an intelligent officer, confirms all these notions, and he says that nothing can be more inexpedient than the scheme, propounded here with great confidence, of forming the native force, on which we are hereafter to rely, of Sikhs instead of Hindoos. He says that inasmuch as they are very brave and excellent soldiers, it would only be to place ourselves in a state of far greater danger and uncertainty, for though the Sikhs have proved very faithful to us, and rendered excellent service, it is impossible to predict how long this humour may last, and whether circumstances may not arise to induce them to throw off our yoke and assert their own independence. It is marvellous and providential that on this occasion the Sikhs were disposed to side with us instead of against us, for if they had taken the latter course, it would have been all up and nothing could have saved us. _À propos_ of this consideration he told me a curious anecdote. A Sikh was talking to a British officer in a very friendly way, and he said, 'Don't you think it very strange that we, who were so recently fighting against you, should be now fighting with you? and should you be very much surprised if a year or two hence you should see us fighting against you again?'

[Sidenote: CONVERSATION WITH MR. DISRAELI.]

Disraeli called on me a day or two ago, when we had a political chat. He talked with much contempt of the present Government, except of George Lewis, of whom he spoke in the highest terms. He said Palmerston's popularity was of a negative character, and, rather more from the unpopularity of every other public man than from any peculiar attachment to him; he talked bitterly of Derby's having declined to take the Government in 1855, which he seemed to consider as an irreparable blow to his party. He is evidently not without hopes that the Government may find themselves in some inextricable difficulty about their Reform Bill, and thinks they will be incapable of concocting an India Bill which will go down with the country. He does not appear to have made up his mind what course to take on the Indian question, and it is evident that at present the Tory party have decided on nothing. The Cabinet has committed the scheme of Reform to a select number of its members, as was done in 1830, but what they are doing about India I do not know. There is certainly a difference of opinion amongst them, as there no doubt is about Reform, but as little doubt that they are all agreed upon not letting their conflicting opinions break up the Government.

_December 21st._--I called on George Lewis the day before yesterday and had a long talk with him. He told me that Palmerston had given notice to the Chairs that the Government had come to the resolution of bringing in a Bill to put an end to their dominion, and that the plan was to have an Indian Secretary of State with a Council, and the Council to have the distribution of the patronage. I was surprised to hear him say that he saw no difficulty in the settlement of the Indian question, either in passing it through Parliament or in producing a good measure which would work better than the present system, and he said he wished the other great question they had upon their hands, that of Reform, was as easy, but that the more they went into it, the more difficult it appeared. I need not enter into the details which we discussed, as the Bill is not yet settled, and in a few weeks more it will come forth. He said that the great misfortune was their having thrown out Locke King's motion this year, for if they had done what they had originally intended with regard to it, they should in all probability have laid the question at rest for ten years longer at least, and he then told me a curious anecdote on this matter, giving an example of strange levity and incapacity on the part of the Government. When Locke King brought forward his motion, it was considered in the Cabinet, and they came to a unanimous resolution to let his bill be read a second time, but to oppose the amount of his franchise in Committee and raise it from 10_l._ to 20_l._, which they had no doubt they should carry. On the very night on which the question was to be moved Lewis went down to the House of Commons with this understanding, never dreaming that any alteration was contemplated, when George Grey said to him, 'You know Palmerston is going to oppose Locke King's motion' (for leave to bring in his Bill). Lewis expressed his surprise, and asked what had happened to set aside the unanimous agreement come to in the Cabinet. Grey said there had been a dinner at Charles Wood's, at which certain Ministers were present (whom he named, but I forget if Palmerston was one), when the question had been discussed, and the result had been to make a change in their opinions, and Palmerston had agreed that Locke King should be opposed _in limine_. This Lewis told me he regarded as a fatal error, to which they owed the dilemma in which they found themselves placed. But what struck me most was the mode of doing business of such importance, and that there should not be found a single individual to protest against it, and to resign his office rather than to submit to be so dragged through the mire; but the present doctrine seems to be that _Palmerston's_ Government must be held together at any price, and this is the more curious when it is obvious to me that his colleagues, while conscious of the difficulty of doing without him, have an exceedingly mean opinion of his intrinsic value. I told Lewis all that Disraeli had said to me about him as well as about Palmerston, when he expressed his surprise at the manner in which Disraeli had spoken of _him_, for which he was not at all prepared, but said _he estimated Palmerston at his real worth_. He told me of Harrowby's resignation on account of his health, and that his place had been offered to Clanricarde, and wanted to know if I thought Clanricarde would be objected to.[1] We talked of the stories which John Russell had heard of, about our being on bad terms with France, and the Emperor Napoleon out of humour with us, and of Palmerston's meditating hostile designs against Russia, all of which he said were pure fabrications, as we were on the best terms with France, and Palmerston entertained no hostile designs against Russia or any other Power. We both agreed that our hands were too full to think of any fresh quarrels or aggressions, and I found him of the same opinion as myself about our arbitrary and dictatorial system, and of the mischief it had done, and as much with reference to the slave trade as any other question.

[Sidenote: THE CASE OF THE 'NEWPORT.']

I told him of the slave case just decided in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and of the sum of money it would cost our Government, to say nothing of the mortification. He said no doubt Palmerston would proclaim it to be a wrong decision, and would defend the Foreign Office and all the agents who had been concerned in the outrage.[2]

Footnote 1: [The Earl of Harrowby held the office of Lord Privy Seal. He was succeeded by the Marquis of Clanricarde, which proved a very unpopular appointment.]

Footnote 2: [This refers to the case of the 'Newport,' a vessel which had been condemned by the Vice-Admiralty Court at St. Helena for alleged trading in slaves, together with penalties to the amount of 13,000_l._ on the shippers and owners of the cargo. The Lords of the Judicial Committee reversed this sentence with costs and damages, and declared that the owners of the ship must look to the Government for their indemnity. They added that 'merchants who, having engaged only in a lawful adventure, have been subjected to an unjust and illegal sentence, are entitled to be indemnified against its consequences, and against the costs which they have incurred in obtaining its reversal, in relieving themselves from the heavy pecuniary loss which it inflicted, and from the deep stain which it cast upon their characters, and that the national honour must be vindicated at the national expense.']

_Hatchford, December 26th._--Christmas Day, usually coming in frost and snow, was yesterday like a fine day in May, the glorious weather being in unison with the general gladness at the good news from India and the tidings that Lucknow, with its wounded and its long suffering band of women and children, had been relieved at last, and for good and all. This news arrived on Christmas Eve, to make the day itself as merry as it is proverbially said to be.

[Sidenote: LORD NORMANBY'S 'YEAR OF REVOLUTION.']

Brougham has taken Normanby's book, 'A Year of Revolution,' under his protection, for what reason nobody can divine. He wrote to Mrs. Austin begging she would exert her influence with her nephew Reeve to get it noticed favourably in the 'Edinburgh Review,' that it was a good book, had the merit of being true, and that it was much approved by Louis Napoleon, who had encouraged its being translated. I had imagined Brougham was improved, but it is evident from his conduct on this occasion that he is the same man he ever was. The book contains page after page of matter the most offensive to Guizot and to Louis Philippe and his family, with which everybody is revolted, and its malice is not redeemed by literary merit or attractiveness in any shape. That Brougham should take up such a production is as unaccountable as it is indecent, for he affected to be exceedingly attached to the Orleans royalties, to be on very intimate terms with the King, and he treated Guizot with a familiarity quite at variance with good taste and propriety, and which had excited the astonishment, with no small disgust, of Guizot himself. It might have been expected that he would have resented such a production as Normanby's, instead of patronising it. He told Mrs. Austin he could not himself speak to Reeve about it, since he had made the 'Edinburgh Review' the vehicle of a personal attack upon himself. What he alluded to was, that when Lord Cockburn's life was published an article (anonymous of course) appeared in the 'Law Magazine' in which Lord Cockburn was very ill-used, and another in reply to this, and in vindication of Lord Cockburn, but without a word against Brougham, appeared in the 'Edinburgh.' This was what he called a personal attack upon himself. He was the author of the paper in the 'Law Magazine,' but the writer in the 'Edinburgh' had no right to assume this, or to know anything about it, though as a matter of fact he did know, or at least had good reason to suspect, that it was penned by Brougham. It had already been settled that the 'Edinburgh Review' should take no notice whatever of 'The Year of Revolution,' and Mrs. Austin having sent Brougham's letter to Reeve, Reeve answered it himself, utterly denying that he had made or intended to make any attack upon him, and telling him in plain terms what the general opinion is of Normanby's book.

Meanwhile Guizot writes to Reeve that the book is full of lies, and not worth notice; that he will take none of what concerns himself alone, but cannot leave uncontradicted such parts of it as relate to the King, and give utterly false statements of the relations between the King and himself. He then refers to various passages which he says are all false, and desires Reeve to show his letter to Lord Lansdowne, Granville, and me, and to anybody else he thinks fit. All this will contribute to bring Normanby into a very unpleasant dilemma about this ill-advised book, and it must be said that it is all Clarendon's fault for his weakness and good nature in abstaining from renewing his prohibition, and when Normanby was here giving a sort of tacit consent to its appearance, although that was accompanied with a strong expression of opinion that it ought to be suppressed. And now a report has got about that before the book came out Clarendon read and approved of it, which I requested Mrs. Austin to deny in the most peremptory manner, for it was to her that this assertion had been made.[1]

Footnote 1: [Lord Normanby had written this narrative of the events of 1847 to 1848 whilst he was Ambassador in Paris, and he proposed to publish it at an earlier period when he was still in office. But upon this coming to the knowledge of the Foreign Office, Lord Clarendon (without having read the work) intimated to Lord Normanby that he could not allow a diplomatic servant of the Crown of the first rank to publish a polemical narrative of transactions in which he had been engaged, at any rate whilst he held office. The book therefore was suppressed for some years. But when Lord Normanby had quitted office, he felt at liberty to disregard Lord Clarendon's injunction, and the book was published, to the great detriment of his own reputation.]

[Sidenote: THE CROWN JEWELS OF HANOVER.]

_December 29th._--The long-pending dispute about the Crown jewels claimed by the King of Hanover was settled the other day. The history of it is this. The late King of Hanover on the death of William IV. claimed these jewels upon the ground that they were partly belonging to the Crown of Hanover and partly had been bequeathed to him by Queen Charlotte. Our Government, on behalf of the Queen, naturally resisted the claim. After a good deal of wrangling they were at last prevailed on to name a commission to investigate the question, and Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Langdale, and Chief Justice Tindal were appointed accordingly. After a considerable delay and a troublesome enquiry, they arrived at a conclusion, but when they were just about to give their award Chief Justice Tindal died. Lyndhurst and Langdale were divided in opinion, so no award could be given. The Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, refused to renew the Commission, and the matter has stood over ever since. In the present year, however, the Government thought the matter ought to be decided one way or another, and they issued a fresh Commission, consisting of Lord Wensleydale, Vice-Chancellor Page Wood, and Sir Lawrence Peel (ex-Indian judge), and they have given judgement unanimously in favour of the King of Hanover, i.e., with regard to the bulk of the jewels, some few seem to have been allotted to the Queen. Lord Wensleydale came into my room at the Council Office just after they had finished their award, and told me about it. I asked him if they had decided it on _evidence_ or only by a sort of rough estimate, but he said they had ample evidence, and they were all quite satisfied upon the point. Last night I asked Lord Lyndhurst about his share in the question, when he told me their difficulty had been to make out whether the jewels which Queen Charlotte had disposed of by her will had really been hers to leave, or whether she had only had the use of them, but that this had been decided by the discovery of George III.'s will, in which he expressly left them to her. Tindal entirely agreed with Lyndhurst, and if he had lived a little longer, judgement would have been given then in favour of Hanover. Lyndhurst said the Court was very anxious about it, for Prince Albert had told him the pearls were the finest in Europe. The value of them has been enormously exaggerated, but is still considerable. Lord Lyndhurst said they were worth about 150,000_l._, and Kielmansegge told me the same thing.

By the Indian papers just arrived it appears that the relief of the Residency of Lucknow and the deliverance of all who were confined in it was complete, but there was no great battle (which everybody expected), though much severe fighting, and Lucknow itself was still untaken. The mutineers, though always worsted, seem to fight better than they were thought capable of doing, and everything tends to show that the suppression of the Mutiny is still far from being accomplished.

_December 31st._--I met Clarendon last night, who talked about the Hanoverian jewel question; he said the Queen was very anxious to know Lord Lyndhurst's opinion upon the award, so last night I went to his house and asked him, telling him the reason why. He said he had no doubt the award was correct; that in their case the jewels were divided into two categories: first, those which came from George II. and were undoubtedly Hanoverian; and secondly, those which George III. had given Queen Charlotte. They had heard counsel on both sides, but neither side chose to produce the will of George III., which they never had before them, so they were in a difficulty about these latter stones. Tindal died the day they were to have met to draw up an award. He and Lyndhurst were agreed, Langdale doubted. Lyndhurst said he had no doubt if they had had King George III.'s will, which Wensleydale and his colleagues had before them, they should all three have agreed, and to the same award.

Clarendon complained of the recent pro-slavery articles in the 'Times,' and told Delane they were calculated to encourage the French in holding to their African operations. The French Government had told us that they must have labour, but they did not care if it was black or brown, and if we would undertake to find coolies for them in the same way as Mauritius is supplied, they would give up their scheme. Clarendon said this was fair enough, but it did not get rid of the difficulty, because it was impossible to get the coolies in sufficient numbers, and that our own Colonies, which were perishing for want of labour, would complain loudly, and not unjustly, if we brought the French into competition with them, thus enhancing the difficulty and the cost of supply to themselves. The probability then is that the French will go on, and that all other nations who have the same wants will follow their example, and we shall be reinvolved in endless remonstrances and squabbles under very disadvantageous circumstances.

_January 1st_.1858.--It is worth noticing that after a year of fine weather, of which nobody can recollect the like, this first day of the New Year has opened like one of a genial spring. This nearly unbroken course of wonderful weather for about nine or ten months gives rise to many speculations as to its cause, and no doubt there is some physical cause, although it has not yet been ascertained.

_January 5th._--To-day the winter seems to have set in in earnest.

[Sidenote: THE CONTEST IN INDIA.]

_January 7th._--Not many days ago the 'Times' concluded an article on the Indian war in these words (it was after describing the relief of the Residence at Lucknow by Sir Colin Campbell): 'thus ends the Indian Mutiny of 1857;' and to-day we have the news of Wyndham having been defeated by the Gwalior Force; of Sir Colin having been obliged to quit Lucknow, _without having captured it_, in order to repair this check (which he seems to have done very effectually) and deplorable event; of the death of Havelock, the hero of this war, who, after escaping unhurt through battle after battle, has succumbed to disease, not having lived long enough to know all that is said of him and all that has been done for him here. It is impossible not to feel the loss of this man as if he belonged to one individually, so deep is the interest which his gallantry and his brilliant career have excited in every heart.

Every account we receive only confirms the impression that this war will be a long and difficult affair, and if we are able by our military successes to put down all opposition and suppress the mutiny thoroughly, we shall have a still more difficult task to re-establish order and a quiet and regular government in the country, and this difficulty promises to be enormously increased by all that is passing here on the subject. Shaftesbury is stirring up all the fanaticism of the country, and clamouring for what he calls the _emancipation_ of Christianity in India, and even the 'Times,' once celebrated for its strong sound sense and its fearless independence, is afraid to rebuke this nonsense, and endorses it by saying 'we have commited great errors,' but without explaining what it means, or giving any exemplification of the assertion. The real meaning, however, of the Exeter Hall clamour is, that we should commence as soon as we can a crusade against the religions of the natives of India, and attempt to force Christianity upon them. I begin to have the most dismal forebodings upon this Indian question. I continue indeed to believe that by dint of enormous exertions, by a vast expenditure of money, and sending out every man we can raise and make a soldier of, we shall sooner or later conquer the mutineers and suppress the rebellion, but I expect we shall lose our Indian Empire. I may possibly not live to see the catastrophe, but those who are twenty or may be ten years younger than I am in all probability will. All our legislation is conducting us to this end. We are taking this moment of war and confusion to revolutionize our Indian Empire and government, to root up all that the natives have been accustomed to regard with veneration, and to pronounce sentence of condemnation upon the only authority of which they know anything, and which has been the object of their fears and hopes, and sometimes of their attachment. The Government is about to hurry into this measure as if the existing system had been the cause of the present rebellion and conflict, and that the one they propose to substitute would be so much better and capable of repairing the mischief which the government of the Company has caused by its alleged mismanagement. I have no prejudice or partiality for the Company, but I believe any great change at this moment to be fraught with danger, and that the notion of improving the state of affairs by the abolition of what is called the double government is a mere delusion.[1]

Footnote 1: [The experience of nearly thirty years has proved that these gloomy forebodings were unfounded. The Government and the condition of the Indian Empire have undergone enormous changes in that interval of time, but upon the whole the suppression of the military revolt of 1857 has placed British authority in India upon a more secure basis, the loyalty of the native princes to the Crown has increased, the native population is more enlightened and more prosperous, and the dangers which may still threaten the British Empire in India are not those which struck the mind of Mr. Greville in 1858. He himself, however, soon changed his opinion. See entry of the 12th March, _infra._]

_January 16th._--I went to The Grange on Tuesday and returned yesterday morning, when I was met by the news of an attempted assassination of the Emperor Napoleon, whose escape seems to have been providential.

It is since I last wrote anything here that we have received the news from India of Wyndham's defeat at Cawnpore, and of Sir Colin's subsequent victory, but we are not yet informed of the details so as to be able to pass a judgement on these events, and upon Wyndham's conduct. It may be doubted, however, whether the small defeat in the one case is not more prejudicial than the considerable victory in the other is advantageous; and the inference to be derived from the whole is to my mind of a gloomy character, for I think unless we can manage to pour into India an unceasing stream of fresh troops for an indefinite period, we shall succumb in the contest by the mere weight of numbers, and the question is, whether we shall be able to do this, which seems to me exceedingly doubtful. The Government appear never to have been sufficiently alive to the danger and the difficulties of this warfare, and have contented themselves with going on leisurely and lazily, preparing reinforcements to be sent out from time to time, but have never thought it incumbent on them to make the extraordinary efforts that the case imperatively demands.

[Sidenote: LORD JOHN RUSSELL IN OPPOSITION.]

When Parliament meets I shall be surprised if there is not before long a great storm in both Houses, and if Palmerston means to rest upon his popularity, and to endeavour to conjure it by his habitual offhand manner and assurances that they have done all they could, expecting that such assurances will be accepted as a matter of course, I think he will be greatly mistaken. In spite of all that has been said to John Russell, and his not unfriendly disposition during the short autumnal session, his patience and prudence are evidently well-nigh exhausted, and we may soon expect to see him in vehement opposition. He writes to his brother that 'he is appalled at the part he may be obliged to take in the coming session,' and he seems to be under the influence of a fresh feeling of antipathy to Palmerston. It is not unlikely that he thinks it not worth his while to wait for the chance of Palmerston's being withdrawn from the field, and that he may as well gratify his inclination by going into Opposition, and it is likely enough that he fancies he has more influence in the House of Commons and the country than he really possesses, and may collect a party of his own, instead of being grudgingly accepted by the present Government as a matter of necessity, rather than one of choice. If this is his view, I believe he is egregiously mistaken. Lowe, whom I met at The Grange, and who knows something of both Parliamentary and public opinion, told me that John Russell would find no support in the House of Commons where his influence was extinct, and that so far from forming a party of his own, he did not believe if Palmerston were to die to-morrow, and Lord John take his place at the head of the Government, that the Government itself would stand.

_Woburn Abbey, January 19th._--Yesterday morning we were astounded by the receipt of a telegraphic message informing Granville that the Duke of Devonshire had been found dead in his bed.[1] Nothing could be more sudden and unexpected, and the immediate cause of his death is not known. At different periods of my life I have lived in great intimacy with him, but he was capricious, so the intervals were long and frequent during which we were almost strangers to each other. Spoiled by his mother as a boy, and becoming Duke of Devonshire with a colossal fortune at twenty-one years old, and besides afflicted with incurable deafness, his existence was _manqué_, and he was a disappointed and unhappy man. His abilities were of a very high order, and if he had not been relieved by his position and wealth from the necessity of exertion and disqualified by his infirmities from taking an active part in public life, he might have been a considerable and important as well as a far happier man; but as he had unfortunately no positive tastes or active pursuits, no domestic ties to engage his affections, and no public duties to occupy his mind, he was reduced to fill up the vacuum of his existence by capricious _engouements_ and frivolous society. He was very clever and very comical, with a keen sense of humour, frequently very droll with his intimate friends, and his letters were always very amusing. The Duke lived very much like a _grand seigneur_, hospitable and magnificent; he was very fond of his family, and very kind to them, as he was also to those of his friends whom he took into favour, many of the poorer of whom will have great reason to regret the loss of a benefactor. There was for a long time a vague notion that some mystery attached to his birth, and that he was not really the son, or at all events not the legitimate son, of his reputed father. The idea was that Lady Elizabeth Foster (whom the Duke afterwards married as his second wife) and the Duchess had been confined at the same time at Paris, and that the latter having a girl and the former a boy, the children had been changed, the Duke being the father of both children. I always treated this story as a myth, and this opinion has been confirmed by the deposition of the woman who had received the child in her arms upon his birth, which was conclusive evidence of his legitimacy. It is remarkable that the whole of the vast property of the late Duke was in his own power. The entail was cut off upon his majority, and his father died before the estates were resettled.

Footnote 1: [William Spencer, sixth Duke of Devonshire, born May 21, 1790, died January 17, 1858. He was Mr. Greville's second cousin, the Duchess of Portland, mother of Lady Charlotte Greville, having been the daughter of the fourth Duke of Devonshire.]

_January 20th._--The more I hear from India and about Indian affairs, and the more I read and reflect upon the subject, the more desponding I become as to our future prospects there; first, as to our means of bringing the war to a successful issue, and secondly, as to our power to govern the country and keep it quiet and contented when the first object has been accomplished.

[Sidenote: DISRAELI'S OVERTURE TO THE WHIGS.]

_January 23rd._--On arriving in town yesterday, I received a visit from Disraeli, who said he had come to consult me _in confidence_, and to ask my opinion, by which his own course would be very much influenced. I was not a little surprised at this _exordium_, but told him I should be glad to hear what his object was, and that he was welcome to any opinion he wished for from me. He then began a rather hazy discourse, from which I gathered, or at least thought I gathered, that he thinks the present state of affairs very serious, and the position of the Government very precarious; that he is meditating on the possible chances there may be for him and his party in the event of Palmerston's fall, and knowing that some sort of coalition with some other party would be indispensable to form any other Government, an idea had crossed his mind that this might be practicable with some of the most moderate of the Whigs, especially with the younger ones, such as Granville and Argyll, and he wished to know if I thought this would be possible, and whether I could be in any way instrumental in promoting it, and if I did not think so what my ideas were as to the most advisable course in order to avert the threatened Reform, and to give the country a better Government than this. This, with a great deal of verbiage and mixed with digressions about the leading men of the present day, seemed to me to be the substance and object of his talk. He professed to speak to me of his own sentiments without disguise, and with entire confidence about everything, but I cannot call to mind that he imparted to me anything of the slightest interest or importance. It would be difficult and not very interesting to write down our somewhat vague and _décousu_ conversation, but I told him that I knew very little of the dispositions of any of the men he alluded to, but I did not believe they any of them would be parties to any such combination as he looked to, or separate from their present colleagues.

_January 25th._--We are still without any advices from India. The petition to Parliament of the East India Company, which is very able, and was written by John Mill, has produced a considerable effect in the world, and doubts are expressed in all quarters whether Government will be able to carry their Bill.

_January 26th._--The Princess Royal's wedding went off yesterday with amazing _éclat_, and it is rather ludicrous to contrast the vehement articles with which the Press teemed (the 'Times' in particular) against the alliance two years ago with the popularity of it and the enthusiasm displayed now. The whole thing seems to have been very successful. At the breakfast after the wedding, to which none but the Royalties were invited, the French Princes were present, which was amiable and becoming on the part of the Queen.

_January 28th._--As the day approaches for the re-assembling of Parliament there is an increasing impression that this Government is very likely not to get through the session, and the 'Times,' which is always ready to assist in the discomfiture of a losing party, is now showing unmistakeable symptoms of its own doubts whether the Government is any longer worth supporting, and Delane told me yesterday he thought they would not remain long in office, and that it is time they should go, and he ridiculed the idea of its not being practicable to form another Government. It is absurd, but nevertheless true, that nothing has damaged Palmerston so much as his making Clanricarde Privy Seal. It was an unwise appointment, but the fault of it is grossly exaggerated. Everybody agrees that from one end of the country to another there is a feeling of universal indignation against it. Then there is a great turn in the public mind in favour of the East India Company, or rather against the Government measure, of which nothing is known, but that the result of it will be to place the Indian Empire in the hands of Vernon Smith.

[Sidenote: EFFECTS OF THE ORSINI CONSPIRACY.]

_February 2nd._--The Indian question has for the moment been superseded by the French question as it may be called, that is, by the storm which is raging in France against this country, its institutions and laws, in reference to the assassination plot of January 14.[1] It was well known that the French Government had been urging our Ministers to adopt measures or to pass laws against the refugees and their machinations in this country; but while this question was under discussion, we were astounded by a speech made by Persigny in reply to an address from the City, and still more by the publication in the 'Moniteur' of certain addresses from corps or regiments of the French army to the Emperor, full of insult and menace to this country. These offensive manifestations naturally excited great indignation here, and the Press did not fail to hurl back these insults, and to retort with interest upon the persons from whom they had proceeded or who had permitted their appearance. On Sunday I spoke to Clarendon on the subject. He is very much annoyed and embarrassed by this posture of affairs as might be expected, but more than this he is very much alarmed, more than I think he need be. I said it seemed to be that the Emperor had forgotten his usual good sense, and that he who knows this country ought to have felt that if he wishes to have anything done here, he is taking the most effectual means to prevent it by permitting the military addresses to appear in the 'Moniteur,' since in the present state of the Press this is tantamount to their being published by the Government itself. I said I could not believe that these hot and enthusiastic expressions were to be taken entirely as proofs of a passionate attachment to the Emperor's person, but that these were outbreaks of that hatred of England which sometimes slumbered, but never died. He said the Emperor felt that his alliance with this country was indispensable to him, and regretted sincerely the displays of feeling in France, but that he did not dare to repress the sentiments evinced by the army, though he kept them in check as well as he could, and the truth was, as I have said above, that it was the undying animosity to us which had found a vent upon this occasion. He added that he had not blamed Morny, who could not say less than he did without being denounced by the Chamber as an inadequate exponent of its sentiments. The French, seeing how all our force is absorbed in our Indian war, think they may treat us as they please, and Clarendon fancies that if any accident were to befall the Emperor, any Government that might be able to establish itself would go to war with us as the best means of ingratiating itself with the nation and of being able to establish itself. He says they can march 50,000 men at a moment's notice to Cherbourg, where there is an abundance of war steamers ready to transport them across the Channel, while we have no soldiers and no ships to defend us in case of such a storm suddenly bursting. George Lewis says that Clarendon is haunted with this apprehension, which he does not share in the slightest degree.

Though there is some truth in this account of the Emperor's position, I cannot believe that he might not have kept matters more quiet in France than he has done, if he had exerted his influence and power for that end. There can be no doubt that our international relations are upon a very unpleasant and perilous footing, and that the evil is not corrected by the fact of the two Courts being on friendly terms, by mutual interchanges of soft sawder and proofs of friendship in the shape of handsome bridal gifts from the Emperor and Empress to the Princess Royal. We are going to do something to soothe the French; but as it will, I believe, be no more than to make that a felony which is now only a misdemeanour, it may be doubted if this will satisfy or appease them; but it would be impossible to do more even if it were desirable, which I think it is not, and I doubt if even this slight concession will be obtained from Parliament without some strong and indignant remarks upon the tone which has been adopted towards England.

Footnote 1: [It was known in France that the explosive bombs with which Orsini had attempted the life of the Emperor Napoleon were manufactured in England, and that some of the accomplices of that conspirator were still in this country, where the law could not reach them for a crime committed abroad. These facts called forth a strong hostile feeling, and England was accused of harbouring assassins. On January 20 Count Walewski addressed a remonstrance to the British Government, which remained unanswered, and on January 23 Count Persigny spoke in strong language to a deputation from the City of London. Military addresses of a violent character from several French regiments to the Emperor were published in the _Moniteur_. On February 9 Lord Palmerston introduced a bill, called The Conspiracy to Murder Bill, making conspiracy to murder a felony. The opposition to this bill gave rise to the ensuing events and overthrew the Ministry.]

[Sidenote: PETITION OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.]

_February 3rd._--The Directors have got Tom Baring and Lord Grey to present their petition in the two Houses, and they mean to adopt the moderate and judicious course of not agitating any further, but trust to the course of events, which is now turning in their favour, and to ask for delay and a Committee. Graham, acting, I believe, independently, means to move for a Committee. John Russell intimated to him that he did not think he should support such a motion, but he has not finally determined what to do, and I rather expect he will end in voting for it. Palmerston's friends still tell him that his name is all powerful, and that he is sure of carrying through the House of Commons whatever he proposes, if the House thinks there is any possibility of a defeat leading to his resignation, and such is evidently his own opinion. In a Committee on Indian affairs and the intended bill, at which Bethell was present, on some objection or possible objection being suggested by one of the members, Palmerston said in his usual jaunty way, 'Oh, they will fall in love with our bill when they see it;' when Bethell, in his niminy-piminy manner and simper, said, 'Oh, my dear Lord!' Granville, who told me, says it was very funny. They all seem conscious of the diminution of Palmerston's energy and power. He is always asleep, both in the Cabinet and in the House of Commons, where he endeavours to conceal it by wearing his hat over his eyes. Clarendon made me laugh heartily the other day at his account of the Cabinet, where one half of them seem to be almost always asleep, the first to be off being Lansdowne, closely followed by Palmerston and Charles Wood. I remember his giving me a very droll account of Melbourne's Cabinet, and of the drowsiness which used to reign there, more particularly with Melbourne himself.

_February 11th._--I never remember Parliament meeting with much greater curiosity and excitement. The situation of the Government is generally regarded as so precarious, and the revolution in Palmerston's popularity and therefore his power is so extraordinary, that everybody is expecting some great events will occur, and the hopes of all who wish for a change and who expect to profit by it are reviving. The bill brought in by Palmerston on Tuesday for the purpose of punishing conspirators and with a view to satisfy the exigency of the French Government made a great stir. The leave to bring it in was carried by a large majority, thanks to the Conservatives, but its success was principally owing to the Emperor's apology arriving just before the debate began. This pacified most of those who were enraged at the publications in the 'Moniteur,' and disposed to oppose the measure on account of the conduct of the French Government. I have no sympathy with such a feeling, but it is well calculated to go down with the public, and to afford a plausible pretext to the Ultra-Liberals and the crotchety politicians. The greatest objection to this bill is that it will probably be quite useless for its alleged object, and though perhaps something more stringent might be useful, the Government do not dare propose anything beyond the present measure.

Perhaps the most serious reflexion to which this matter gives rise is the suspicion that the conduct of the Emperor Napoleon betrays either some strange infirmity in his faculties, or something so unsound and dangerous in the state of France, as to be pregnant with possible consequences it is frightful to contemplate. All that he has been doing, or has allowed to be done of late, is indicative of a change; for the moderation and prudence, together with firmness and decision, which have hitherto formed his best claim to the admiration and approbation of this country seem to have completely deserted him. The penal laws enacted or to be enacted in France are considered as the inauguration of a reign of terror, and there is rapidly growing up the same sort of feeling about the French Empire that there is here about the Palmerston Government. Nobody pretends to foresee what will happen, but everyone thinks that the state of France is rendered more combustible, and that any spark may produce an explosion. Those who are most attached or most favourable to the Imperial Government are the most alarmed, and, when they dare speak out, express the greatest regret and alarm at all that is passing in France.

[Sidenote: PERILS OF THE GOVERNMENT.]

To turn to the Government here, their two great rocks ahead are the India Bill and the Reform Bill, but with regard to these there seems no knowledge how parties will act, and how leading individuals will vote. Most people, however, are impressed with the idea that neither measure will be carried, and that the Government will in all probability not get through the session. It will be too absurd if Palmerston, after being the idol of the public, in spite of or in consequence of all his foolish speeches and his outrageous acts, should find himself deserted and his power shaken because he made Clanricarde Privy Seal; but there can be no doubt that this appointment has had more effect than any other cause in the change of public opinion about him.

_February 14th._--Last week saw the debates in the House of Commons about the Conspiracy Bill, and the first act of the India Bill. The first is very unpopular, but it will be carried nevertheless. John Russell has taken it up with extraordinary vehemence and anger. His opposition to it is furious, on high constitutional grounds, which appear to me absurd and uncalled for. If I were in Parliament I should be puzzled how to vote, for there is much to be said against the Bill, and much against voting against it, particularly against leave to bring it in. Almost all the Tories voted with Government, and John Russell carried very few with him, and neither of his own nephews. He is more than ever exasperated against Palmerston for bringing it in. The apology tended by the Emperor, which was read to the House, reconciled a great many to the bill, but I have no notion that it will do any good, or that the French Government will be satisfied with it. After such a bill, which will certainly be carried, the British Lion must put his tail between his legs, and 'Civis Romanus' give up swaggering so loftily. If Aberdeen had attempted such a measure when Louis Philippe was King and Guizot minister, what would Palmerston have said, and what would not have been the indignant outcry throughout the country? The balance of opinion now seems to be that Government will carry their India Bill, and the report is that they are willing, if the second reading is carried, to consent to any alterations that may be pressed upon them in Committee. Lewis seems to have made a good speech on Friday, though rather of a didactic character.

[Sidenote: A CRITICAL SITUATION.]

_February 20th._[1]--Unless I were to write down day by day the events and the _impressions_ of each day I should fail in giving anything like a picture of the time, and I regret that my indolence or other occupations have prevented my doing this. I have each day promised myself I would not neglect it, and then, failing to keep that promise (to myself), I have found some fresh occurrence sweeping away the interest, and generally the accurate recollection, of what the preceding days have produced. The varieties of the aspects of public affairs have been like the figures in a kaleidoscope, and one ought to catch each fleeting symmetrical arrangement before it is changed into some other equally fleeting in order to comprehend the rapidity and importance of the changes which are going on. Not long ago (that is, not many weeks) a vague idea began to circulate that the Government would have difficulty in getting successfully through this session, and that their power had suffered some diminution. It was thought that the India Bill and the Reform Bill would be too much for them, and when a little later the events in France induced them to bring in the Conspiracy Bill, the excessive unpopularity of this last measure strengthened the impression of their instability. Everybody out of the pale of the Government itself admitted that Palmerston was not the man he was, and the diminution of his popularity was visible universally. This was attributed to several smaller causes, but the great one was the appointment of Clanricarde; which beyond all doubt has been regarded with a disgust and indignation to the last degree exaggerated and uncalled for. Such was the state of public feeling and opinion when the Parliamentary campaign opened with the discussions first of the Conspiracy Bill, and secondly of the Reform Bill. After a few days, however, a great change seemed to have taken place, though the country and the Press watched with great jealousy the progress of the Conspiracy Bill, keeping up a very loud growl of dislike to the Bill, and resentment against the French Government. In the division on the question of leave to bring in the bill the majority of the Conservatives came over to the Government, and they got a majority of the Conservatives of three to one. A few days after Palmerston brought in the India Bill, about which for a moment it was thought Baring with his amendment might run him hard, but after a very poor debate, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very good speech, and the President of the Board of Control made no speech at all, the Government got a majority of near 150. These two victories, though the first was obtained by the aid of opponents, raised the spirits of the Ministerialists, and were generally taken as indicative of more strength than they had been supposed to have, and as pretty clear proofs that Palmerston would at all events get unscathed through this session with not much diminished authority and influence.

But while they were triumphing in the fancied security which these divisions seemed to promise them, a storm was gathering, for the bursting of which, they were far from being prepared, nor did they estimate its importance. The public feeling had become more and more exasperated at the Conspiracy Bill, and at the conduct of France. The first reading of the bill would not have been carried as it was, perhaps not at all, but for the _apology_, as it was called, of the Emperor, and the soothing effect of Walewski's despatch carrying expressions of his master's regret and a sort of half disclaimer of the military addresses. But this soothing effect was very transitory. It was remarked that while the 'Moniteur' continued to insert fresh addresses of an offensive character, the apologetic despatch did not appear at all, and the original despatch of Walewski (January 20), which had excited so much indignation here, and which was not denied to have been the origin of the Conspiracy Bill, lay upon the table of the House of Commons unanswered by our Government. On this point a good deal of surprise and anger had been evinced in the Press and in society, and the discontent against the Government generally, and Palmerston in particular, was still spreading, when Milner Gibson took advantage of the prevailing temper, and moved a resolution in the shape of an amendment to the second reading of the bill, very skilfully concocted, but which was a direct vote of censure upon the Government (particularly of course directed against Palmerston and Clarendon) for not having answered that despatch.

[Sidenote: DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT.]

Palmerston, I have been assured, when he saw the terms of this amendment, perceived that it might be dangerous, and that it was well calculated to get votes; but it is certain that the Government generally were in no apprehension, and that nobody of any party (I believe literally nobody) had the least idea that any vote of censure, which of course involved the existence of the Government, had the slightest chance of being carried. I met Sir Edward Lytton at the Athenæum on Friday, just as he was going to the House, and had some conversation with him. He treated Palmerston's position as impregnable, and said he would have a very large majority that evening. So confident were the Government whippers in that they made no exertions, and Hayter actually allowed some of his people to go away unpaired, telling them that they were quite safe, and their presence not necessary. I went to the House of Lords that evening to hear Macaulay, who was to have spoken but did not speak, and afterwards went home, hearing nothing more that night. Great was my astonishment when I read in the 'Times' this morning that Government had been beaten on Milner Gibson's motion by 19, and a few minutes after Granville came in and said that this defeat must be conclusive and nothing left for them but to resign. A Cabinet was held in the afternoon, at which it was decided that Palmerston should repair to Buckingham Palace with the resignations of himself and his colleagues.

Footnote 1: [On February 19 the Government were defeated on the Conspiracy Bill, in the House of Commons, by a majority of 234 to 215, Mr. Milner Gibson's amendment having been carried against them. The majority consisted of 146 Conservatives, 84 Liberals. Mr. Gladstone, Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham, Mr. Cardwell, and Mr. Sidney Herbert voted against the Bill. Lord Palmerston immediately resigned.]

_February 21st._--Nothing more was known last night, but it was evident that Derby had been sent for in preference to Lord John, whom I met at Brooks's in the morning, and who did not expect the Queen to send for him. He told me Gladstone, he believed, and Graham, he knew, would not join Derby, and he thought neither Sidney Herbert nor Cardwell would either. As to the future, there really are _quot homines tot sententiæ_. Some think Derby cannot form a Government, some that he will not try. The sanguine Palmerstonians think all other attempts will fail and Palmerston remain in power, as Lord Grey did in 1831, and some fancy he will endeavour to propitiate the House of Commons and public opinion by throwing overboard Clanricarde, to whose appointment the mischief is in great measure attributed. Such is at this moment the state of doubt and confusion which generally prevail.

_February 23rd._--Nothing is yet known of Derby's progress except that he tried the Peelites, not one of whom would join. He sent for Newcastle from Clumber, who came up, saw him, and declined. It is evident that they mean to act in concert, except probably Graham, who has espoused John Russell, and who will not separate himself from Lord John's fortunes. There was a prevailing expectation yesterday that Derby would abandon his attempt, and that Palmerston would come back, but Derby seems quite determined to go on. The Palmerstonians certainly expect their exclusion to be of short duration, and nobody thinks that any Government Derby can possibly make will last long.

Never was there a great catastrophe so totally unexpected. Within an hour of the beginning of the debate no one doubted that the Government would have a majority, but Milner Gibson's speech was not concluded before it was evident that his amendment would be carried, and Palmerston's conduct was very unaccountable. It was clear from the tone of his speech, which was as bad as possible, feeble and intemperate, that he was aware of what was going to happen, and yet when the true state of the case was urged upon him, and he was pressed to adjourn the debate till Monday, which could easily have been done, he obstinately refused. If he had done this, there is little doubt that he would have whipped up a majority by Monday. Certainly no people ever so mismanaged their affairs. There is no excuse for their having put on the table of the House of Commons such a despatch as Walewski's, without any reply being made to it. It required no great sagacity to anticipate that such a course of proceeding could not fail to throw the House of Commons into a flame, and exasperate the country, already much excited, and all the excuses they made only made their case worse, and were generally inconsistent with each other. George Grey's was the most pitiful, when he said that after the second reading an answer should be sent. Then they made shuffling statements: at one time that they had sent no answer, and that to have answered it as alone it could be answered must have increased the irritation. Then, that they had given a verbal answer, and at last it transpired that an answer had been sent in the shape of a _private_ letter from Clarendon to Cowley.

[Sidenote: MISMANAGEMENT.]

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

[Sidenote: DETERMINATION TO RESIGN.]

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

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

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

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