This morning Frederick Lamb showed me a letter he had got from Melbourne to this effect: 'that they had resolved to make no Peers at all at present; that to make a few would be regarded as a menace, and be as bad as if they made a great many; but that as many as would be necessary to carry the Bill would be made, if it was eventually found that it must be so;' he added 'it only remained for people to come forward and declare their intention of supporting the second reading.' This is certainly a great victory, and I do believe mainly attributable to our exertions, to the spirit we have infused into Melbourne himself, and the use we have made of Wharncliffe and Verulam, and the different little circ.u.mstances we have brought to bear upon the discussion. What now remains is the most difficult, but I shall do all I can to engage Peers to take a moderate determination and to declare it.

Lamb told me that the King has an aversion to making _a few_ Peers, that he has said he would rather make twenty-five than five, that whatever he must make he should like to make at once, and not to have to return to it. Anyhow, time is gained, and a victory for the moment.

London, January 20th, 1832 {p.233}

[Page Head: WHARNCLIFFE'S INTERVIEW WITH THE KING.]

Came up on Monday last. I have been changing my house, and so occupied that I have not had time to write. Wharncliffe came to town on Wednesday, and came straight to my office to give me an account of his interview with the King, in which it appears as if he had said much about what he ought, and no more. He told his Majesty that the reports which had been circulated as to the disposition and intentions of himself and his friends, and the argument for the necessity of making Peers, which he understood to have been founded on these reports, had compelled him to ask for this audience, that he wished to explain to his Majesty that he (Lord Wharncliffe) had no intention of opposing the second reading of the Reform Bill as he had done before, that he had reason to believe that many others would adopt the same course, and if Ministers showed a moderate and conciliating disposition in the House of Commons, he was persuaded they would have no difficulty in carrying the second reading in the House of Lords.

He then implored the King well to consider the consequences of such a _coup d'etat_ as this creation of Peers would be; to look at what had happened in France, and to bear in mind that if this was done for one purpose, and by one Government, the necessity would infallibly arise of repeating it again by others, or for other objects. He was with the King an hour dilating upon this theme. The King was extremely kind, heard him with great patience, and paid him many compliments, and when he took leave told him that he was extremely glad to have had this conversation with him. Sir Herbert Taylor gave Lord Wharncliffe to understand that he had made an impression, only impressions on the mind of the King are impressions on sand. However, from Taylor's cautious hints to him to persevere, it is likely that he did do good. He is himself persuaded that his audience princ.i.p.ally produced the delay in the creation of Peers.

In the meantime he was not idle at Brighton. Lord Ailesbury, who saw the King, consulted Wharncliffe, and agreed at last to tell the King that his sentiments were the same as those which Lord Wharncliffe had expressed to him, and Lord Kinnoull and Lord Gage have promised him their proxies.

[Page Head: THE WAVERERS AND WELLINGTON.]

Yesterday morning he came to me again, very desponding. He had found Harrowby in a state of despair, uncertain what he should do, and looking upon the game as lost, and he had been with the Duke of Wellington, who was impracticably obstinate, declaring that nothing should prevent his opposing a Bill which he believed in his conscience to be pregnant with certain ruin to the country; that he did not care to be a great man (he meant by this expression a man of great wealth and station), and that he could contentedly sink into any station that circ.u.mstances might let him down to, but he never would consent to be a party directly or indirectly to such a measure as this, and, feeling as he did, he was resolved to do his utmost to throw it out, without regard to consequences. Wharncliffe said he was quite in despair, for that he knew the Duke's great influence, and that if he and Harrowby endeavoured to form a party against his views, they had no chance of making one sufficiently strong to cope with him. He spoke with great and rather unusual modesty of himself, and of his inadequacy for this purpose; that Harrowby might do more, and would have greater influence, but that he was so undecided and so without heart and spirit that he would not bestir himself.

However, he acknowledged that nothing else was left to be done.

In the evening went to Lady Harrowby's, where I found him and Lord Haddington. We stayed there till near two, after which Wharncliffe and I walked up and down Berkeley Square. He was in much better spirits, having had a long conversation with these two Lords, both of whom he said were now resolved to sail along with him, and he contemplates a regular and declared separation from the Duke _upon this question_. In the morning he had seen Lyndhurst, who appeared very undecided, and (Wharncliffe was apprehensive) rather leaning towards the Duke, but I endeavoured to persuade him that Lyndhurst was quite sure to adopt upon consideration the line which appeared most conducive to his own interest and importance, that he had always a hankering after being well with Lord Grey and the Whigs, and I well remembered when the late Government was broken up he had expressed himself in very unmeasured terms about the Duke's blunders, and the impossibility of his ever again being Prime Minister; that with him consistency, character, and high feelings of honour and patriotism were secondary considerations; that he relied upon his great talents and his capacity to render himself necessary to an Administration; that it was not probable he would like to throw himself (even to please the Duke) into an opposition to the earnest desire which the great ma.s.s of the community felt to have the question settled; and that both for him and themselves much of the difficulty of separating themselves from the Duke might be avoided by the manner in which it was done. I entreated him to use towards the Duke every sort of frankness and candour, and to express regret at the necessity of taking a different line, together with an acknowledgment of the purity of the Duke's motives; and if this is done, and if other people are made to understand that they can separate from the Duke _on this occasion_ without offending or quarrelling with him, or throwing off the allegiance to him as their political leader, many will be inclined to do so; besides, it is of vital importance, if they do get the Bill into Committee, to secure the concurrence of the Duke and his adherents in dealing with the details of it, which can only be effected by keeping him in good humour. On the whole the thing looks as well as such a thing can look.

CHAPTER XVII.

Measures for carrying the Second Reading of the Reform Bill in the House of Lords--The Party of the Waverers--The Russo-Dutch Loan--Resistance of the Tory Peers--Lord Melbourne's Views on the Government--Macaulay at Holland House--Reluctance of the Government to create Peers--Duke of Wellington intractable-- Peel's Despondency--Lord Grey on the Measures of Conciliation-- Lord Wharncliffe sees the King--Prospects of the Waverers-- Conversations with Lord Melbourne and Lord Palmerston--Duke of Richmond on the Creation of Peers--Interview of Lord Grey with the Waverers--Minute drawn up--Bethnal Green--The Archbishop of Canterbury vacillates--Violence of Extreme Parties--Princess Lieven's Journal--Lord Holland for making Peers--Irish National Education--Seizure of Ancona--Reform Bill pa.s.ses the House of Commons--Lord Dudley's Madness--Debate in the Lords.

January 24th, 1832 {p.237}

Yesterday morning Frederick Lamb came to me and told me that the question of the Peers was again in agitation, that the King had agreed to make as many as they pleased, and had understood Wharncliffe's conversation with his Majesty not to have contained any distinct a.s.surance that he would vote for the second reading of the Bill. Our party in the Cabinet still fight the battle, however, and Stanley (on whom all depends) is said to be firm, but circ.u.mstances may compel them to give way, and Lord Grey (who is suspected to have in his heart many misgivings as to this measure), when left to Durham and Co., yields everything. Under these circ.u.mstances I went to Wharncliffe last night, to persuade him to declare his intentions without loss of time. He owned that he had not _pledged_ himself to the King, and he was frightened to death at the idea of taking this step, lest it should give umbrage to the Tories, and he should find himself without any support at all. We went, however, together to Grosvenor Square, and had a long conference with Harrowby, whom I found equally undecided.

[Page Head: PLANS OF CONCILIATION.]

In the meantime the Tories are full of activity and expectation, and Lord Aberdeen is going to bring on a motion about Belgium on Thursday, on which they expect to beat the Government, not comprehending that a greater evil could not occur, or a better excuse be afforded them for an immediate creation; still they have got it into their heads that if they can beat the Government _before_ the Reform Bill comes on they will force them to resign.

I found Harrowby and Wharncliffe equally undecided as to the course they should adopt, the former clinging to the hope that the Peerage question was at last suspended, that Lord Grey was compunctious, the King reluctant, and so forth--Wharncliffe afraid of being abandoned by those who are now disposed to consult and act with him, and indisposed to commit himself irretrievably in the House of Lords. After a long discussion I succeeded in persuading them that the danger is imminent, that there is no other chance of avoiding it, and they agreed to hoist their standard, get what followers they can, and declare in the House for the second reading without loss of time. Harrowby said of himself that he was the worst person in the world to conciliate and be civil, which is true enough, but he has a high reputation, and his opinion is of immense value. Until they declare themselves not a step will be made, and if they cannot gain adherents, why the matter is at an end; while if their example be followed, there is still a chance of averting the climax of all evils, the swamping the House of Lords and the permanent establishment of the power of the present Government. Wharncliffe is to go to the Duke of Wellington to-day, to entreat him not to let his party divide on Aberdeen's motion on Thursday, and Harrowby will go to the Archbishop to invite his adhesion to their party. I am very doubtful what success to augur from this, but it is the only chance, and though the bulk of the Tory Peers are prejudiced, obstinate, and stupid to the last degree, there are scattered amongst them men of more rational views and more moderate dispositions. Sandon came in while we were there, and expressed precisely the same opinion that I had been endeavouring to enforce upon them. He said that in the House of Commons, whence he was just come, the Government had refused to give way upon a very reasonable objection, without a.s.signing any reason (the numbers in Schedule B), that this evinced an unconciliatory spirit, which was very distressing to those who wished for a compromise, that Hobhouse came to him after the debate, and said how anxious he was they should come to some understanding, and act in a greater spirit of conciliation, and talked of a meeting of the moderate on either side, that his const.i.tuents were eager for a settlement, and by no means averse to concession, but that while Peel, Croker, and others persisted in the tone they had adopted, and in the sort of opposition they were pursuing, it was quite impossible for the Government to give way upon anything, or evince any disposition to make concessions. Sandon said he had no doubt whatever that if Peel had a.s.sumed a different tone at the beginning of the session the Government would have been more moderate, and mutual concessions might have been feasible even in the House of Commons.

Hobhouse, however, said that the alterations, whatever they might be (and he owned that he should like some), would come with a better grace in the House of Lords, and this is what I have all along thought. O'Connell arrived yesterday, took his seat, and announced his intention of supporting Government at any rate. All the Irish members do the same, and this great body, that everyone expected would display hostility to the Bill, have formed themselves into a phalanx, and will carry it through any difficulties by their compactness and the regularity of their attendance.

January 25th, 1832 {p.239}

We met at Lord Harrowby's last night--Wharncliffe, Harrowby, Haddington, and Sandon--and I found their minds were quite made up. Wharncliffe is to present a pet.i.tion from Hull, and to take that opportunity of making his declaration, and the other two are to support him. Wharncliffe saw the Bishop of London in the morning, who is decided the same way, and he asked Lord Devon, who knows the House of Lords very well, if he thought, in the event of their raising the standard of moderate Reform, that they would have adherents, to which he replied he was convinced they would. Lord Harrowby saw the Archbishop, who would not pledge himself, but appeared well disposed; and altogether they think they can count upon nine bishops. Wharncliffe spoke to the Duke of Wellington about Lord Aberdeen's motion, and represented all the impolicy of it at this moment, and the connection it might have with the Peerage question; to which he only replied by enlarging on 'the importance of the Belgic question,' either unable or unwilling to embrace this measure in its complex relations, and never perceiving that the country cares not a straw about Belgium or anything but Reform, though they may begin to care about such things when this question is settled.

Haddington also went to Aberdeen, who would hear nothing; but he and the Duke severally promised to speak to one another. The question last night was whether Wharncliffe should say his say directly, or wait (as he wishes to do) for a few days. The decision of this he referred to me, and I have referred it to Melbourne, to whom I have communicated what has pa.s.sed.

News came yesterday that the cholera had got within three miles of Edinburgh, and to show the fallacy of any theory about it, and the inutility of the prescribed precautions, at one place (Newport, I think) one person in five of the whole population was attacked, though there was no lack of diet, warmth, and clothing for the poor. This disease escapes from all speculation, so partial and eccentric is its character.

January 29th, 1832 {p.240}

[Page Head: DISCREDIT OF MINISTERS.]

There were two divisions on Thursday night last--in the House of Lords on the Belgian question, and in the House of Commons on the Russian Loan. Harrowby, Wharncliffe, and Haddington stayed away; Lyndhurst voted. Only two bishops, Durham and Killaloe. Ministers had a majority of thirty-seven, for Aberdeen and the Duke persisted in bringing on the question and dividing upon it. The former spoke nearly three hours, and far better than ever he had done before; the Duke was prosy. In the other House the Government had not a shadow of a case; their law officers, Home and Denman, displayed an ignorance and stupidity which were quite ludicrous, and nothing saved them from defeat but a good speech at the end from Palmerston, and their remonstrances to their friends that unless they carried it they must resign. Not a soul defends them, and they are particularly blamed for their folly in not coming to Parliament at once, by which they might have avoided the sc.r.a.pe.[1] They had only a majority of twenty-four.

They were equally disgusted with both these divisions, both plainly showing that they have little power (independently of the Reform question) in either House. To be sure the case in the House of Commons was a wretched one, but in the House of Lords there was nothing to justify a vote of censure on Government, to which Aberdeen's motion was tantamount. But while they had a majority which was respectable enough to make it impossible to propose making Peers on _that account_, it was so small that they see clearly what they have to expect hereafter from such a House of Lords, and accordingly their adherents have thrown off the mask. Sefton called on me the day after, and said it was ridiculous to go on in this way, that the Tories had had possession of the Government so many years, and the power of making so many Peers, that no Whig or other Ministry could stand without a fresh creation to redress the balance.

[1] [For a more particular account of the question of the Russo-Dutch Loan, see _infra_ [February 4, 1832], p.

244. It has since been universally admitted that the conduct of the Government was wise and honourable, and that the separation of Holland and Belgium did not exonerate Great Britain from a financial engagement to foreign Powers.]

After having, as I supposed, settled everything with Wharncliffe about his declaration, I got a letter from him yesterday (from Brighton), saying he thought it would be premature, and wished to put it off till the first reading of the Bill in the House of Lords. I took his letter to Melbourne, and told him I was all against the delay. He said it was no doubt desirable they should get as many adherents as they can, and if the delay would enable them to do so it might be better, but they must not imagine Government was satisfied with the division in the House of Lords.

However, the question of Peers seems not to be under discussion at this moment, though it is perpetually revived. In the evening I went to Harrowby's and showed him Wharncliffe's letter. He concurred in the expediency of delay, but without convincing me.

He showed me a letter, and a very good one, he has written to Lord Talbot, explaining his views, and inviting his concurrence, and of this he has sent copies to other Peers, whom he thinks it possible he may influence. The question of time and manner is to be reserved for future discussion.

February 2nd, 1832 {p.242}

[Page Head: SIR HENRY PARNELL.]

Met Frederick Lamb at dinner to talk over the state of affairs before he goes to Vienna. What he wishes for is the expulsion of this Government, and the formation of a moderate one taken from all parties. Received another letter from Wharncliffe yesterday, in which he stated that he had communicated to the Duke of Wellington his intention of supporting the second reading, and asked if the Duke would support his amendments in Committee. In the meantime I wrote to Harrowby, begging he would communicate with Lord Carnarvon and the Duke of Buckingham. They keep doubting and fearing about who will or will not join them, but do not stir a step. George Bentinck told me that Lord Holland said to the Duke of Richmond the other day 'that he had heard a declaration was in agitation; that nothing could be more unfortunate at this moment, as it would make it very difficult to create fifty Peers.' In the meantime a difficulty is likely to arise from another source, and the Government to derive strength from their very weakness. Robert Clive (who is a moderate Tory) called on me the other day, and when (after expressing his anxiety that the question should be settled) I asked him whether such a declaration would meet with much success, said he thought that it would have done so a fortnight ago, but that the extreme discredit into which Ministers were fallen would now operate as a reason against supporting them in any stage of the business, and offered so good a chance of expelling them altogether that people would be anxious to try it. Still it must be so obvious that it would be next to impossible to make a Government now, that it is to be hoped all but the most violent will feel it. Herries indeed told somebody that he had no doubt the Tories could make a Government, and that on a dissolution they would get a Parliament that would support them. Parnell[2] has been turned out for not voting on the Russian Loan affair, and Hobhouse appointed in his place. Tennyson resigned from ill health. Parnell was properly enough turned out, and he is a good riddance, but it is not the same thing as turning people out on Reform. He wrote an excellent book on finance, but he was a very bad Secretary at War, a rash economical innovator, and a bad man of business in its details.

After waiting till the last moment for the arrival of the Russian ratification, the French and English signed the Belgian treaty alone, and the others are to sign after as their powers arrive.

[2] [Sir Henry Parnell had been appointed Secretary at War on the formation of Lord Grey's Ministry. He had exasperated his colleagues by entering upon an unauthorised negotiation with the French Post Office, without the knowledge of the Duke of Richmond, then Postmaster-General, and by encouraging Joseph Hume to bring on a motion against the Post Office. Hume brought this letter to the Duke of Richmond, who was indignant and laid the whole matter before Lord Grey, who behaved very well about it. Parnell narrowly escaped dismissal at that time, and on his next sign of disaffection to the Government he was turned out of office.]

February 4th, 1832 {p.243}

Called on Lord Harrowby in the morning; found him in very bad spirits, as well he might, for to all the invitations he had written to Peers he had received either refusals or no reply, so that he augurs ill of their attempt. Carnarvon and Talbot refused; these besotted, predestinated Tories _will_ follow the Duke; the Duke _will_ oppose all Reform because he said he would. Those who are inclined will not avow their conversion to moderate principles, and so they will go on, waiting and staring at one another, till one fine day the Peers will come out in the 'Gazette.' The thing looks ill. Dined with Lord Holland.

Melbourne, who was there, asked me if I had heard from Wharncliffe, but I did not tell him of Lord Harrowby's refusals.

Falck dined there, and in conversation about the Russian Loan he told us the original history of it. The Emperor of Russia had borrowed ninety millions of florins, and when his concurrence and support were desired to the new kingdom of the Netherlands he proposed in return that the King of Holland should take this debt off his hands. The King said he would gladly meet his wishes, but could not begin by making himself unpopular with his new subjects and saddling them with this debt. Whereupon England interposed, and an arrangement was made [in 1815] by which Russia, England, and the King of the Netherlands divided the debt into three equal shares, each taking one. With reference to the argument that the countries being divided we ought no longer to pay our share, Falck said the King of the Netherlands had not refused to pay on those grounds, that he had only (with reference to his heavy expenses) expressed his present inability and asked for time, which the Emperor of Russia had agreed to. What he meant was that the kingdoms were not as yet _de jure_ separated, and that the _casus_ had not yet arrived. This, however, is nothing to the purpose, for the King and the Emperor understand one another very well, and it is not likely that the King should do anything to supply us with a motive or a pretext for refusing our _quota_ to his imperial ally. Brougham's speech on the Russian Loan everybody agrees to have been super-excellent--'a continued syllogism from the beginning to the end.' Lord Holland said, and the Duke of Wellington (I am told) declared, it was the best speech he had ever heard.

February 5th, 1832 {p.245}

Met Melbourne yesterday evening, and turned back and walked with him; talked over the state of affairs. He said Government were very much annoyed at their division in the House of Commons, though Brougham had in some measure repaired that disaster in the House of Lords; that it became more difficult to resist making Peers as Government exhibited greater weakness. I told him the Tories were so unmanageable because they wished to drive out the Government, and thought they could. Dined at the Sheriff's dinner--not unpleasant--and went in the evening to Lady Harrowby; Lord Harrowby gone to his brothers'. Melbourne had told me that he had spoken to Haddington, and I found Haddington had given a report of what he said such as I am sure Melbourne did not mean to convey; the upshot of which was that there was only one man in the Cabinet who wished to make Peers, that there was no immediate danger, and that it would do more harm than good if they declared themselves without a good number of adherents. Called this morning on Lady C., who said that Melbourne was in fact very much annoyed at his position, wanted _caractere_, was wretched at having been led so far, and tossed backwards and forwards between opposite sentiments and feelings; that he thought the Government very weak, and that they would not stand, and in fact that he did not desire they should remain in, but the contrary. And this is Frederick's opinion too, who has great influence over him, while at the same time he is rather jealous of Frederick.

February 6th, 1832 {p.245}

[Page Head: MACAULAY AT HOLLAND HOUSE.]

Dined yesterday with Lord Holland; came very late, and found a vacant place between Sir George Robinson and a common-looking man in black. As soon as I had time to look at my neighbour, I began to speculate (as one usually does) as to who he might be, and as he did not for some time open his lips except to eat, I settled that he was some obscure man of letters or of medicine, perhaps a cholera doctor. In a short time the conversation turned upon early and late education, and Lord Holland said he had always remarked that self-educated men were peculiarly conceited and arrogant, and apt to look down upon the generality of mankind, from their being ignorant of how much other people knew; not having been at public schools, they are uninformed of the course of general education.

My neighbour observed that he thought the most remarkable example of self-education was that of Alfieri, who had reached the age of thirty without having acquired any accomplishment save that of driving, and who was so ignorant of his own language that he had to learn it like a child, beginning with elementary books. Lord Holland quoted Julius Caesar and Scaliger as examples of late education, said that the latter had been wounded, and that he had been married and commenced learning Greek the same day, when my neighbour remarked 'that he supposed his learning Greek was not an instantaneous act like his marriage.' This remark, and the manner of it, gave me the notion that he was a dull fellow, for it came out in a way which bordered on the ridiculous, so as to excite something like a sneer. I was a little surprised to hear him continue the thread of conversation (from Scaliger's wound) and talk of Loyola having been wounded at Pampeluna. I wondered how he happened to know anything about Loyola's wound. Having thus settled my opinion, I went on eating my dinner, when Auckland, who was sitting opposite to me, addressed my neighbour, 'Mr. Macaulay, will you drink a gla.s.s of wine?' I thought I should have dropped off my chair. It was MACAULAY, the man I had been so long most curious to see and to hear, whose genius, eloquence, astonishing knowledge, and diversified talents have excited my wonder and admiration for such a length of time, and here I had been sitting next to him, hearing him talk, and setting him down for a dull fellow. I felt as if he could have read my thoughts, and the perspiration burst from every pore of my face, and yet it was impossible not to be amused at the idea. It was not till Macaulay stood up that I was aware of all the vulgarity and ungainliness of his appearance; not a ray of intellect beams from his countenance; a lump of more ordinary clay never enclosed a powerful mind and lively imagination. He had a cold and sore throat, the latter of which occasioned a constant contraction of the muscles of the thorax, making him appear as if in momentary danger of a fit. His manner struck me as not pleasing, but it was not a.s.suming, unembarra.s.sed, yet not easy, unpolished, yet not coa.r.s.e; there was no kind of usurpation of the conversation, no tenacity as to opinion or facts, no a.s.sumption of superiority, but the variety and extent of his information were soon apparent, for whatever subject was touched upon he evinced the utmost familiarity with it; quotation, ill.u.s.tration, anecdote, seemed ready in his hands for every topic. Primogeniture in this country, in others, and particularly in ancient Rome, was the princ.i.p.al topic, I think, but Macaulay was not certain what was the law of Rome, except that when a man died intestate his estate was divided between his children. After dinner Talleyrand, and Madame de Dino came in. He was introduced to Talleyrand, who told him that he meant to go to the House of Commons on Tuesday, and that he hoped he would speak, 'qu'il avait entendu tous les grands orateurs, et il desirait a present entendre Monsieur Macaulay.'

February 7th, 1832 {p.247}

[Page Head: RELUCTANCE TO MAKE PEERS.]

Called on Melbourne. He said he had not meant Haddington to understand that it was desirable the declaration should be delayed; on the contrary, that it was desirable Ministers should be informed as speedily as possible of the intentions of our friends and of the force they can command, but that if only a few declared themselves, they would certainly be liable to the suspicion that they could not get adherents; he added that every man in the Government (except one) was aware of the desperate nature of the step they were about to take (that man of course being Durham.) I told him that his communication to Haddington had to a certain degree had the effect of paralysing my exertions, and he owned it was imprudent. I was, however, extremely surprised to hear what he said about the Cabinet, and I asked him if it really was so, and that all the members of it were _bona fide_ alarmed at, and averse to, the measure; that I had always believed that, with the exception of those who were intimate with him, they all wanted the pretext in order to establish their power. He said no, they really all were conscious of the violence of the measure, and desirous of avoiding it; that Lord Grey had been so from the beginning, but that Durham was always at him, and made him fall into his violent designs; that it was 'a reign of terror,' but that Durham could do with him what he pleased. What a picture of secret degradation and imbecility in the towering and apparently haughty Lord Grey! I told Melbourne that it was important to gain time, that there was an appearance of a thaw among the 199, but that most of them were in the country; communications by letter were difficult and unsatisfactory; that many were averse to breaking up the party or leaving the Duke--in short, from one cause or another doubtful and wavering; that it was not to be expected they should at a moment's warning take this new line, in opposition to the opinions and conduct of their old leaders, and that when Lord Harrowby was exerting himself indefatigably to bring them to reason, and to render a measure unnecessary which in the opinion of the Cabinet itself was fraught with evil, it was fair and just to give him time to operate. He said this was very true, but that time was likewise required to execute the measure of a creation of Peers, that people must be invited, the patents made out, &c.

We then parted. Downstairs was Rothschild the Jew waiting for him, and the _valet de chambre_ sweeping away a _bonnet_ and a _shawl_.