There is a mighty stir about the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the Regius Professorship of Divinity at Oxford, on the ground of his having put forth doctrines or arguments of a Socinian tendency.

The two Archbishops went to Melbourne with a remonstrance, but he told them the appointment was completed, and that he had not been aware of any objections to Dr. Hampden, and had taken pains to ascertain his fitness for the office. It will give the Churchmen a handle for accusing Melbourne of a design to sap the foundations of the Church and poison the fountain of orthodoxy; but he certainly has no such view.

February 23rd, 1836 {p.341}

Had some conversation with Lord Wharncliffe the other day, who has always been a great alarmist. I asked him if he was so still.

He said yes; that he was convinced the House of Lords and the House of Commons could not go on, that the Lords would not pa.s.s their Bills; a ferment would be produced, which would finish by an open dissension. 'What, then, would be the result?' I asked.

'Why, the Lords would be beaten.' He then complained bitterly of the Government, and of their conduct and language, and said he was convinced Lord John Russell had originally introduced that clause for the purpose of effecting a permanent quarrel between the two Houses. I told him I was satisfied there was no danger if their party would act a prudent, temperate, and honourable part; if they would not aim at office, but be satisfied to exert the strength they possessed not for party, but for Conservative purposes; and on this I dilated, showing what they ought to do.

He said that the Tories never would be contented so to act.

'Then,' I said, 'I certainly won't pretend to answer for the consequences, but I am sure you have a good game enough in your hands, if you choose to play it; if you will throw it away, that is another thing.' He told me one thing of Melbourne rather droll. Wharncliffe gave notice of a motion (which comes on to-night) about Lord John Russell's appointment of magistrates under the new Act, which he declares to have been very partially and improperly done. After speaking to Melbourne about it, Melbourne came over to him (Wharncliffe) and said, 'Now tell me, have we been very bad in our appointments?'

[Page Head: DR. HAMPDEN'S APPOINTMENT.]

Last night I sat next to Poulett Thomson at dinner, who told me a great deal about Dr. Hampden's appointment,[9] which makes such an uproar among the Tories and High Churchmen. He declares that Melbourne consulted various authorities, and the Archbishop of Canterbury among the rest, who made no objection to the appointment; that when the Oxford remonstrance was sent up the Archbishop wrote a very Jesuitical letter, in which he endeavoured to reconcile his former approbation of the appointment with his present concurrence in the remonstrance. Melbourne sent for him, and asked whether he had any charge to make against Hampden; he replied that he had none; when Melbourne said that he could not, then, cancel the appointment, which had been already notified to him. [This account of Poulett Thomson's was, however, untrue.

William Cowper, Melbourne's private secretary and nephew, gave me another, which I doubt not is more correct, and puts the matter in a very different point of view. Melbourne sent to the Archbishop and desired him to give him a list of six names, which he accordingly did; but Melbourne would not take any of them, and without consulting the Archbishop about Hampden, appointed him. He did consult Coplestone and some others, but not the Archbishop. I believe the cry against Hampden to be a senseless cry, and that it is raised by mere bigotry and spite, but I think Melbourne behaved neither prudently nor properly. When he desired the Archbishop to give him a list of six, the latter must certainly have conceived that he would select one out of the number, and would not have divined that he would pa.s.s them all over and appoint another man without consulting him at all.--February 28th.] I have read the pamphlet written against Hampden, and though some of his expressions are perhaps imprudent as giving occasion to malicious cavil, it contains no grave matter, and nothing to support an accusation of heterodoxy. If he had been a Tory instead of a Liberal in politics, we should probably have heard nothing of the matter.

[9] [This was the appointment of Dr. Hampden to be Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. He was raised to the See of Hereford in 1848.]

I was surprised to hear Poulett Thomson talk in great indignation of Lord William Bentinck's address to Glasgow, which he characterised as very disgraceful, and a.s.serted that such miserable truckling to the will of his const.i.tuents would not avail him anything, but rather diminish their respect for him--very good sentiments. The Government are very angry at what took place about the Orange Lodge resolutions. Mr. Jervis moves an address to the Crown to-night, and Perceval proposed to Lord John Russell to draw up some resolution condemning these a.s.sociations, which he said they would agree to if not violent and offensive, and that it was very desirable the sentiments of the House of Commons should be expressed unanimously, or by a very large majority, because in that case the Orangemen would see the necessity of yielding obedience to them, and would do so. Accordingly John Russell sent him the copy of a resolution (on Sat.u.r.day) which he proposed to bring forward, but which he said he had not yet submitted to the Cabinet. This was communicated to Peel and Stanley as well, and all parties agreed to it; but John Russell was much surprised and disgusted when this resolution (which was communicated quite privately to Perceval, and which he told him his colleagues had not been as yet consulted about) appeared yesterday morning in the 'Times.'

February 25th, 1836 {p.344}

[Page Head: LORD RUSSELL AND THE ORANGEMEN.]

Lord John Russell immortalised himself on Tuesday night. After a speech from Hume of three hours, in which he produced a variety of the most inconceivable letters from Kenyon, Wynford, Londonderry, and other Orangemen, but made the most miserable hash of his whole case, and instead of working up his ample materials with dexterity and effect stupidly blundering and wasting them all--after this speech John Russell rose, and in a speech far surpa.s.sing his usual form, dignified, temperate, and judicious, moved a resolution of a moderate and inoffensive character. The speech actually drew tears from the Orangemen, enthusiastic approbation from Stanley, a colder approval from Peel, and the universal a.s.sent of the House.

It was a night of harmony; the Orangemen behaved very well, and declared that after this speech they would abandon their a.s.sociation; they only objected to the Orange Lodges being mentioned by name, and urged that the resolution should be only general in expression; and in this Stanley and Peel supported them; Lord John declined, and properly; the others would have done better to advise the Orangemen not to cavil at this, but to swallow the whole pill handsomely, and not mar the effect of their really meritorious conduct by making any trivial difficulties.

Peel's and Stanley's speeches were characteristic; the latter with a generous enthusiasm of praise and congratulation to his old friend, which evinced feeling and was sincere; Peel colder in his expressions, and showing a great interest in the Orangemen, for the purpose evidently of conciliating them towards himself, and even incurring some risk of disturbing the general harmony by his warmth and sympathy towards them; but I have no doubt that he is as glad as any man at the dissolution of the confederacy, which now appears likely really to take place, for though they will probably not actually dissolve themselves, when the chiefs abandon the lodges their existence will be but a lingering one, and must come to an end or cease to be dangerous. In accomplishing this by moderate and healing counsels, by a conciliatory tone and manner, Lord John Russell deserves the name of a statesman. His speech is worth a thousand flowery harangues which have elicited the shouts of audiences or the admiration of readers, and he has probably conferred a great and permanent benefit upon the country. I do not mean that peace will be by these means restored to Ireland, or rather be bestowed on her, for when was she ever at peace? but until this object was accomplished, till the way was cleared, peace was unattainable. O'Connell behaved wisely; he made a short speech, and fell in cordially with the general feeling of the House. This has strengthened the Government in reality, as it ought. So Lord Stanley said, and it is true.

CHAPTER x.x.xI.

Moore and O'Connell--Defeat of the Opposition--The Carlow Election--Lord Alvanley's Speech to the Tory Peers--Norton _v._ Lord Melbourne--Catastrophe after Epsom--Mendizabal and Queen Christina--Lord John Russell's Moderation in the Ecclesiastical Commission--Theatricals at Bridgewater House--Irish Church-- Ministerial Difficulties--Deplorable State of Spain--What was thought of Lord Palmerston in 1836--Weakness of Government-- Lord Lyndhurst's Summary of the Session--Balance of Parties-- Lady Augusta Kennedy's Marriage--King's Speech to Princess Victoria--Revolution of La Granja--Rudeness of the King to Ministers--Irritation of the King at the d.u.c.h.ess of Kent--Scene at Windsor on the King's Birthday--Prince Esterhazy's View of the Affairs of Europe--Emperor Nicholas at Vienna--A Crisis in Trade--State of the Court at Vienna--Duc de Reichstadt.

March 8th, 1836 {p.346}

It is impossible to conceive anything like the stagnation in the political world--the Government secure in their seats, the Opposition aware of the helplessness of their efforts. I met Moore[1] at dinner a day or two ago, not having seen him for a long time. He told us some amusing anecdotes of his own reception in Ireland, which was very enthusiastic, in spite of his having quarrelled with O'Connell. Of this quarrel he likewise narrated the beginning and the end. He was indignant at O'Connell's _manner_ of prosecuting his political objects, and resolved to put his feelings on record. This he did, and he afterwards wrote some letters to a mutual friend explanatory of his sentiments and motives, and these were shown (intentionally) to O'Connell. Moore declined to retract or qualify, and a rupture consequently took place. When they met at Brookes' O'Connell averted his face. So things remained till a short time ago, when the editor of a new quarterly review, which has been established for Catholic and Irish objects, wrote to Moore for his support, and O'Connell, whom he told of it, said, 'Oh, pray let me frank the letter to Mr. Moore.' This was repeated, and when Moore met O'Connell the other day at Brookes', he went up to him and put out his hand. He said O'Connell was mightily moved, but accepted the proffered reconciliation, and they are again on good terms.

[1] [Thomas Moore, the poet.]

March 10th, 1836 {p.347}

[Page Head: OPPOSITION DEFEATED.]

Majority of 64 for Government on Tuesday night; unexpected by the public, but not, I take it, by the Whig managers, who make their people attend. It is an irrecoverable blow to the other side, and shows that the contest is hopeless there. O'Connell and Stanley made good speeches. It is remarkable that the Tory numbers are precisely what they were last year (243). At the levee yesterday they were all very gay at this victory; and Hobhouse said to me, 'What fools they are; they don't know their own interest; they are beaten in the House of Commons, their people won't attend, they won't see that they can't resist these questions and that it is for their own interest they should be carried; why, when the appropriation clauses and these Bills are carried there will remain no difference between Peel and us. As for me, I care not who is in, or whether I am in or out of office; I care for peace and quietness, and that the country should go on. The Tories have rung the changes on this O'Connell cry till they can do no more, and it has failed them entirely; they have had every chance, and must now give it up;' and a good deal more he said, till we were interrupted. I agree about the O'Connell cry; the subject is worn threadbare, it has been argued and ranted upon _usque ad nauseam_, and in spite of the mistakes O'Connell has made, the anti-Popery prejudices which prevail, and the blots upon his personal character, I doubt if he is as much hated in England as the Tories would have him. They have overdone their attacks on him, and as it has unluckily been their sole _cheval de bataille_, they have ridden it till it has not a leg to stand upon.

March 12th, 1836 {p.347}

Fell in with Lyndhurst in the street yesterday returning from Philips', where he had been sitting for his portrait. 'Well,' he said, in his laughing, off-hand way, 'we are done, entirely done.' 'What do you mean to do?' 'Oh, we shall pa.s.s Peel's Bill, and they will be very glad of it; it will give the Government all the power which O'Connell would otherwise obtain, and they don't want to see his power increase, and will prefer the augmentation of their own.'

March 13th, 1836 {p.348}

It was only yesterday that I read the report of the Committee and O'Connell's complete acquittal.[2] It is very singular that he does not seem to have known his own case, or he might have reb.u.t.ted the accusations in the first instance; but it has turned out lucky for him, as it has afforded him a great triumph and his adversaries an equally great mortification. It is now time for the Tories to give up attacking him--that is, making him their grand political b.u.t.t. They do not lower him; on the contrary, they raise his importance everywhere, and make his sway in Ireland more absolute. They are abominably sulky at this result of the Committee, which, however, was fairly const.i.tuted and unanimous in its decision. I must say I never expected they would make out much of a case. Yesterday I dined with Ben Stanley in Downing Street, and met Lytton Bulwer and Fonblanque, the latter a very agreeable man.

[2] [The proceedings of the Committee on the Carlow election are here referred to. A Mr. Raphael had been returned for Carlow, chiefly by the influence of O'Connell. He was unseated on pet.i.tion, and it was supposed that the evidence taken by the Committee would incriminate O'Connell, but the reverse was the case.

O'Connell was wholly acquitted of any illegal or improper practices.]

May 2nd, 1836 {p.348}

[Page Head: LORD ALVANLEY'S PLAN FOR IRELAND.]

Many weeks without a single line. I have been at Newmarket, and have known nothing of any sort or kind. All seems quieter in the political world than for a long time past. There was a meeting of Peers at Apsley House a week or ten days ago, to consider the course they should adopt about the Corporation Bill. After the discussion Alvanley rose and asked the Duke if there would be any more meetings. He said he was not aware that there would be, when Alvanley said that he was of opinion that the majority of the House of Lords, while dealing with the Government measures, were bound to give notice to the country of the measures of relief that they were themselves prepared to offer to Ireland, that in his opinion the only real relief that could be given was some system of poor law, and the payment of the Catholic clergy, bringing that body under the control of the Government, and making it penal to draw contributions from their flocks, and that he trusted their Lordships would be prepared to go so far. He describes the effect of this suggestion to have been most ludicrous. The Duke of Newcastle, who sat by him, was ready to bounce off his chair; all sorts of indistinct noises, hems, grunts, and coughs of every variety of modulation and expressive intonation were heard, but no answer and no remark. He told me that he had intended on Tuesday last to repeat the same thing in the House of Lords, and asked me to go down and hear him, but they would not allow him. The Duke said it was out of the question, and overruled him. I am very sorry he did not, for these are the true remedies, and I wish to see them put forth, and a beginning made of bringing such principles into action; but the Duke is not the man to let others have the credit of such measures. I expect to see the day when he will bring them forward himself; it is a pig not yet fit for killing, and he will not let anybody stick it but himself.

May 11th, 1836 {p.349}

Great talk about the adjournment of Parliament on the 20th, and about Melbourne's affair with Mrs. Norton, which latter, if it is not quashed, will be inconvenient. John Bull fancies himself vastly moral, and the Court is mighty prudish, and between them our off-hand Premier will find himself in a ticklish position. He has been served with notices, but people rather doubt the action coming on. I asked the Duke of Wellington a night or two ago what he had heard of it, and what he thought would be the result. He said he had only heard what everybody said, and that nothing would result. I said, 'Would Melbourne resign?' 'O Lord, no! Resign? Not a bit of it. I tell you all these things are a nine-days' wonder; it can't come into court before Parliament is up. People will have done talking of it before that happens; it will all blow over, and won't signify a straw.' So spoke his Grace. I doubt not prime ministers, ex and in, have a fellow-feeling and sympathy for each other, and like to lay down the principle of such things _not mattering_. I hope, however, that it _will_ blow over, for it would really be very inconvenient and very mischievous. The Tories would fall on the individual from political violence, the Radicals on his cla.s.s or order from hatred to the aristocracy. I believe the adjournment is princ.i.p.ally on account of the affairs of Canada, regarding which the Government is in a difficulty that appears inextricable. I have heard a great deal on the subject, enough to show the magnitude of the embarra.s.sment, but not enough to describe the state of things.

May 25th, 1836 {p.350}

The Epsom races being over, which always absorb every other interest, I have leisure to turn my mind to other things. This year there has been a miserable catastrophe. Berkeley Craven deliberately shot himself after losing more than he could pay. It is the first instance of a man of rank and station in society making such an exit. He had originally a large landed estate, strictly entailed, got into difficulties, was obliged to go abroad, compromised with his creditors and returned, fell into fresh difficulties, involved himself inextricably in betting, and went on with a determination to shoot himself if his speculations failed, and so he did. He was very popular, had been extremely handsome in his youth, and was a fellow of infinite pleasantry and good-humour.

Lord Melbourne's affair after all is likely to come before a court of law. He is very much annoyed at it, and so are his relations, but n.o.body expects him to resign. The Low Tories, the herd, exult at this misfortune, and find a motive for petty political gratification in it, but not so the Duke of Wellington or any of them who are above the miserable feelings of party spite. I am sorry for it, because it is a bad thing to see men in high places dragged through the mire.

I have heard a curious fact connected with the dismissal of Mendizabal from his post of Prime Minister. He made an attempt on the person of the Queen, which she resented with the greatest aversion and rage. He afterwards wrote an apology, and then, aware of the blunder of so committing himself, endeavoured to get his letter back, which she refused to part with. The consequence was that she availed herself of the first opportunity to get rid of him.

June 9th, 1836 {p.351}

Dined at St. James's yesterday with the Jockey Club. The King made a speech about himself and the Queen and the turf; he told us 'the Queen was an excellent woman, as we all knew, and that of all the societies which he had to entertain (which in his capacity were many and various) we were the most truly British.'

He was very tired, and withdrew early. Wharncliffe said he was weary and dejected.

June 27th, 1836 {p.351}

[Page Head: RESULT OF LORD MELBOURNE'S TRIAL.]

The town has been full of Melbourne's trial;[3] great exultation at the result on the part of his political adherents, great disappointment on that of the mob of Low Tories, and a creditable satisfaction among the better sort; it was in point of fact a very triumphant acquittal. The wonder is how with such a case Norton's family ventured into court, but (although it is stoutly denied) there can be no doubt that old Wynford was at the bottom of it all, and persuaded Lord Grantley to urge it on for mere political purposes. There is pretty conclusive evidence of this.

Fletcher Norton, who was examined on the trial, is staying in town with a Mr. Lowe, a Nottinghamshire parson, and Denison, who is Norton's neighbour, called on him the other day; Denison talked to Lowe, who told him that Fletcher Norton had shown him the case on which they were going to proceed, and that he had told him he thought it was a very weak one, to which he had replied so did he, but he believed they expected it would produce a very important _political_ effect. The King behaved very civilly about it, and expressed his satisfaction at the result in terms sufficiently flattering to Melbourne.

[3] [The trial of the cause Norton _v._ Lord Melbourne, which ended in a verdict for the defendant.]