A Political Diary, 1828-1830 Part 1

A Political Diary 1828-1830.

by Edward Law (Lord Ellenborough).

DIARY

_April 1, 1829._

The Duke of Wellington wrote to the King to ask if he had any objection to raising the galleries. He had none. So we sent for Sir T. Tyrwhit, and had him at the Cabinet dinner to ask him whether he could fix the galleries by four to-morrow. He said _No_. So we must do as we can.

Forty foreigners applied for seats to-day after four o'clock.

In the House I made the second reading of the Bills an order of the day at the desire of Lord Malmesbury and Lord Grey. It is more formal so, but the second reading might have been equally well moved without it.

Lord Grey said a few words on presenting a pet.i.tion expressing a hope to be convinced on the subject of the Franchise Bill, but laying ground for voting against it. Lord Malmesbury likewise expressed himself against it.

We shall be hard pushed on this Bill. The Duke says we have 122 sure votes and no more upon it.

The Bishop of Chester read prayers, his wife having died about ten days ago. Really some one of the other Bishops might have relieved him.

Lord Shaftesbury, in the absence of the Chancellor, sat as Speaker. I moved the bills _pro forma_ for him.

At the Cabinet dinner at Peel's, Peel said the Bishop of Oxford was ready to speak at any time, and wished to follow a violent bishop. He may easily find one.

We had much talk about our approaching debates. Peel, after the Duke was gone, regretted his having taken the line of expressing his anxiety to relieve himself from the obloquy cast upon him, and his having put that desire forward as his reason for pressing the second reading of the Bill on Thursday. The Duke having said so, we could not back him out. We might avoid taking the same ground, but we could not alter it.

Aberdeen mentioned the case of the Candian blockade. I am sorry to see he does not communicate beforehand now with the Duke. He never looks forward to the ultimate consequences of his measures. Now he talks of convoying English s.h.i.+ps to Candia, and telling them they may go there safely, and if stopped shall be indemnified. But if the English s.h.i.+p finds a Russian off Candia, and is warned off, yet persists, under the expectation of indemnity, we should be obliged to pay the indemnity. The Russians, having given warning, would be justified in taking the vessel.

So if we give convoy, and the convoy s.h.i.+p persists, we should come to blows. All these things should be foreseen. Aberdeen thinks Lieven is ignorant of Heyden's having had any orders. He excuses him as having acted in the spirit of the treaty, to _avoid the effusion_ of blood!

One thing is clear; we cannot permit Russia, as a belligerent, to defeat the objects of the Treaty of London, and yet act with her under that treaty.

_April 2._

Second reading Catholic Relief Bill. The Duke made a very bad speech. The Archbishop of Canterbury drivelled. The Primate of Ireland made a strong speech, his manner admirable. Both these against. The Bishop of Oxford had placed himself at our disposal to be used when wanted. We put him into the debate here, wanting him very much. The first part of his speech was very indifferent, the latter excellent. Lord Lansdowne spoke better than he has done for some time, indeed for two years. The Bishop of London against us; but he made a speech more useful than ten votes, in admirable taste, looking to the measure as one to be certainly accomplished, &c. The Duke of Richmond spoke very shortly, but better than he has ever done, in reply. We adjourned at 1.

229 members in the House. Room for thirty more; the House not oppressively hot; numbers of women. The tone of the debate temperate.

_April 3._

A speech from the Bishop of Durham, full of fallacies and extravagant, but having its effect.

The Chancellor spoke admirably, endeavouring to bring up Eldon, but the old man would not move. He wanted more time to consider his answer, by which he will not improve it.

A speech from G.o.derich, very animated in his way, and very heavy. The House did not cheer him once. He pressed himself upon it with bad taste. He spoke upon all the collateral and unimportant points. He swung his arm about like a boy throwing a stone from a sling.

Lord Mansfield spoke, sleepily and ill-naturedly. I was exhausted, and could not have answered him, had he said anything worth answering.

We adjourned at two till one to-morrow.

_April 4._

House at 1. A long absurd speech from Lord Guildford, which must have given much pain to Lady Ch. Lindsay, who sat under the throne, and who must have been much annoyed at seeing to what her family had fallen. We had then Lord Lilford, who rested too much on his notes, but who has a good manner. He drew his points well, and spoke like a man, not like a boy.

Lord Tenterden was not powerful. Lord Grey spoke better than he has done since 1827. He made a speech too long, and indeed the last half-hour was of no use. He beat the brains out of the Coronation Oath, as an obstacle to Catholic Concession, and read a curious letter of Lord Yestor to Lord Tweddale, dated April, 1689, before William III. took the Coronation Oath, in which Lord Tester mentions that it was understood that the king had in council declared his understanding of the sense of the Coronation Oath-- that it bound him in his executive capacity, not in his legislative. Lord Westmoreland made an odd, entertaining from its manner, and really very good speech. He supported the Bill.

Lord Eldon, who, after an ineffectual attempt on the part of Lord Redesdale to speak, followed Lord Grey, made a very weak, inefficient, powerless speech. He seemed beaten, and in some respects his memory had failed him.

Lord Plunket drew, with great power, a picture of the state of society in Ireland as affected by the laws. The whole of his speech was powerful.

His speech and Lord Grey's were excellent.

After a few sentences from Lord Farnham we divided.

Present for 149 Against 79 ---- Majority 68 Proxies for 70 Against 33 ---- Total Content 217 Not Content 112 ---- Majority 105

This will quiet Windsor. The King was to have received a number of pet.i.tions to be presented by peers to-day. The Primate of Ireland was to have gone, and the Irish Bishops. The latter went. If they had not gone, the King would have made some excuse for not receiving them.

The majority must put an end to all agitation in England, and tranquillise Ireland. Indeed as regards this question Ireland is tranquil. The conduct of the Catholics has been as excellent as that of the Protestants. Hitherto the announcement of the measure has produced effects beyond what was antic.i.p.ated from its adoption.

The Duke of Rutland, who was not expected, and indeed every doubtful vote was with us.

The Protestants are subdued.

Lord Grey's speech, but still more Lord Plunket's, will have a greater effect upon the public mind, than any which have yet been delivered.

Really it seems like a dream! That I should, if I lived, live to see this I did expect; but that I should see it so soon, and that I should happen to be a member of the Government that carried it, I did not expect. I must say with what delight I view the prospect of having Catholics in Parliament. I am sure it will do more for the happiness of Ireland, and for the strength of the Empire, than any measure that could have been adopted.

_April 5. _

Dined with Lady Sandwich and met the Arbuthnots, with whom I had a long talk. She told me the Duke wanted to bring in Lord Chandos, by way of conciliating the Tories. She thought Lord Rosslyn ought to have the Privy Seal, and that, considering their late conduct, the Whigs should be preferred to the Tories, whom we should have at any rate. That it was enough not to punish them by depriving them of their offices.

In all this I agree. I think if the Duke should go to the Tories and turn his back upon the Whigs after what has taken place, he will make Opposition very acrimonious, and our debates very disagreeable.

I told her if the Privy Seal was to be a Tory, I thought the Duke of Richmond the best. He is the most popular man in the House of Lords, and a good debater. The Duke and Lord Bathurst say he is cunning; but as far as I can judge he acts fairly.

_April 6._

House. Second reading Franchise Bill. Opposed by the Duke of Richmond, Lord Malmesbury, Winchelsea, and Clanricarde. Lord Holland spoke in favour of the Bill as connected with the Relief Bill. The Whigs voted with us. Dudley spoke in favour, just to separate himself from the Canningites, for whom Haddington spoke, more reluctant than the Whigs.

Lord Winchelsea was very mad, wished to expel the bishops, to prevent translations, equalise their sees, &c. We had 139 to 19. The minority were--Dukes: c.u.mberland, Gloucester, Brandon, Richmond, Newcastle; Marquises--Salisbury, Clanrickarde; Earls--Winchelsea Malmesbury, O'Neil; Lords--Falmouth, Penrhyn, Boston, Grantley, Glenlyon; Earl Digby, Earl Romney.

The Duke goes to Windsor on Sat.u.r.day to get the King to consent to give the Royal a.s.sent on Thursday, the day before Good Friday. The Duke of c.u.mberland has been mischievous at Windsor. The King fancies he is in the situation of Louis XVI. That he shall run down by Liberalism. The Duke of c.u.mberland swears he will turn us out, let who will be Ministers.