The Greville Memoirs Volume II Part 16

Came to town. Talleyrand, Madame de Dino, and Alava came to Stoke yesterday. Talleyrand had a circle, but the Chancellor talked too much, and they rather spoilt one another. He said one neat thing.

They were talking of Madame d'Abrantes's 'Memoirs,' and of her mother, Madame Pernon. My father said, 'M. de Marboeuf etait _un peu_ l'amant de Madame Pernon, n'est-ce pas?' He said, 'Oui, mais je ne _sais pas dans quelles proportions_.'

September 20th, 1831 {p.195}

[Page Head: STATE OF FRANCE.]

News arrived of great riots at Paris, on account of the Polish business and the fall of Warsaw. Madame de Dino (who, by-the-bye, Talleyrand says is the cleverest _man_ or _woman_ he ever knew) said last night that she despaired of the state of things in France, that this was no mere popular tumult, but part of an organised system of disaffection, and that the Carlists had joined the ultra-Republicans, that the National Guard was not to be depended upon, that 'leur esprit etait fatigue.' Talleyrand himself was very low, and has got no intelligence from his Government. This morning I met Lord Grey, and walked with him. I told him what Madame de Dino had said. He said he knew it all, and how bad things were, and that they would be much worse if the Reform Bill was thrown out here. I asked him how they would be affected by that. He said that a change of Ministry here would have a very bad effect there, from which it may be inferred that if beaten they mean to resign. He said the French Ministry had been very imprudent about Poland. I said, 'How? for what could they have done? They could only get at Poland through Prussia.'

He said they might have sent a fleet to the Baltic with our concurrence, though we could not urge them to do so. I asked him what he thought would be the result of the dissolution of Perier's Government; I said that there appeared to me two alternatives, a general _boulevers.e.m.e.nt_ or the war faction in power under the existing system. He replied he did not think there would now be a _boulevers.e.m.e.nt_, but a Ministry of Lafayette, Lamarque, and all that party who were impatient to plunge France into war. I said I did not think France could look to a successful war, for the old alliance would be re-formed against her. He rejoined that Russia was powerless, crippled by this contest, and under the necessity of maintaining a great army in Poland; Austria and Prussia were both combustible, half the provinces of the former nearly in a state of insurrection; that the latter had enough to do to preserve quiet, and the French would rouse all the disaffected spirit which existed in both. I said 'then we were on the eve of that state of things which was predicted by Canning in his famous speech.' Here we met Ellis, and I left them.

I afterwards saw George Villiers, who told me that he knew from a member of the Cabinet that there had been a division in it on the question of going out if the Reform Bill should be rejected, and that it had been carried by a majority that they should. He told me also a curious thing about Stanley's Arms Bill: that it had never been imparted to Lord Anglesey, nor to the Cabinet here, and that Lord Grey had been obliged to write an apology to Lord Anglesey, and to tell him he (Lord Grey) had himself seen the Bill for the first time in the newspapers. This he had from Lord C., who is a great friend of Lord Anglesey's, and who had seen Lord Grey's letter before he left Ireland; but the story appears to me quite incredible, and is probably untrue.

CHAPTER XVI.

Whig and Tory Meetings on Reform--Resolution to carry the Bill-- Holland--Radical Jones--Reform Bill thrown out by the Lords-- Dorsets.h.i.+re Election--Division among the Tories--Bishop Phillpotts--Prospects of Reform--Its Dangers--Riots at Bristol--The Cholera at Sunderland--An Attempt at a Compromise on Reform--Lord Wharncliffe negotiates with the Ministers-- Negotiation with Mr. Barnes--Proclamation against the Unions-- Barbarism of Sunderland--Disappointment of Lord Wharncliffe-- Bristol and Lyons--Commercial Negotiations with France--Poulett Thomson--Lord Wharncliffe's Proposal to Lord Grey--Disapproved by the Duke of Wellington--Moderation of Lord John Russell--The Appeal of Drax _v._ Grosvenor--The Second Reform Bill--Violence of Lord Durham--More Body-s.n.a.t.c.hers--Duke of Richmond and Sir Henry Parnell--Panshanger--Creation of Peers--Division of Opinion--Negotiation to avoid the Creation of Peers--Lord Wharncliffe's Interview with the King--Opposition of the Duke of Wellington--The Waverers resolve to separate from the Duke.

September 22nd, 1831 {p.197}

[Page Head: PROSPECTS OF THE REFORM BILL.]

The night before last Croker and Macaulay made two fine speeches on Reform; the former spoke for two hours and a half, and in a way he had never done before. Macaulay was very brilliant. There was a meeting at Lord Ebrington's yesterday, called by him, Lyttelton Lawley, and of members of the House of Commons only, and they (without coming to any resolution) were all agreed to prevail on the Government not to resign in the event of the Reform Bill being rejected in the House of Lords. I have no doubt, therefore, in spite of what Lord Grey said, and the other circ.u.mstances I have mentioned above, that they will not resign, and I doubt whether there will be any occasion for it.

There was a dinner at Apsley House yesterday; the Cabinet of Opposition, to discuss matters before having a general meeting. At this dinner there were sixteen or seventeen present, all the leading anti-Reformers of the Peers. They agreed to oppose the second reading. Dudley, who was there, told me it was tragedy first and farce afterwards; for Eldon and Kenyon, who had dined with the Duke of c.u.mberland, came in after dinner. Chairs were placed for them on each side of the Duke, and after he had explained to them what they had been discussing, and what had been agreed upon, Kenyon made a long speech on the first reading of the Bill, in which it was soon apparent that he was very drunk, for he talked exceeding nonsense, wandered from one topic to another, and repeated the same things over and over again. When he had done Eldon made a speech on the second reading, and appeared to be equally drunk, only, Lord Bathurst told me, Kenyon in his drunkenness talked nonsense, but Eldon sense. Dudley said it was not that they were as drunk as lords and gentlemen sometimes are, but they were drunk like porters. Lyndhurst was not there, though invited. He dined at Holland House. It is pretty clear, however, that he will vote for the second reading, for his wife is determined he shall. I saw her yesterday, and she is full of pique and resentment against the Opposition and the Duke, half real and half pretended, and chatters away about Lyndhurst's not being their cat's paw, and that if they choose to abandon him, they must not expect him to sacrifice himself for them. The pretexts she takes are, that they would not go to the House of Lords on Tuesday and support him against Brougham on the Bankruptcy Bill, and that the Duke of Wellington wrote to her and _desired_ her to influence her husband in the matter of Reform. The first is a joke, the second there might be a little in, for vanity is always uppermost, but they have both some motive of interest, which they will pursue in whatever way they best can. The excuse they make is that they want to conceal their strength from the Government, and accordingly the Duke of Wellington has not yet entered any of his proxies. The truth is that I am by no means sure _now_ that it is safe or prudent to oppose the second reading; and though I think it very doubtful if any practicable alteration will be made in Committee, it will be better to take that chance, and the chance of an accommodation and compromise between the two parties and the two Houses, than to attack it in front. It is clear that Government are resolved to carry the Bill, and equally clear that no means they can adopt would be unpopular. They are averse to making more Peers if they can help it, and would rather go quietly on, without any fresh changes, and I believe they are conscientiously persuaded that this Bill is the least democratical Bill it is possible to get the country to accept, and that if offered in time this one will be accepted. I had heard before that the country is not enamoured of this Bill, but I fear that it is true that they are only indifferent to the Conservative clauses of it (if I may so term them), and for that reason it may be doubtful whether there would not be such a clamour raised in the event of the rejection of this Bill as would compel the Ministers to make a new one, more objectionable than the old. If its pa.s.sing clearly appears to be inevitable, why, the sooner it is done the better, for at least one immense object will be gained in putting an end to agitation, and restoring the country to good-humour, and it is desirable that the House of Lords should stand as well with the people as it can. It is better, as Burke says, 'to do early, and from foresight, that which we may be obliged to do from necessity at last.' I am not more delighted with Reform than I have ever been, but it is the part of prudence to take into consideration the present and the future, and not to harp upon the past. It matters not how the country has been worked up to its present state, if a calm observation convinces us that the spirit that has been raised cannot be allayed, and that is very clear to me.

September 24th, 1831 {p.199}

Peel closed the debate on Thursday night with a very fine speech, the best (one of his opponents told me, and it is no use asking the opinions of friends if a candid opponent is to be found) he had ever made, not only on that subject, but on any other; he cut Macaulay to ribands. Macaulay is very brilliant, but his speeches are harangues and never replies; whereas Peel's long experience and real talent for debate give him a great advantage in the power of reply, which he very eminently possesses. Macaulay, however, will probably be a very distinguished man. These debates have elicited a vast deal of talent, and have served as touchstones to try real merit and power. As a proof of what practice and a pretty good understanding can do, there is Althorp, who now appears to be an excellent leader, and contrives to speak decently upon all subjects, quite as much as a leader need do; for I have always thought that it should not be his business to furnish rhetoric and flowers of eloquence, but good-humour, judgment, firmness, discretion, business-like talents, and gentlemanlike virtues.

Dined at Richmond on Friday with the Lyndhursts; the _mari_ talks against the Bill, the women for it. They are like the old divisions of families in the Civil Wars.

My brother-in-law and sister are just returned from a tour of three weeks in Holland; curious spectacle, considering the state of the rest of Europe, nothing but loyalty and enthusiasm, adoration of the Orange family; 2,000,000 of people, and an army of 110,000 men; everybody satisfied with the Government, and no desire for Reform.

Paris, on the point of exploding, is again tranquil, but n.o.body can tell for how long. They bet two to one here that the Reform Bill is thrown out on the second reading; and what then? The meeting at Ebrington's was flat, nothing agreed on. Hume wanted to pa.s.s some violent resolution, but was overruled. Milton made a foolish speech, with prospective menaces and present nothingness in it, and they separated without having done good or harm.

Newmarket, October 1st, 1831 {p.200}

[Page Head: PROSPECTS OF THE REFORM BILL.]

Came here last night, to my great joy, to get holidays, and leave Reform and cholera and politics for racing and its amus.e.m.e.nts.

Just before I came away I met Lord Wharncliffe, and asked him about his interview with Radical Jones. This blackguard considers himself a sort of chief of a faction, and one of the heads of the _sans-culottins_ of the present day. He wrote to Lord Wharncliffe and said he wished to confer with him, that if he would grant him an interview he might bring any person he pleased to witness what pa.s.sed between them. Lord Wharncliffe replied that he would call on him, and should be satisfied to have no witness. Accordingly he did so, when the other in very civil terms told him that he wished to try and impress upon his mind (as he was one of the heads of anti-Reform in the House of Lords) how dangerous it would be to reject this Bill, that all sorts of excesses would follow its rejection, that their persons and properties would be perilled, and resistance would be unavailing, for that they (the Reformers) were resolved to carry their point. Lord Wharncliffe asked whether if this was conceded they would be satisfied. Jones replied, 'Certainly not;' that they must go a great deal further, that an hereditary peerage was not to be defended on any reasonable theory. Still, he was not for doing away with it, that he wished the changes that were inevitable to take place quietly, and without violence or confusion. After some more discourse in this strain they separated, but very civilly, and without any intemperance of expression on the part of the Reformer.

On Monday the battle begins in the House of Lords, and up to this time n.o.body knows how it will go, each party being confident, but opinion generally in favour of the Bill being thrown out. There is nothing more curious in this question than the fact that it is almost impossible to find anybody who is satisfied with the part he himself takes upon it, and that it is generally looked upon as a choice of evils, in which the only thing to do is to choose the least. The Reformers say, You had better pa.s.s the Bill or you will have a worse. The moderate anti-Reformers would be glad to suffer the second reading to pa.s.s and alter it in Committee, but they do not dare do so, because the sulky, stupid, obstinate High Tories declare that they will throw the whole thing up, and not attempt to alter the Bill if it pa.s.ses the second reading. Every man seems tossed about by opposite considerations and the necessity of accommodating his own conduct to the caprices, pa.s.sions, and follies of others.

Riddlesworth, October 10th, 1831 {p.201}

At Newmarket all last week; all the Peers absent; here since Friday. Yesterday morning the newspapers (all in black[1]) announced the defeat of the Reform Bill by a majority of forty-one, at seven o'clock on Sat.u.r.day morning, after five nights' debating. By all accounts the debate was a magnificent display, and incomparably superior to that in the House of Commons, but the reports convey no idea of it. The great speakers on either side were:--Lords Grey, Lansdowne, G.o.derich, Plunket, and the Chancellor, for the Bill; against it, Lords Wharncliffe (who moved the amendment), Harrowby, Carnarvon, Dudley, Wynford, and Lyndhurst. The Duke of Wellington's speech was exceedingly bad; he is in fact, and has proved it in repeated instances, unequal to argue a great const.i.tutional question. He has neither the command of language, the power of reasoning, nor the knowledge requisite for such an effort. Lord Harrowby's speech was amazingly fine, and delivered with great effect; and the last night the Chancellor is said to have surpa.s.sed all his former exploits, Lyndhurst to have been nearly as good, and Lord Grey very great in reply. There was no excitement in London the following day, and nothing particular happened but the Chancellor being drawn from Downing Street to Berkeley Square in his carriage by a very poor mob. The majority was much greater than anybody expected, and it is to be hoped may be productive of good by showing the necessity of a compromise; for no Minister can make sixty Peers, which Lord Grey must do to carry this Bill; it would be to create another House of Lords. n.o.body knows what the Ministers would do, but it was thought they would not resign. A meeting of members of the House of Commons was held under the auspices of Ebrington to agree upon a resolution of confidence in the Government this day. The majority and the magnificent display of eloquence and ability in the House of Lords must exalt the character and dignity of that House, and I hope increase its efficacy for good purposes and for resistance to this Bill. It may be hoped, too, that the apathy of the capital may have some effect in the country, though the unions, which are so well disciplined and under the control of their orators, will make a stir. On the whole I rejoice at this result, though I had taken fright before, and thought it better the Bill should be read a second time than be thrown out by a very small majority.

[1] [Not all of them; neither the 'Times' nor the 'Morning Herald.'.]

[Page Head: DORSETs.h.i.+RE ELECTION.]

While the debates have been going on there have been two elections, one of the Lord Mayor in the City, which the Reformers have carried after a sharp contest, and the contest for Dorsets.h.i.+re between Ponsonby and Ashley, which is not yet over.

Ponsonby had a week's start of his opponent, notwithstanding which it is so severe that they have been for some days within ten or fifteen of each other, and (what is remarkable) the anti-Reformer is the popular candidate, and has got all the mob with him. This certainly is indicative of some _change_, though not of a _reaction_, in public opinion. There is no longer the same vehemence of desire for this Bill, and I doubt whether all the efforts of the press will be able to stimulate the people again to the same pitch of excitement.

Buckenham, October 11th, 1831 {p.203}

Came here yesterday; n.o.body of note, not lively, letters every day with an account of what is pa.s.sing. The Radical press is moving heaven and earth to produce excitement, but without much effect. There was something of a mob which marched about the parks, but no mischief done. Londonderry and some others were hooted near the House of Lords. Never was a party so crestfallen as I hear they are; they had not a notion of such a division.

There seems to be a very general desire to bring about a fair compromise, and to have a Bill introduced next session which may be so framed as to secure the concurrence of the majority of both Houses. The finest speeches by all accounts were Harrowby's, Lyndhurst's, and Grey's reply; but Henry de Ros, who is a very good judge, writes me word that Lyndhurst's was the most to his taste.

October 12th, 1831 {p.203}

The Reformers appear to have rallied their spirits. Lord Grey went to Windsor, was graciously received by the King, and obtained the dismissal of Lord Howe, which will serve to show the King's entire good-will to his present Ministers. Ebrington's resolution of confidence was carried by a great majority in the House of Commons after some violent speeches from Macaulay, Sheil, and O'Connell, and very moderate ones and in a low tone on the other side.

Macaulay's speech was as usual very eloquent, but as inflammatory as possible. Such men as these three can care nothing into what state of confusion the country is thrown, for all they want is a market to which they may bring their talents;[2] but how the Miltons, Tavistocks, Althorps, and all who have a great stake in the country can run the same course is more than I can conceive or comprehend. Party is indeed, as Swift says, 'the madness of many,'

when carried to its present pitch. In the meantime the Conservative party are as usual committing blunders, which will be fatal to them. Lord Harrowby was to have moved yesterday or the day before, in the House of Lords, a resolution pledging the House to take into consideration early in the next session the acknowledged defects in the representation, with a view to make such ameliorations in it as might be consistent with the Const.i.tution, or something to this effect. This has not been done because the Duke of Wellington objects. He will not concur because he thinks the proposition should come from Government; as if this was a time to stand upon such punctilios, and that it was not of paramount importance to show the country that the Peers are not obstinately bent upon opposing all Reform. I had hoped that he had profited by experience, and that at least his past errors in politics might have taught him a little modesty, and that he would not have thwarted measures which were proposed by the wisest and most disinterested of his own party. I can conceive no greater misfortune at this moment than such a disunion of that party, and to have its deliberations ruled by the obstinacy and prejudices of the Duke. He is a great man in little things, but a little man in great matters--I mean in civil affairs; in those mighty questions which embrace enormous and various interests and considerations, and to comprehend which great knowledge of human nature, great sagacity, coolness, and impartiality are required, he is not fit to govern and direct. His mind has not been sufficiently disciplined, nor saturated with knowledge and matured by reflection and communication with other minds, to enable him to be a safe and efficient leader in such times as these.

[2] This was very unjust to Macaulay, and not true as to Sheil; to O'Connell alone applicable.

[In reading over these remarks upon the Duke of Wellington, and comparing them with the opinions I now entertain of his present conduct, and of the nature and quality of his mind, I am compelled to ask myself whether I did not then do him injustice.

On the whole I think not. He is not, nor ever was, a little man in anything, great or small; but I am satisfied that he has made great political blunders, though with the best and most patriotic intentions, and that his conduct throughout the Reform contest was one of the greatest and most unfortunate of them.--July 1838.]

October 14th, 1831 {p.205}

[Page Head: LORD GREY AND BISHOP PHILLPOTTS.]

The town continues quite quiet; the country nearly so. The press strain every nerve to produce excitement, and the 'Times' has begun an a.s.sault on the bishops, whom it has marked out for vengeance and defamation for having voted against the Bill.

Althorp and Lord John Russell have written grateful letters to Attwood as Chairman of the Birmingham Union, thus indirectly acknowledging that puissant body. There was a desperate strife in the House of Lords between Phillpotts and Lord Grey, in which the former got a most tremendous dressing. Times must be mightily changed when my sympathies go with this bishop, and even now, though full of disgust with the other faction, I have a pleasure in seeing him trounced. The shade of Canning may rejoice at the sight of Grey smiting Phillpotts. Even on such a question Phillpotts was essentially in the right; but he lost his temper, floundered, and got punished. It was most indecent and disgusting to hear Brougham from the Woolsack, in a strain of the bitterest irony and sarcasm, but so broad as to be without the semblance of disguise, attack the bench of bishops. I am of opinion that it would have been far better never to have let them back into the House of Lords, but now that they are there I would not thrust them out, especially at this moment. Lord Grey in this debate gave no handle certainly, for he interposed in their favour, and rebuked Lord Suffield, who attacked them first, and told him he was out of order, and then Phillpotts very foolishly attacked him.

October 15th, 1831 {p.206}

A furious attack in the House of Commons upon Althorp's and John Russell's letters to Attwood by Hardinge and Vyvyan. Peel not there, having hopped off to Staffords.h.i.+re, to the great disgust of his party, whom he never scruples to leave in the lurch. They made wretched excuses for these letters, and could only have recourse to the pretence of indignation at being thought capable of fomenting disorders, which is all very well; but they do foment discord and discontent by every means in their power. With a yelling majority in the House, and a desperate press out of it, they go on in their reckless course without fear or shame. Lord Harrowby made a speech in the House of Lords, and declared his conviction that the time was come for effecting a Reform, and that he would support one to a certain extent, which he specified. In the House he was coolly received, and the 'Times'

hardly deigned to notice what he said. Parliament is to be up on Thursday next, and will probably not meet till January, when of course the first thing done will be to bring in the Bill again.

What, then, is gained? For as Ministers take every opportunity of declaring that they will accept nothing less efficient (as they call it) than the present Bill, no compromise can be looked for.

Lord Harrowby is the only man who has said what he will do, and probably he goes further than the bulk of his party would approve of; and yet he is far behind the Ministerial plan. So that there seems little prospect of getting off for less than the old Bill, for the Opposition will hardly venture to stop the next _in limine_ as they did this. I do not see why they should hope to amend the next Bill in Committee any more than the last, and the division which they dreaded the other day is not less likely, and would not be less fatal upon another occasion. If, then, it is to pa.s.s at last, it comes back to what I thought before, that it might as well have pa.s.sed at first as at last, and the excitement consequent on its rejection have been spared, as well as the odium which has accrued to the Peers, which will not be forgotten or laid aside.

The Dorsets.h.i.+re election promises to end in favour of Ashley, and there will be a contest for Cambridges.h.i.+re, which may also end in favour of the anti-Reform candidate. These victories I really believe to be unfortunate, for they are taken (I am arguing as if they were won, though, with regard to the first, it is the same thing by contrast with the last election) by the Tories and anti-Reform champions as undoubted proofs of the reaction of public opinion, and they are thereby encouraged to persevere in opposition under the false notion that this supposed reaction will every day gain ground. I wish it were so with all my soul, but believe it is no such thing, and that although there may be fewer friends to _the Bill_ than there were, particularly among the agriculturists, Reform is not a whit less popular with the ma.s.s of the people in the manufacturing districts, throughout the unions, and generally amongst all cla.s.ses and in all parts of the country. When I see men, and those in very great numbers, of the highest birth, of immense fortunes, of undoubted integrity and acknowledged talents, zealously and conscientiously supporting this measure, I own I am lost in astonishment, and even doubt; for I can't help asking myself whether it is possible that such men would be the advocates of measures fraught with all the peril we ascribe to these, whether we are not in reality mistaken, and labouring under groundless alarm generated by habitual prejudices and erroneous calculations. But often as this doubt comes across my mind, it is always dispelled by a reference to and comparison of the arguments on both sides, and by the lessons which all that I have ever read and all the conclusions I have been able to draw from the study of history have impressed on my mind. I believe these measures full of danger, but that the manner in which they have been introduced, discussed, defended, and supported is more dangerous still. The total unsettlement of men's minds, the bringing into contempt all the inst.i.tutions which have been hitherto venerated, the aggrandis.e.m.e.nt of the power of the people, the embodying and recognition of popular authority, the use and abuse of the King's name, the truckling to the press, are things so subversive of government, so prejudicial to order and tranquillity, so encouraging to sedition and disaffection, that I do not see the possibility of the country settling down into that calm and undisturbed state in which it was before this question was mooted, and without which there can be no happiness or security to the community. A thousand mushroom orators and politicians have sprung up all over the country, each big with his own ephemeral importance, and every one of whom fancies himself fit to govern the nation. Amongst them are some men of active and powerful minds, and nothing is less probable than that these spirits of mischief and misrule will be content to subside into their original nothingness, and retire after the victory has been gained into the obscurity from which they emerged.

Newmarket, October 23rd, 1831 {p.208}