Part 10

Chairs at 11. We spoke of the Charter. They rather dislike the notion of using the King's name, and I fear Mr. Elphinstone and all the Indians will give their evidence against the change. I may be outvoted, but I shall not be convinced. [Footnote: This change was effected in 1858.]

May 17.

Nothing political, except a grand dinner at the Duke of Norfolk's, given to the Duke of Wellington, which was very fine and very dull.

The Duke told me he had read the Persian papers. The Russians had brought it on themselves.

May 19.

In the House of Commons last night O'Connell was heard at the bar. The debate seems to have been temperate. It was decided on a discussion, 190 to 116, that he must take the Oath of Supremacy.

At the office had some conversation with Mr. Leach as to the plan of governing India in the King's name--the Directors being made ex officio Commissioners for the affairs of India. He seems to have some prejudices against the plan, but he adduced no real objections. I have begged him to put on paper all the objections which occurred to him.

Wrote a long letter to Lord W. Bentinck on all subjects connected with the renewal of the Charter, and the general government of India.

Dined at the Freemasons' Hall with the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. There were present 200 persons. I thought they would be very hostile to a Minister. However, when my name was mentioned by the Bishop of Durham, as a steward, there was much cheering. The Bishop of London, who was in the chair, begged me to return thanks for the stewards, which I did. I spoke of course of the wish entertained by the Ministers that a Society might prosper the interests of which were so much connected with those of the Established Church--of their determination in their several departments to further its objects. It was the duty of us all as Christians, but more peculiarly that of the Ministers, to advance objects intimately connected with the individual happiness of the people and with the stability of the State. I said something too of the intrinsic strength of the Protestant Church--of its rising in proportion to the difficulties which might surround it, to the dangers--if dangers there were (the Primate had spoken of them)--of its security in the zeal and ability of its ministers, and in the purity of its doctrines.

On the whole I did well. I was loudly cheered--indeed, so much interrupted as to be enabled to think what I should say next.

Indian business in the morning--Coal Committee.

May 20.

Dined at the London Tavern with the Directors, at what is called a family dinner, to meet Mr. Elphinstone, the late Governor of Bombay. He has been thirty-three years absent from England, having left it at fifteen. He is one of the most distinguished servants the Company has ever had. He seems to be a quiet, mild, temperate man. I had some conversation with him, and have fixed that he should come to the Indian Board on Tuesday. I wish to have his opinion as to the expediency of governing India in the King's name.

The Duke told Lord Bathurst and me the King had been very angry with him for going to the Duke of Norfolk's dinner, and now openly expressed his wish to get rid of his Ministers. The Duke wrote to the King and told him it really was not a subject he thought it necessary to speak to him about, that he dined with everybody and asked everybody to dinner, that had he known beforehand who were to dine with the Duke of Norfolk, which he did not, he could not have objected to any one of them. That the King himself had dined with the Duke of Norfolk. That most of the persons invited were either in his Majesty's service, or had been.

It seems the king desired it might be intimated to the Duke that he was much displeased at the dinner, and that he and Cumberland damned us all.

I told the Duke and Lord Bathurst what occurred at the dinner yesterday, with which they were much gratified.

May 21.

Went to the Cabinet room at 2. Read papers, by which it seems that the Russian army is very little stronger than at the commencement of the last campaign, and that its materials are not so good. It has as yet no medical staff. The resources of the principalities are exhausted; the cattle of the peasants have been put in requisition; the ordinary cultivation of the land has been neglected. The river is worse than last year. There are reports of the successes of the Turks near Varna, and of that place being in danger.

The recruiting of the Turkish army goes on well.

House of Lords. The Chancellor's Bill, which creates a new Chancery judge. Opposition from Lord Eldon, Lord Redesdale, and Lord Holland, all saying they wished to see the whole plan before they agree to a part. Lord Tenterden approved of the making of the new judge, but wished his functions had been better defined.

The Duke of Cumberland said the Non-contents had it; but he said it too late, and his people did not wish to divide.

Lord Londonderry would have voted against us. I fear he is half mad. The House seems to treat him so.

The Chancellor told me the King did many things personally uncivil to the Duke. He did not ask him to dinner to meet the Duke of Orleans. He wishes to force the Duke to offer his resignation. This he is much too prudent to do upon a mere personal pique.

The King, our master, is the weakest man in England. He hates the Duke of Cumberland. He wishes his death. He is relieved when he is away; but he is afraid of him, and crouches to him.

In reality the King never was better satisfied than with his present Ministers. He knows they will not flinch--that he is safe in their hands.

May 22.

In the House Lord Melville presented the petition of the City of London praying, if the House persisted in ordering the production of their accounts of property other than of a public nature, to be heard at the bar by counsel. He moved that this petition should be considered on Tuesday. It being expected that on Monday these very accounts would be produced in the committee, and thus the order of the House rendered unnecessary. In this we were beaten too. Indeed, our management under Lord Melville as Admiral does not answer.

We shall certainly lose the London Bridge Approaches Bill.