A Political Diary 1828-1830, Volume II

A Political Diary 1828-1830,
Volume II

The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Political Diary 1828-1830, Volume
II
by Edward Law (Lord Ellenborough) This eBook is for the use of
anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.
You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.net
Title: A Political Diary 1828-1830, Volume II
Author: Edward Law (Lord Ellenborough)
Release Date: January 12, 2004 [EBook #10693]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A
POLITICAL DIARY ***

Produced by Charles Aldarondo, Keren Vergon, Robert Fite and PG
Distributed Proofreaders

LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DIARY
1828-1830
VOL. II.
A POLITICAL DIARY 1828-1830 BY EDWARD LAW LORD
ELLENBOROUGH

EDITED BY LORD COLCHESTER
[Illustration: fide et fiducia]
IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. II.
LONDON RICHARD BENTLEY & SON, NEW BURLINGTON
STREET Publishers in Ordinary to Her Majesty the Queen 1881

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 petition 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 formâ_ 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 ships to Candia, and telling them they may
go there safely, and if stopped shall be indemnified. But if the English
ship 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 ship persists, we should come to
blows. All these things should be foreseen. Aberdeen thinks Lièven 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.