evailed, and that if the opinion of the majority of the Cabinet
should be acquiesced in by his Majesty, the secession of two or
more members of it would in all probability follow; that if the
desire of his Majesty to compromise these differences of opinion
and prevent any separation should have the effect of preventing
such discussions in the Cabinet as should lead to any disunion
_for the time_, it was only fair and right to own to him that it
would be in the power of any member of the House of Commons who
should become acquainted with the difference of opinion which
prevailed to bring the question to an issue; and if such a thing
should occur, the resignations, he apprehended, would only be
retarded. The King, under these circumstances, asked how he
proposed to fill up the vacancies that would thus occur, whether
from any but what is called the extreme party, and whether he
(Melbourne), with a knowledge of the King's sentiments, could
advise him to have recourse to Lord Durham and others of the same
opinions. Melbourne acknowledged that he could look nowhere else,
and that he certainly could not give the King such advice, upon
which he said that as the breach sooner or latter appeared
inevitable, he thought it better that the dissolution of the
Government should take place at once, and he preferred making the
change during the recess, when he should have time to form other
arrangements, rather than have it forced upon him during all the
excitement of the session of Parliament. This, I think, was the
pith of the thing, and in my opinion it forms a good case.
Hardinge said that if the King had been a clever man he would
have postponed his decision and spun out the correspondence, in
the course of which he would have acquired pretexts sufficient.
This, however, explains what the other side means by insisting
that there was _no difference_ of opinion in the Cabinet; there
was none _actual_, but it was on the prospective disunion so
clearly announced to the King, and impending at such an
indefinite and probably inconvenient time, that he took his
resolution. Melbourne appears to have been bullied into a sort of
exculpatory letter on account of his speech at Derby, saying that
he spoke of having no personal cause of complaint because the
King was very civil to him.

December 5th, 1834 {p.169}

The dinner that Lyndhurst gave to Barnes has made a great uproar,
as I thought it would. I never could understand the Chancell