unt of their concessions, the Radicals will never pardon
Lord Grey for negotiating with the Tories at all, and nothing will
prevent his being henceforward the object of their suspicion and
aversion, and marked out for their vengeance. By what process
Althorp and John Russell were induced to concur, and how they are
to set about swallowing their own words, I do not guess.

As a proof of the disposition which exists, and the good
understanding between Wharncliffe and the Government, he told me
that some time ago Ward and Palmer went to him, and said that in
the City the majority of men of weight and property were
favourable to Reform, but not to the late Bill, and that they
were desirous of having a declaration drawn up for signature,
expressive of their adherence to Reform, but of their hope that
the next measure might be such as would give satisfaction to all
parties. Wharncliffe drew this up (there was likewise an
acknowledgment of the right of the House of Lords to exercise
their privileges as they had done) and gave it to them. It is
gone to be signed, having been previously submitted to Grey and
Althorp, who approved of it.

November 21st, 1831 {p.214}

Came to town from Roehampton yesterday morning, saw Henry de Ros,
who had seen Barnes[4] the evening before, and opened to him the
pending negotiation. His rage and fury exceeded all bounds. He
swore Brougham and Grey (particularly the former) were the
greatest of villains. After a long discussion he agreed to try and
persuade his colleagues to adopt a moderate tone, and not to begin
at once to _jeter feu et flamme_. Henry's object was to persuade
him, if possible, that the interest of the paper will be in the
long run better consulted by leaning towards the side of order and
quiet than by continuing to exasperate and inflame. He seemed to a
certain degree moved by this argument, though he is evidently a
desperate Radical. Henry went to Melbourne afterwards, who is most
anxious for the happy consummation of this affair, but expressed
some alarm lest they should be unable to agree upon the details.
There is an article in the 'Times' this morning of half-menacing
import, sulkily and gloomily written, but not ferocious, and
leaving it open to them to take what line they think fit. In the
afternoon I met Melbourne, who told me they were going to put
forth a proclamation against 'Attwood and the Birmingham fellows,'
which was grateful to my ears.

[4] [Then