l speculation, so
partial and eccentric is its character.

January 29th, 1832 {p.240}

[Page Head: DISCREDIT OF MINISTERS.]

There were two divisions on Thursday night last--in the House of
Lords on the Belgian question, and in the House of Commons on the
Russian Loan. Harrowby, Wharncliffe, and Haddington stayed away;
Lyndhurst voted. Only two bishops, Durham and Killaloe. Ministers
had a majority of thirty-seven, for Aberdeen and the Duke
persisted in bringing on the question and dividing upon it. The
former spoke nearly three hours, and far better than ever he had
done before; the Duke was prosy. In the other House the
Government had not a shadow of a case; their law officers, Home
and Denman, displayed an ignorance and stupidity which were quite
ludicrous, and nothing saved them from defeat but a good speech
at the end from Palmerston, and their remonstrances to their
friends that unless they carried it they must resign. Not a soul
defends them, and they are particularly blamed for their folly in
not coming to Parliament at once, by which they might have
avoided the scrape.[1] They had only a majority of twenty-four.
They were equally disgusted with both these divisions, both
plainly showing that they have little power (independently of the
Reform question) in either House. To be sure the case in the
House of Commons was a wretched one, but in the House of Lords
there was nothing to justify a vote of censure on Government, to
which Aberdeen's motion was tantamount. But while they had a
majority which was respectable enough to make it impossible to
propose making Peers on _that account_, it was so small that they
see clearly what they have to expect hereafter from such a House
of Lords, and accordingly their adherents have thrown off the
mask. Sefton called on me the day after, and said it was
ridiculous to go on in this way, that the Tories had had
possession of the Government so many years, and the power of
making so many Peers, that no Whig or other Ministry could stand
without a fresh creation to redress the balance.

[1] [For a more particular account of the question of the
Russo-Dutch Loan, see _infra_ [February 4, 1832], p.
244. It has since been universally admitted that the
conduct of the Government was wise and honourable, and
that the separation of Holland and Belgium did not
exonerate Great Britain from a financial engagement to
f