erif. It was affirmed, when the severity of
its terms was objected to and Ponsonby blamed, that Ponsonby had
had no hand in it whatever. This was true, but how? He insisted
upon a _much more severe_ clause being inserted, on the Pasha's
being made a mere stipendiary of the Porte, and his revenue being
levied by Turkish officers; and because the Turkish Minister
would not go this length, Ponsonby flew into a rage, and refused
to sanction the Hatti-sherif with his approval unless this clause
was added, so that he had nothing to do with it, only because it
was not so stringent and violent as he wished to make it.

May 3rd, 1841 {p.392}

[Page Head: DEFEAT OF THE MINISTRY.]

Great agitation yesterday at the clubs, and excessive interest
and curiosity about coming events, on which hang the existence of
the Government. The Tories are talking of a vote of want of
confidence, and wish to follow up their successes by this
decisive blow. There is the greatest difference of opinion among
the Whigs as to the necessity of resigning, and, above all, as to
a dissolution. The event of the day was the resignation of
Gordon, Secretary of the Treasury, who could not stand the Corn
alteration that is threatened. Nobody thinks Ministers will carry
their Budget, and that will probably be their _coup de
grace_.[16]

[16] [It turned out to be so. On April 30th the Chancellor
of the Exchequer introduced his Budget. He proposed to
meet the deficiency in the revenue of L2,421,000 by an
increase of the duty on Colonial timber and a reduction
of the duty on Baltic timber, and by a reduction of
duty on foreign sugar. The debate lasted eight nights,
and on May 18th Ministers were defeated on the sugar
question by a majority of 36. On May 7th Lord John
Russell had given notice of a resolution to reduce the
duties on corn to a fixed sum. On May 24th Sir Robert
Peel gave notice of a vote of want of confidence in the
Government, on which the House divided on June 4th,
Ministers being beaten by a majority of _one_.]

APPENDIX.

The Royal Precedency Question.

[As Mr. Greville's pamphlet on the Precedency Question is
now rarely to be met with, it may be convenient to
reprint it in this place. It is a tract of considerable
originality and research, and