Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T03:55:20.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Lord Durham, the Whigs and Canada, 1838: The Background to Durham's Return*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Get access

Extract

The most recent biography of Lord Durham begins with a comparison between the affection felt by the people of his county for Squire Lambton, and the lack of attention paid by the nation to the co-author of the first Reform Act and the author of the Durham Report. A neo-Grecian temple, built by the Freemasons of county Durham, overlooking his seat at Chester-Le-Street is visible for miles, and provides a stark contrast to the London town house at 13 Cleveland Row, which lacks even the familiar blue plaque to serve as a reminder that Radical Jack once lived there. The illustration is apt. Traditional deference paid by a county to a “friend of the people” who made his mark in the larger world accounts perhaps for the existence of the temple; less easily explained is his failure to earn that respect usually accorded a public figure of his significance, and it is curious, at first glance, that a man of his abilities and achievements should be regarded as an outcast by his own government. Yet the fact remains that for most of the 1830's, Durham was regarded as little more than a nuisance by his colleagues, who, following the passage of the Reform Bill, entrusted him to no position of authority in England.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , Winter 1976 , pp. 351 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank the Canada Council and the University of Lethbridge Research Fund for their support of part of the research which went into this paper.

References

1 Cooper, Leonard, Radical Jack, (London, 1959), p. 1Google Scholar. Durham managed to have only two public houses named after him in London.

2 Reid, S. J., The Life and Letters of the First Earl of Durham, (London, 1906), II: 255Google Scholar; New, C. W., Lord Durham, (London, 1968), p. 94Google Scholar. See also Trevelyan, G. M., Lord Grey of the Reform Bill, (London, 1952), p. 367nGoogle Scholar. for a similar view.

3 Martin, Ged, The Durham Report and British Policy, (Cambridge, 1972), chapter 2.Google Scholar

4 Broughton, Lord, Recollections of a Long Life, ed. Dorchester, Lady, (London, 1910), IV:178Google Scholar; see also Brock, Michael, The Great Reform Act, (London, 1973), p. 136.Google Scholar

5 Grey to Princess Lieven, November 1830, quoted in Davis, H.W.C., The Age of Grey and Peel, (Oxford, 1929), p. 228Google Scholar. Interestingly enough, Durham proposed the Duke of Richmond as a member of the committee, only to have Russell reject him for never having been a reformer. Russell to Durham, 19 October, 1834, B[ritish] M[useum], Add. MSS 38080, f. 73; T. G. Earl of Northbrook, ed., Journals and Correspondence of F. T. Baring, Lord Northbrook, (London, 1905), I: 83n.Google Scholar

6 Although a vigorous supporter of constitutional reform, Durham's attitude towards social reforms was not always as progressive. During the North East pitmen's strike of 1831, a Tory paternalist among the Durham county magistrates, Rowland Burdon, advocated the creation of a benevolent fund for the coalfield, financed by subscriptions by the miners and a levy on coal produced from the owners. Durham violently opposed this plan and after the meeting of magistrates at which Burdon suggested this Durham wrote to the Home Office about “that stupid old man Burdon.” I am indebted to Dr. Norman McCord of Newcastle University for this information.

7 Cooper, , Radical Jack, p. 55.Google Scholar

8 Broughton, , Recollections, IV: 256.Google Scholar

9 Durham to Russell, 21 October, 1834, Grey Papers, Durham University; Grey to Ellice, 24 October, 1839, Ellice Papers N[ational] L [ibrary], Scotland], box 19, f. 29; Grey to Stanley, 23 October, 1834, Derby Papers, 167/2; Brock, , The Great Reform Act, p. 140Google Scholar; Holland Diary, 20 and 21 July, 1831, BM, Add. MSS 51867, ff. 19 and 28.

10 He wanted an earldom in 1828 when he received the Baronetcy of Durham. See New, , Durham, p. 94.Google Scholar

11 Holland Diary, 5 September, 1831, BM, Add. MSS 51867, f. 127.

12 Durham to Ellice, 16 September, 1831, NLS, Ellice Papers, Box 29, f. 36.

13 For the problem of the creation of peers, see the following: Althorp to Brougham, October 1831, Spencer Papers, Althorp Park, Northamptonshire, Box 6. I wish to thank the Earl Spencer for his kind permission to see these papers. Roebuck, J. A., The History of the Whig Ministry of 1830, (1852), II: 152Google Scholar; Grey to Sir H. Taylor, 8 October, 1831, The Correspondence of Earl Grey with His Majesty King William IV, ed. Grey, Henry Earl (1867), I: 366Google Scholar; Brock, The Great Reform Act, chapter seven; Newbould, I.D.C., “The Politics of the Cabinets of Grey and Melbourne, and Ministerial Relations with the House of Commons, 1830-1841”, Ph.D. thesis, U. of Manchester, 1971, pp. 125–45.Google Scholar

14 Durham was a close friend of King Leopold, and had gone to Belgium at the King's request in late October. Durham encouraged Leopold to keep the Belgian throne and to accept the decision of the London conference of October 15 which attempted to arrange a peace between Holland, Belgium, and France. He succeeded in this, and returned to London at the end of November. See New, , Durham, pp. 186–99.Google Scholar

15 SirLeMarchant, D., Memoirs of John Charles, Viscount Althorp, (1876), p. 375Google Scholar; see New, , Durham p. 156Google Scholar and Brock, , The Great Reform Act, p. 377, n. 128Google Scholar, for reference to this dinner.

16 Greville, C.C.F., The Greville Memoirs, ed. Reeve, H. (1898), III: 231–2Google Scholar. Durham was too ill to travel north for the funeral of his son, Charles, who died on September 24. Cooper, , Radical Jack, pp. 124–5.Google Scholar

17 Ibid.

18 Le Marchant, , Althorp, p. 375.Google Scholar

19 His eldest son, two daughters and mother all died within eighteen months. Cooper, , Radical Jack, p. 154.Google Scholar

20 Holland Diary, 15 February and 6 March, 1832, BM, Add. MSS 51868, ff. 348 and 389.

21 Durham to Grey, 12 March and 7 April, 1832, Grey Papers; Broughton, , Recollections, 13 March, 1832, IV: 198Google Scholar; Holland Diary, 14 March, 1832, BM, Add. MSS 51868, ff. 406-7; Ellenborough Diary, 30 March, 1832, in Aspinall, A. ed., Three Nineteenth Century Diaries, (London, 1952), pp. 217–8Google Scholar; SirMaxwell, H. ed., The Creevey Papers (3rd ed.; London, 1905), 17 August, 1832, p. 599.Google Scholar

22 Durham to Grey, 23 and 25 August, 1832, Grey to Durham, 25 August, 1832, Grey Papers.

23 Le Marchant, , Althorp, pp. 448–9Google Scholar; Russell to Grey, 20 October, 1832, P[ublic] Rfecord] Offfice] 30/22/1C, f.315; Althorp to Grey, 20 October, 1832, Spencer Papers, box 7; Holland Diary, October 1832, BM, Add. MSS 51869, f.570; Stanley to Grey, 6 November, 1832, Grey Papers; Grey to Ellice, 9 November, 1832, Ellice Papers, NLS, box 18, f.114; Grey to Althorp, 1 and 4 December, 1832, Spencer Papers, box 8; see Kriegel, A., “The Irish Policy of Lord Grey's Government,” English Historical Review, lxxxvi (January 1971): 2245CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a discussion of government deliberations over the Irish Church.

24 Durham to Ellice, 28 October, 1832, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 29, f. 70. Althorp to Grey, 3 November, 1832, Spencer Papers, box 7; Grey to Ellice, 9 November, 1832, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 18, f. 115.

25 Grey to Ellice, 9 November, 1832, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 18, f.115.

26 Althorp to Grey, (copies) 5 and 7 December, 1832, Spencer Papers, box 7.

27 Ellice to Grey, 7 and 15 December, 1832, Grey Papers; Durham to Ellice, 1 January 1833, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 29, f.85.

28 Durham to Ellice, 16 January, 1833, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 29, f.89; Durham to Grey, 30 January, 1833, Grey Papers; Broughton, , Recollections, 30 January, 1833, IV: 279.Google Scholar

29 Ellice to Durham, n.d. March, 1833, Lambton Papers, Chester-le-Street, Co. Durham, box xvi. I wish to thank Mr. A. Lambton for his kind permission to see these papers.

30 Durham to Grey (copy), 12 March, 1833, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 29, v. 105.

31 Le Marchant diary, 18 March, 1833, in Aspinall, , Three Nineteenth Century Diaries, p. 315Google Scholar; Reid, Stuart, Life and Letters of Lord Durham (London, 1906), I: 322Google Scholar; New, Durham, p. 231.Google Scholar

32 Durham to Ellice, 1 January, 1834, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 29, f. 146.

33 Howick Journal, 30 May, 1834, Grey Papers; Palmerston to Melbourne, 30 June, 1835, R[oyal] A[rchives], M[elbourne] P[apers] 4/16. I wish to thank Her Majesty the Queen for her gracious permission to use the Royal Archives. Brougham claimed that Palmerston sent him to Paris in order to stop his attacks on the government through the press. Brougham to Russell, 1 July, 1836, PRO 30/22/2B, f.203.

34 Holland Diary, May 1834, BM, Add. MSS 51870, f.723; Howiek Journal, 1 June, 1834, Grey Papers; Althorp to Ellice, 29 May, 1834, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 50, f.99; Althorp to Earl Spencer, 29 May, 1834, Spencer Papers; Howiek Journal, 29 May, 1834, Grey Papers.

35 The Times, 31 May, 1834; Althorp to Earl Spencer, 1 June, 1834, Spencer Papers; Howiek Journal, 1 June, 1834, Grey Papers.

36 Howick Journal, 14 and 15 July, 1834, Grey Papers. Ellice, Howiek and C. Wood thought it would be best to send him to Ireland to have the gloss taken off his reputation.

37 Broughton, , Recollections, 8 May, 1835, V: 35Google Scholar. See New, Durham, chapter 15 for a description of his labours in Russia.

38 Durham to Melbourne, 2 September, 1836, RA,MP 4/20; Durham to Palmerston (copy), 2 September, 1836, (enclosed); quoted in New, , Durham, p. 293.Google Scholar

39 He arrived on June 22, two days after the death of William IV.

40 Russell to Queen Victoria, 15 August, 1837, RA, A5/22; Parkes to Brougham, 2 December, 1837, Brougham Papers (University College, London) 5657.

41 For the rebellion of 1837, see: Schull, J., Rebellion; the Rising in French Canada 1837 (Toronto, 1971)Google Scholar; Manning, H.T., The Revolt of French Canada 1800-1835 (Toronto, 1962)Google Scholar; Creighton, D., Dominion of the North (Toronto, 1957), chapter 5Google Scholar; Lower, A.R.M., Colony to Nation (Toronto, 1964), chapters 17 to 19Google Scholar; Burroughs, P., The Canadian Crisis and British Colonial Policy 1828-1841 (Toronto, 1972).Google Scholar

42 Holland Diary, January 1838, BM, Add. MSS 51872, ff. 1067-8; Russell to Melbourne, 25 October 1838, PRO 30/22/3B, f.337; RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 16 January and 6 July, 1838. The same principle was applied to the choice of Lord William Bentinck to move the Address; Melbourne told Russell that he was “very agreeable to the Radicals, whom it is well to please when you can do it so cheaply.” 17 September, 1837, Broad lands Papers, MEL/RU/401, by permission of the Trustees of the Broad lands Archives.

43 In its final number (July 1, 1837), the radical paper The Constitutional closed it's leader by offering “best wishes…to the People—the Franchise, with Lord Durham for a minister.” In a leader entitled “We Want Lord Durham”, the Weekly Chronicle (March 5, 1837) argued that “He, and he alone, can now organize the Radical party. The Radical members would support him to a man.”

44 Ellice to Grey, 2 February, 1837, Grey Papers. Russell wrote to Melbourne in September 1837 that it would not be wise to offend Durham and Poulett Thompson, “for they would soon find followers, if they have none now.” Russell to Melbourne, 12 September, 1837, PRO 30/22/2F, f.l 13. In August, Mulgrave thought the best way to prevent Durham from gaining a strong position and forcing himself on the government would be to provide for him before he became too ambitious. Mulgrave to Melbourne, 21 August, 1837, RA, MP.

45 “I suppose Durham will be soon in England,” Russell wrote to Mulgrave on 9 June; “what he may do, or attempt do to, I know not, but I fancy he meditates much on a change of reign.” Russell to Mulgrave, 9 June, 1837, M[ulgrave] C[astle] Archives, Whitby Castle] M/870. I wish to thank the Marquis of Normanby for his kind permission to read the papers of the first Marquis.

46 “His temper is his least fault.” Melbourne wrote to Russell; “he is dishonest and unprincipled. There is no opinion nor person he will not sacrifice to further his immediate end.” Melbourne to Russell, Broadlands Papers, 7 September, 1837, MEL/RU/396.

47 Hobhouse Diary, 1 February, 1838, BM, Add. MSS 56559, f.11.

48 Melbourne to Mulgrave, 21 August, 1837, MCA MM/165; Melbourne to Russell, 7 July, 1837, Broadlands Papers, MEL/RU/367; RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 20 August, 1838.

49 Melbourne to Durham, 22 July, 1837, Lambton Papers, box XXII f.7; Durham to Ellice, January 1838, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 30 f.43; see Howick to Ellice, 22 August, 1837, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 22, f.27, where Howick claimed to have first recommended Durham for the post.

50 RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 16 January, 1838.

51 See New, , Durham, pp. 387–9Google Scholar for a description of the ordinance and of how this decision was reached.

52 Ibid., p. 390.

53 RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 9 March, 1838.

54 Broughton, , Recollection, 2 November, 1832, IV: 256–7.Google Scholar

55 The Times, 11 and 12 July, 1834; Howick Journal, 13 July, 1834.

56 The Times, 19 July, 1834; Howick Journal, 14 and 20 July, 1834. Grey Papers; Le Marchant to Brougham, July 1834, Brougham Papers 22795.

57 The Last Session of Parliament,” Edinburgh Review, LX (1834): 231.Google Scholar

58 O'Connell's revelations in the Commons that the government had negotiated with him over the clauses in the 1834 Coercion Act resulted in Althorp's resignation and Grey's retirement. Most of the damage had been done by E. J. Littleton, the Irish Secretary, who had overstepped his directive simply to apprise O'Connell of the government's views, but it was thought that Brougham had given Littleton an incorrect assessment of the cabinet's position. See Hansard, 3 July, 1834, S[eries] 3, [volume] XXIV, col. 1099; Le Marchant, , Althorp p. 495505Google Scholar; Holland Diary, July 1834, BM, Add. MSS 51870, ff.724-8; Howick Journal, 7-9 July, 1834, Grey Papers; Melbourne to Brougham, 17 February, 1835, RA, MP 2/28.

59 Melbourne to Brougham, 14 February, 1835, RA, MP 2/26.

60 See also Melbourne to Grey, 23 January, 1835, Grey Papers; Melbourne to Russell, 7 February, 1835, Broadlands Papers, MEL/RU/142; Melbourne to Mulgrave, 6 February, 1835, MCA, MM/9; Brougham to Melbourne, 4 December, 1834 and n.d. [December 1834], RA.MP 2/18 and 2/21.

61 Broughton, , Recollections, 16 January, 1838, V: 115.Google Scholar

62 Hansard, 18 January, 1838, 53, XL, col. 215.Google Scholar

63 Broughton, , Recollections, 18 January, 1838, V: 116.Google Scholar

64 Broughton, , Recollections, 11 and 31 March, 1838, V: 125 and 128Google Scholar; Hansard, S3, XLII, col. 428.Google Scholar

65 Hansard, 30 July, 1838, S3, XLIV, col. 758; Melbourne to Durham, 28 July, 1838, RA, MP 4/44; New, Durham, p. 439. “I am very happy to learn that you have settled the very difficult affair of the Prisoners and settled it so well,” Melbourne wrote; “You are quite right in making use of your present power in order to introduce as many sound & good laws as you can.” Glenelg to Durham; “my colleagues and I entirely approve—our opinion is that although there may be some legal inaccuracies of form, the substance is entirely right and the result satisfactory.”

66 BM, Add. MSS 56559, ff.175, 179 and 186.

67 Melbourne to Queen Victoria, 9 August, 1838, RA, Al/181.

68 Howick to Grey, 10 August, 1838, Grey Papers; Melbourne to Victoria, 10 August, 1838, RA, A1/183.

69 Durham to Glenelg, (despatch number 68) 28 September, 1838, British Parliamentary Papers, 1839, “Colonies, British North America,” (Irish University Press), [hereafter cited as B.P.P.] III: 190.Google Scholar

70 Durham to Glenelg, (despatch number 68) 28 September, 1838, B.P.P., III: 188. Durham told Grey that it was not Brougham's bill that weakened his authority, but the government's actions. Durham to Grey, 28 September, 1838, Grey Papers. See also The Examiner, 21 October, 1838, for a report of an address by Durham in Lower Canada containing similar sentiments. Brougham's bill declared that Durham had no authority to do what he did, and indemnified the persons involved in the illegal transportation of the prisoners. Once the ordinance was disallowed, the declatory part of the Bill was dropped. Hansard, S3, XLIV, 8 August, 1838, col. 1056.Google Scholar

71 Glenelg to Durham, (despatch number 21) 21 April, 1838, B.P.P., III: 29.

72 Durham to Glenelg, (despatch number 67) 28 September, 1838, B.P.P., III: 186. “Your Lordship's instructions expressly suggest the substitution of transportation and banishment from the province in lieu of capital punishments,” Durham pointed out.

73 Report of the Public Archives, 1923,(Ottawa, 1924), p. 44Google Scholar. This is surprising, for that part of the ordinance which declared that prisoners would suffer death if returned, was clearly illegal. The act 4 & 5 William IV, c.67 specifically declared that transportation for life should replace death as the punishment for this crime. This act was passed to amend 5 Geo. 4. c.84, which had called for the death penalty for prisoners who should be at large within any part of His Majesty's dominions before the termination of sentence.

74 BM, Add. MSS 56559, f.179.

75 The Examiner, 9 August, 1838; Hansard, 13 August, 1838, S3, XLIV, col. 1162Google Scholar; Russell to Queen Victoria, 15 August, 1838, RA, A 6/41.

76 Durham to Glenelg, (despatch number 67) 28 September, 1838, B.P.P., III: 185.

77 Howick to Grey, 10 August, 1838, Howick Journal, 9 August, 1838, Grey Papers.

78 Melbourne to Victoria, (two letters) 10 August, 1838, RA, CA1/182, 183.

79 Howick Journal, 9 August, 1838; Hansard, 14 August, 1838, S3, XLIV, col. 1211Google Scholar; Russell to Normanby, 14 August, 1838, MCA, M/919.

80 Broughton Diary, 10 August, 1838, BM, Add. MSS 56560, f.1.

81 Durham claimed that E. J. Stanley and Hobhouse had suggested Turton's name, although there is no doubt that Durham wanted to do something for his old friend. See Durham to Melbourne, n.d., RA, MP 4/28, where he says: “it was at Stanley's suggestion that I offered the appointment to Turton.” Hobhouse wrote in his journal of 2 April, 1838: “I have recommended Ld. D. to offer Turton the place.” BM, Add. MSS 56559, f.70. See too, Durham to Ellice, 9 August, 1838, NLS, Ellice Papers, box 30, f. 57; Spring Rice to Howick, 25 September, 1838, Grey Papers.

82 Ellice to Melbourne, April 1838, RA, MP 5/9; Durham to Melbourne, n.d. [April 1839], RA, MP 4/28; Melbourne to Victoria, 11 April, 1838, RA, Al 1/124.

83 New, , Durham, p. 372.Google Scholar

84 “How preposterous of Durham to take such a man out,” Morpeth wrote to Mulgrave. 28 April, 1838, MCA, M/586.

85 Melbourne to Durham, 4 May, 1838, RA, MP 4/32. Melbourne later told Russell that he thought Durham intended “by schemes” to employ Turton. 9 September, 1838, Broadlands Papers, MEL/RU/519.

86 Melbourne to Durham, 29 June, 1838, Lambton Papers, xxii-7; Hansard, 30 April, 1838, S3, XLII, col. 673Google Scholar; Hobhouse Diary, 2 and 3 July, 1838, BM, Add. MSS 56559, ff.148-9; Melbourne to Russell, 1 July, 1838, Broadlands Papers, MEL/RU/510; RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 2 July, 1838; Russell to Melbourne, 9 July, 1838, PRO 30/22/3B, f. 195.

87 Durham to Melbourne, 16 June, 1838, RA, MP 4/33. Melbourne told Victoria that mention of the other acts of adultery “was only making the matter worse.” RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 2 September, 1838.

88 Melbourne to Durham, (copies) 17 and 18 July, 1838, RA, MP 4/39 and 4/42.

89 New, , Durham, p. 433.Google Scholar

90 Hume to Place, 1 January, 1838, BM, Add. MSS 35151, f.48; Place to Samuel Harrison (copy), 14 January, 1838, BM, Add. MSS 35151, f.63; Place, memorandum, BM, Add. MSS 35151, f.50.

91 The Examiner, 14 January, 1838.

92 Place to E. Baines, Jr., 4 January, 1838, BM, Add. MSS 35151, f.57.

93 Lord Durham and the Canadians,” London and Westminster Review, XXVIII, (January 1838): 529.Google Scholar

94 Ellice to Grey, 21 February, 1838, Grey Papers; Melbourne to Ellice, 27 February, 1838, NLS, Ellice Papers, box E28, f.62; Howick Journal, 3 March, 1838, Grey Papers; RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 5 March, 1838; Morpeth to Mulgrave, 5 March, 1838, MCA M/583.

95 Broughton, , Recollections, 3 March, 1838, V: 122Google Scholar; RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 8 March, 1838.

96 Mansard, 7 March, 1838, s3 XLI, col. 582Google Scholar; Bulwer to Mulgrave, 11 March, 1838, MCA 0/77. Twice earlier in the session, the Tories saved the government from defeat at the hands of its own supporters—on December 4 and 7, 1837, on motions dealing with municipal corporations and Irish election petitions. Following Sandon's motion, they did so twice more—on Villier's corn law motion on March 15, and on a motion to abolish negro apprenticeship in the colonies on March 30. Furthermore, Wellington declared in the Lords that he did not want to see a change in the government over the Canda question. See Holland Diary, January 1838, BM, Add. MSS 51872, ff.1069-70; RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 16 January, 1838. The Tory attitude of refusing Radical support was again shown in May, 1839, when Peel refused to replace Melbourne's ministry during the Bedchamber crisis.

97 New, , Durham, p. 433.Google Scholar

98 Roebuck to Brougham, 8 July, 1838, Brougham Papers 13521. See Hansard, 3 and 5 July, 1838, S3, XLII, cols, 1222 and 1260Google Scholar for Ellenborough's attacks on Durham's policies.

99 Roebuck to Brougham, 10 and 23 July, 1838, Brougham Papers 13522/3.

100 See The Sun, 9 and 12 August, 1838 and The Examiner, 12 and 19 August, 1838, for examples of Radical support for Durham.

101 Hansard, 14 August, 1838, S3, XLIV, col. 1242Google Scholar; 15 August, 1838, S3, XLIV, col. 1307.

102 Russell to Melbourne, 6 September, 1838, Broadlands Papers, MEL/RU/56.

103 Peel agreed to support the Irish poor law bill and the tithe bill when appropriation was dropped from the latter. Hansard, 27 March, 1838, S3 XLI, cols. 1313-9Google Scholar. See also Macintyre, A., The Liberator (New York, 1965), pp. 196–7.Google Scholar

104 Cooper, in Radical Jack, p. 257Google Scholar, argues without evidence that Wellington's sudden switch was the result of Melbourne's vindictive and personal speech attacking the Tories for supporting Brougham.

105 RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 10 and 11 August, 1838.

106 Durham's despatch of August 9 was the first which outlines his position on the Canadian problem, and reflected his view that the problem was racial rather than constitutional. The Queen recorded that “M. thought it a good despatch & very able.” Russell wrote to Melbourne that “what Durham says agrees with what I wrote to you yesterday.” Durham to Glenelg, (despatch number 36) 9 August 1838, B.P.P., III: 152; RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 2 September, 1838; Russell to Melbourne, 3 September, 1838, PRO 30/22/2B, f.271.

107 Hansard, 9 August, 1838, S3, XLIV, col. 1092Google Scholar; Melbourne to Victoria, 9 August, 1838, RA A1/181; RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 11 August, 1838.

108 Melbourne to Russell, 4 July, 1838, Broadlands Papers MEL/RU/512; Melbourne to Russell, 31 August, 1838, RA, MP 12/65.

109 Russell to Melbourne, 2 and 6 September, 1838, Broadlands Papers, MEL/RU/54 and 56.

110 Melbourne to Russell, 21 October, 1838, RA, MP 13/84. See too Russell to Melbourne, 22 October, 1838, PRO 30/22/2B, f.320 and Ellice to Melbourne, 25 October, 1838, RA, MP 5/13 for references to keeping Durham in Canada.

111 Melbourne to Russell, 11 December, 1838, RA, MP 13/110.

112 Holland Diary, 1838, BM, Add. MSS 51872, f. 1078. Holland crossed out the words “presumptuous or conceited” in a second draft.

113 Broughton Diary, 16 August, 1838. BM, Add. MSS 56560, f. 6.

114 RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 10 April, 1838.

115 Durham was bitterly disappointed when not invested with the Order of the Bath during his mission to St. Petersburg, being convinced that failure to have the red riband exposed him to severe ridicule. Durham to Duncannon, 13 November, 1835, RA, MP 4/17.

116 170-168. Hansard, 3 April, 1838, S3, CLII, col. 385Google Scholar. The majority was low apparently because people were suprised that a division was called. RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 4 April, 1838. Papineau wrote to Roebuck on 25 October, 1838 that “Votre radical Durham a été un insolent satrape inaccessible au public…Des invitations à diner étaient nombreuses pour y déployer un luxe qui l'a rendu ridicule.” Brougham Papers, 21445.

117 RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 10 April, 1838.

118 RA, Queen Victoria's Journal, 30 April, 1838.