pointments are concerned) he uses it with propriety. The great
topic of interest is the question of Lord Hill's removal,[2]
which the Radicals and violent Whigs have been long driving at,
but to which it is believed Melbourne is himself adverse. So Lord
Stanley told me the other day as his belief; and when I said that
though this might be so, it was doubtful how far he would be
induced to fight the battle in his own Cabinet if it was mooted
there, he said that from what he heard, he thought Melbourne was
lord and master in his own Cabinet.

[2] [Lord Hill held the office of Commander-in-Chief from
1828 till 1842, when he resigned it.]

[Page Head: LORD DURHAM.]

The eternal question in everybody's mouth is what is Lord Durham
to have, or if it is indispensable that he should have anything.
When Durham left England, he was the elected chief of the
Radicals, and he was paving the way to future Court favour
through a strict alliance with the Duchess of Kent and Sir John
Conroy. At St. Petersburg his language was always moderate; now
that he is returned, the Radicals, still regarding him as their
chief, look anxiously to his introduction into the Cabinet.
Charles Buller, whom I met the other day, said, in reply to my
asking him if Government would gain at the elections, 'I think
they will gain anyhow, but _if they are wise_ they will gain
largely.' I said, 'I wonder what you call being wise?' He said,
'Take in Lord Durham.' But they want Durham to be taken in as a
pledge of the disposition of the Government to adopt their
principles,[3] whereas Melbourne will receive him upon no such
terms; and if Durham takes office, he must subscribe to the
moderate principles upon which both Melbourne and John Russell
seem disposed to act. After all, it appears to me that a mighty
fuss is made about Durham without any sufficient reason, that his
political influence is small, his power less, and that it is a
matter of great indifference whether he is in office or out.

[3] After this was written, a letter of Durham's appeared
couched in vague but conservative language, and without
any allusion to the Ballot or the Radical desiderata.

July 9th, 1837 {p.008}

Yesterday I went to the late King's funeral, who was buried with
just the same ceremonial as his predecessor this time seven
years. It is a wretched mockery after all, and if I were king,
the first thing I would do should be to prov