This morning I had another conversation with Graham. He told me he sat next to Hobhouse at Hardinge's dinner[43] at the India House last night, and had much very open talk with him. He understood from Hobhouse that Government did not intend to do anything, and he told him that he was afraid that they would find great difficulty in surmounting the obstacles that the forms of the House would enable the Opposition to throw in their way. Subsequently, however, he had a conversation with Peel, who he found took a very different view of the matter, and the same that I do. He said that the Government ought to act as if they had no doubt of obtaining all they required from Parliament; to consider well what that was; to choose their time, not delaying it long, and then to have a call of the House and ask for all the powers they require. If they find themselves thwarted by a minority moving successive adjournments, to sit there for any number of hours; to divide twenty or thirty times; and at last, when they had sufficiently proved to the country that their efforts were vain, and that they had exhausted all legitimate means, to give up the contest, instantly hold a Cabinet, and then a Council, by which they should do by Order in Council what they wished to do by Act of Parliament, and trust to public opinion and Parliament to support and sanction their proceedings. He told me he had expressed to Hobhouse the strong opinion he has of the inexpediency, even the danger, of the Queen's quitting town at this juncture, and that if these strong measures are to be adopted, her presence would of course be indispensable. The Speaker told him that an Act of Parliament was not necessary, as by an old Act (21 & 22 George III.) the Lord Lieutenant could in case of rebellion (of the existence of which he was himself the judge) proclaim martial law and suspend the Habeas Corpus; but Peel is against having recourse to such a measure, and prefers the application to Parliament. He thinks, too, that if the Government do not soon adopt such a course, they will be incurring a responsibility far more fearful than any they can incur by its adoption--the responsibility of all the blood that will be shed and the mischief that will ensue. Graham again spoke of John Russell's conduct in giving up the Arms Act, and said that he had so great a regard for him that he would not say one word against him on that score; but that he must expect to hear of it in case of extremities, and that he would be called to a severe account if there should be an outbreak, and if torrents of blood were shed by the instrumentality of those arms which but for him would not have been put into every man's hands. In my conversation with Grey yesterday, he told me that the Church question must be brought forward--not now, because the moment of rebellion and armed resistance was not that in which it would be wise or dignified or right to make concessions and introduce