RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 
 
 1813-1873 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN EARL RUSSELL 
 
 " Ille potens sui 
 * Laetnsque deget, cui licet in diem 
 Dixisse, Vixi ; eras vel atra 
 Nube polum Pater occupato, 
 Vel sole puro : non tamen irritum, 
 Quodcunque retro est, efficiet ; iieque 
 Diffinget, infectumque reddet, 
 Quod fugiens semel hora vexit." 
 
 HoR. Lib. 3, Ode 29 
 
 " Not heaven itself upon the past has power, 
 But what has been has been, and I have had my hour." 
 
 Drvden 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 ROBERTS BROTHERS 
 
 1S75 
 

 5^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 f-T$» 
 
 "*^ 
 
 SPRECKELS 
 
 Cambridge : 
 Press of John Wilson and Son, 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Some persons who may cast their eyes upon this 
 book, with the hope of finding that the whole 
 work is new, may be disappointed, and even con- 
 sider themselves deceived, by discovering that 
 they have at second-hand what they have al- 
 ready read in the introduction to my report of 
 my ' Speeches and Despatches.' But I hope my 
 explanation will satisfy them that I have acted for 
 the reader's benefit in thus repeating what has 
 been already read, instead of furnishing him with 
 an article entirely original. 
 
 The fact is, that after I had proceeded some 
 way in my task I found that my memory of past 
 transactions was not, after the lapse of some years, 
 so lively as it had been when I wrote the original 
 introduction. I have, therefore, satisfied myself 
 with copying in the first pages the work which I 
 had already published. 
 
 113587 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 It may interest some persons to learn what edu- 
 cation I had received before I entered Parliament. 
 That education was in part broken and disturbed. 
 After being at a private school at Sunbury, I 
 went to Westminster, but was so ill there that, 
 by the care and affection of my step-mother, the 
 Duchess of Bedford, my father was persuaded to 
 remove me, and I was sent with several young 
 men of riper age to receive private tuition from 
 the Rev. Mr. Smith, of Woodnesbury, in Kent. 
 There I formed relations of friendship with the 
 Earl of Clare, the late Duke of Leinster, his brother, 
 Lord William Fitzgerald, and others. But I had 
 not remained there long, Avhen Lord and Lady 
 Holland proposed that I should accompany them 
 on a journey to Spain in the troubled year 1808. 
 When I returned from Spain, in 1810, 1 asked my 
 father to allow me to go to the University of Cam- 
 bridge. But he told me that in his opinion there 
 was nothing to be learnt at English Universities, 
 and procured for me admission to the house of 
 Professor Playfair, at Edinburgh. 
 
 There I had my studies directed and my charac- 
 ter developed by one of the best and the noblest, 
 the most upright, the most benevolent, and the 
 most liberal of all philosophers. 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 Some years afterwards I travelled again in Spain 
 with my cousin, the late Earl of Bradford, and 
 Eobert Clive, the son of Lord Powis. In the 
 course of these travels I became acquainted with 
 the Duke of Wellington, and had occasion to ad- 
 mire the calmness, the directness, and the patriot- 
 ism wdiich distinguished his character. 
 
 But I need not follow this narrative any further. 
 [ was about to accompany my companions to Con- 
 stantinople, and return home by way of Moscow and 
 St. Petersburgh, when I w^as informed by a letter 
 from my father that his old friend, the acute and 
 witty Fitzpatrick, was dead, and that he intended 
 to propose me as candidate for Tavistock. Thus I 
 became a member of Parliament before I was of 
 age, and from that time my political life begins. 
 
 Before I conclude this Preface, I may mention 
 that at Edinburgh a public dinner was sometimes 
 held to commemorate the birthday of Mr. Fox. 
 At one of these dinners, presided over by Lord 
 Kinnaird, the following toast was given : — 
 
 ^The Houses of Russell and Cavendish. May 
 they ever be united in the cause of freedom ! ' 
 
 I was called upon by the chairman to acknowl- 
 edge the toast. I then said : — 
 
 ' It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 toast which has just been announced by the chair- 
 man. It is a satisfaction to me to reflect that 
 your favor is obtained, not by the accidental quali- 
 ties of talents and power, but by a steady adher- 
 ence to those principles which animated Mr. Fox 
 through life, and, holding it by that tenure, I trust 
 that it will never be forfeited/ 
 
 RUSSfXL. 
 
 Aldwoutii, October 30, 1874. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER PAGB 
 
 1 1 
 
 II. Policy of Lord Palmerston in the East 183 
 
 III. Faults of Sir Robert Peel's Policy — His Resig- 
 
 nation IN 1846 — Triumph of Free Trade .... 193 
 
 IV. Defeat of the Philosophical Radicals — Suppres- 
 
 sion OF THE Chartist Riots, 1848 205 
 
 V. Constitution of the House of Commons — Choice, of 
 
 Leaders 213 
 
 VI. Ministry of Lord Aberdeen — Origin of the Crimean 
 
 y War 221 
 
 *^VII. Foreign Policy from 1859 to the Death of Lord 
 
 Palmerston 226 
 
 VIII. Reform Bill of 1867 — Mr. Gladstone's Speech on 
 the Irish Church — General Election — Change 
 OF Ministry — Retirement from the Lead that I 
 
 HAD held since 1834 239 V 
 
 IX. Justice to Ireland 243 
 
 X. Tenants in Ireland 298 
 
 XI. National Education 305 
 
 XII. Treaty of Washington 323 
 
 XIII. Policy for the Future 335 
 
 XIV. General Election — Fall of Mr. Gladstone's 
 
 Ministry . , 839 
 
 XV. Concluding Chapter 346 
 
 APPENDICES 375 
 
 INDEX 381 
 
EECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGES _ 
 
 THr >- 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 UNrVEfis 
 
 I WAS elected a Member of Parliament for the bor- 
 ough of Tavistock in July, 1813, just a month before I 
 became of age. 
 
 The state of public affairs at that moment was one, 
 if not of anxiety, yet of the highest interest. The 
 great Revolutionary War, which had continued with 
 intervals from the invasion of France by the Duke of 
 Brunswick in 1792, was evidently drawing to a close. 
 That war may properly be divided into two very dis- 
 tinct periods. First, the vain, weak, and ineffectual 
 struggle of the Powers of Europe against the insane 
 strength of the French Revolution, terminated by the 
 Treaty of Campo Formio, and the Treaty of Ratisbon, 
 on the Continent of Europe, and by the Peace, or more 
 properly, the Truce of Amiens, between England and 
 France. Secondly, the struggle maintained on the one 
 side by Napoleon Bonaparte with infinite ability, infinite 
 ambition, and an entire disregard of moral or religious 
 scruples, with a view to make himself despotic master 
 of every country in Europe ; on the other side, by the 
 resisting power of England, and by the spirit of national 
 independence, first roused on the Continent in the breasts 
 of the Spanish people, and extending from them, as 
 
 1 
 
2 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 opportunity arose, to the people of Russia, of Germany, 
 of Holland, and of Northern Italy. 
 
 For some years the conduct of the war on the part of 
 the Allies, forms a strange contrast to the skill with 
 which William III., Marlborough, and Prince Eugene 
 had conducted the Grand Alliance against France, and 
 to the spirit and military talent which Frederick the 
 Great and Lord Chatham had displayed in the Seven 
 Years' War against the forces of France, Austria, and 
 Russia. In 1792, the Duke of Brunswick, in contra- 
 diction to his own views and opinions, had issued a proc- 
 lamation inspired by the French Royalist emigration, 
 threatening with condign punishment the National 
 Assembly of France, and all who held political, munic- 
 ipal, or other offices under the French Republic. This 
 atrocious attempt to deprive France of the rights of an 
 independent nation was soon defeated in the field, and, 
 by the just resentment which it provoked, was the main 
 cause of the repeated and splendid triumphs of the 
 French Republic. The beginning of the war was a 
 trial of energy between the combatants, and in point of 
 energy, as Mr. Burke has confessed, the French far 
 excelled their opponents. In fact, the Allies were not 
 only without energy, but without any motives by which 
 enthusiasm could be excited. Each great Power had 
 its own separate object. Austria wished to increase her 
 territory, either by annexing Bavaria, or by conquering 
 part of the French territory, as far as the banks of the 
 Somme. Prussia wished only to enlarge her share of 
 the partition of Poland, and employed the subsidies of 
 England in conveying her army to fight the Poles, and 
 acquire new provinces. Russia was intent solely upon 
 the conquest of Poland, and her crafty Empress ex- 
 pressed in many pious phrases and moral maxims the 
 
FIRST REVOLUTIONARY WAR. 3 
 
 utmost horror antl detestation of the Jacobin Conven- 
 tion of Paris, while her real object was to inflame the 
 English and the Germans against France. In the mean 
 time, her political intrigues and overwhelming legions 
 secured and consolidated her Polish conquests. While 
 she betrayed every Polish party, and crushed those to 
 whom she had promised protection, she indulged in un- 
 bounded licentiousness at St. Petersburg, and laughed 
 at the pious zeal excited by the atheism of France. 
 
 The course of England, though more honest than 
 that of the Continental Powers, was less definite, and 
 less likely to obtain success. The restoration of the 
 Bourbons was the wish, but not the object of the Eng- 
 lish Government.^ The maintenance of the Austrian 
 province of the Netherlands was the immediate object 
 of Mr. Pitt, but it was pursued with little vigor by 
 means of subsidies inconsiderately thrown away, of 
 negotiations defeated by the insincerity of Prussia, and 
 of military operations conducted by an English general, 
 totally ignorant of the art of war, in co-operation with 
 treacherous allies. 
 
 It was no wonder that hostilities thus conducted, 
 failed of success. Nor when the energy of the Jacobin 
 democracy abated, was the contest of military skill 
 which followed more auspicious to the Allies. 
 
 1 This wish was openly avowed by Mr. Pitt, in the debate on the 
 Peace of Amiens : — 
 
 Me si fata meis paterentur ducere vitam 
 Auspiciis, et sponte mea componere curas, 
 Urbem Trojanam priraum, dulcesque meorum 
 Reliquias colerem, Priami tecta alta manerent, 
 Et recidiva manu posuissem Pergama victis. 
 
 A natural wish in the breast of -^neas ; a very strange one in the mouth' 
 of Mr. Pitt. 
 
4 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The military men who arose in France, Pichegru, 
 Moreau, Heche, Massena, and lastly Napoleon Bona- 
 parte, defeated and dispersed the Allies and compelled 
 them to agree to ignominious terms of peace. The 
 allied armies were usually commanded by men of little 
 reputation at the time, and of complete obscurity in the 
 present age. The military knowledge of the Archduke 
 Charles, and the barbarous ferocity of Suwarrow, shine 
 out alone amidst the dearth of talent and of skill. 
 
 The second act of the great tournament of Europe 
 was of a very different description. Napoleon, flushed 
 with success, pretended that peace never could be made 
 between France and the ancient monarchies, and con- 
 sidered his own supremacy over all the states and 
 nations of Europe as the only security for what he 
 and others called the principles of 1789. 
 
 This pretension alienated those in England and on 
 the Continent who had been quite willing to see France 
 constitute herself as she , pleased, and even enlarge her 
 boundaries to a considerable extent. In 1805, Mr. Fox, 
 in opposition, wrote to his nephew, Lord Holland, that 
 it was no time to talk of peace. In 1806, Mr. Fox, in 
 office, conducted the negotiation which broke off not 
 merely, as he told his nephew, on the point actually in 
 dispute, but on account of the evident insincerity of 
 the French Government. After this there remained 
 nothing for those who were not disposed to allow Eng- 
 land to be absorbed in the French Empire but to resist 
 and to persevere. 
 
 The task seemed not only a difficult, but almost a 
 hopeless one ; no amount of subsidy, no coalition of 
 Powers, seemed likely to end otherwise than in such 
 defeats as Austerlitz, Jena, and Friedland. 
 
 Happily, from an unexpected quarter appeared the 
 
SECOND REVOLUTIQNAEY WAR. 5 
 
 dawn of better times. Napoleon invited the King of 
 Spain and his heir apparent to Bayonne with the view 
 of betraying and dethroning them. Many Spanish 
 grandees bowed their necks beneath the yoke, but 
 every Spanish peasant felt his own honor assailed in 
 the persons of his unworthy, contemptible, but still 
 national Sovereigns. 
 
 The signal fire was lighted on every hill, the flame 
 of independence blazed up in every bosom. 
 
 Here was indeed a crisis in the affairs of Europe. 
 The cause of national independence, which in the first 
 portion of the war was defended by France, was now 
 about to be upheld by the' other nations of Europe. 
 No matter how ignorant, how ill-armed, how ill-led the 
 Spanish people might be, here was a nation animated 
 by a real enthusiasm ; ready to fight in the field of bat- 
 tle, in the town, in the village, in the farm-yard and in 
 the peasant's cottage for the sacred cause of national 
 independence. 
 
 It behooved England, therefore, to welcome this reviv- 
 ing spirit, to expend her growing treasures, to employ 
 her extensive credit, to dispatch her most skilful oflicers, 
 to marshal her bravest troops in defence of this sacred 
 cause. England might be exhausted in the struggle, 
 but by lifting up her heart to meet the mighty danger, 
 and by an attempt to free herself and other nations 
 from intolerable slavery, she could never be disgraced. 
 
 Unhappily Lord Grenville (who became head of the 
 Ministry in 1806), and the leaders of the Whigs, did not 
 perceive the nature of the change that had taken place. 
 
 Lord Grenville in the former war had directed Lord 
 Malmesbury to insist upon retaining the Netherland 
 provinces for Austria, when the attempt was hopeless. 
 Indeed Austria herself, when beaten in Italy, was will- 
 
6 HECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 ing to yield those provinces to France. Again, when 
 Napoleon, as first Consul, had invited England to make 
 peace. Lord Grenville had informed him that the best 
 way of giving peace to Europe was to replace the 
 Bourbons on the throne of France. 
 
 With all the integrity, and with more than the abil- 
 ities of the first George Grenville, he exactly answered 
 the description which Burke has drawn of that states- 
 man. When the waters were but. Lord Grenville, like 
 his father, was unable to discern the means of safety. 
 Now the waters were out. Lord Grenville and the 
 Whig party dwelt on precedents of former wars ; on 
 the inability of Sir Arthur Wellesley to maintain him- 
 self in Portugal, and on the exhaustion of the finances 
 which a war in Spain would entail, but they thought 
 too little of the grandeur of the struggle, and the ob- 
 vious certainty that England or Napoleon must fall to 
 rise no more. Towards the end of the year 1813, when 
 Lord Grenville had begun to see more clearly the new 
 aspect of affairs, Mr. Horner wrote to Mr. Allen, at 
 Holland House, in the following terms : — 
 
 ' Your account of the view which Lord Grenville is 
 expected to take of Continental affairs, in a speech upon 
 the first day of the session, has relieved me from an 
 anxiety which I felt on that subject ; for I have had 
 fears that we were to make the same false step respect- 
 ing this German war that has been so fatal to the party, 
 and deservedly so, with respect to the Spanish cause. 
 That the financial difficulties of the country will be 
 increased by our embarking so deeply with the Allies, 
 as I think we ought to do, is true and ought not to be 
 disguised ; that the sanguine expectations, professed by 
 the friends of Government, of a speedy settlement of 
 the affairs of Europe have apparently no just foundation 
 
SPANISH WAK. T 
 
 in the present aspect of them, ought likewise, in my 
 opinion, to be stated ; but I cannot hesitate now in 
 believing that the determination of the French mili- 
 tary force, and the insurrection of national spirit in 
 the north of Germany, form a new conjunction in which 
 the Whigs ought to adopt the war system, upon the very 
 same principle which prompted them to stigmatize it as 
 unjust in 1793, and as premature in 1803. The crisis 
 of Spanish politics in May, 1808, seemed to me the first 
 turn of things in a contrary direction, and I have never 
 ceased to lament that our party took a course so incon- 
 sistent with the true Whig principles of Continental 
 policy, so revolting to the popular feelings of the coun- 
 try, and to every true feeling for the liberties and in- 
 dependence of mankind. To own that error now is a 
 greater effort of magnanimity than can be asked for ; 
 but the practical effects of it will gradually be repaired, 
 if a right line of conduct is taken with respect to Ger- 
 man affairs.' ^ 
 
 Such were the opinions of Francis Horner, a man 
 thoroughly imbued with Whig principles, who had mas- 
 tered in early youth the soundest doctrines of political 
 economy, who spoke in Parliament in a clear and manly 
 style of eloquence, who acted on every occasion of his 
 short public life in the highest spirit of honor, and 
 whose premature death caused deep and lasting afflic- 
 tion to all who knew him and to all who valued liberty. 
 
 But it is time to explain how it was that I embraced 
 with warmth the opinions of Lord Holland and Mr. 
 Horner in reference to Spain, rather than those of Lord 
 Grenville and Lord Grey. 
 
 In the autumn of 1808, when only sixteen years of 
 
 1 Life of Francis Homer. 
 
8 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 age, I accompanied Lord and Lady Holland to Coninna, 
 and afterwards to Lisbon, Seville, and Cadiz, returning 
 by Lisbon to England in the summer of 1809. They 
 were eager for the success of the Spanish cause, and I 
 joined to sympathy for Spain a boyish hatred of Napo- 
 leon, who had treacherously obtained possession of an 
 independent country by force and fraud — force of im- 
 mense armies — fraud of the lowest kind. 
 
 In 1810, I went on a visit to my brother, Lord Wil- 
 liam Russell, at the Isla de Leon. He then served on 
 the staff of Sir Thomas Graham, who was gallantly 
 defending Cadiz against two French divisions. 
 
 When my visit was over, Colonel James Stanhope, 
 who likewise was on the staff of Sir Thomas Graham, 
 proposed to me to go with liim and Colonel Walpole 
 to the head-quarters of Lord Wellington, who had just 
 occupied with his army the lines of Torres Vedras. 
 
 This offer I joyfully accepted, and, after a voyage 
 to Faro, and a pleasant journey by Almodovar, we 
 arrived at the quarters of General Hill. 
 
 The next morning we rode with General Hill through 
 the small town of Alhandra, beyond which ahattia were 
 placed to stop the French cavalry, as this was the 
 farthest English post. Indeed, it had been intended to 
 leave Alhandra to the French; and I remember that 
 Lord Grey, whom I met at dinner at Holland House on 
 my return to England, was much surprised when I told 
 him that I had ridden through the place within a fort- 
 night. 
 
 My friends and I proceeded next day to Pero Nero, 
 where we were most kindly received by Lord Welling- 
 ton. We were furnished with bedsteads thougli not 
 with beds, and the next morning before daylight we 
 accompanied our general to the fort of Sobral. 
 
LOED WELLINGTON. 9 
 
 Never was I more struck than with the physical, 
 military, and political spectacle which lay before me. 
 Standing on the highest point, and looking around him 
 on every side, was the English General, his eyes bright 
 and searching as those of an eagle, his countenance fuU 
 of hope, beaming with intelligence, as he marked with 
 quick perception every movement of troops and every 
 change of circumstance within the sweep of the hori- 
 zon. On each side of the fort of Sobral rose the en- 
 trenchments of the Allies, bristling with guns and alive 
 with the troops who formed the garrison of this forti- 
 fied position. Far off, on the left, the cliffs rose to a 
 moderate elevation, and the line of Torres Vedras was 
 prominent in the distance. 
 
 Below us, over a large extent of hill and valley, 
 plain and eminence, was the position of the French 
 army. The villages were full of their soldiers ; th« 
 white sails of the Portuguese windmills were actively 
 in motion for the supply of flour to the invading army. 
 There stood the advanced guard of the conquering 
 legions of France ; here was the living barrier of Eng- 
 land, Spain, and Portugal prepared to stay the destruc- 
 tive flood, and to preserve from the deluge the liberty 
 and independence of three armed nations. The sight 
 filled me with admiration, with confidence, and with 
 hope. 
 
 Impressed with these sentiments I returned to Eng- 
 land. Being some time in the succeeding autumn at 
 Lord Grey's at Howick, I betted a guinea with his 
 brother-in-law, Lord Ponsonby, that at that time next 
 year Lord Wellington would stiU hold the lines of 
 Torres Vedras. Lord Grey thought that I had made a 
 foolish bet, and referred to the lines of Marshal Villars, 
 called the ne plus ultra of Marlborough, and which 
 
10 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Marlborough successfully penetrated, as a proof that 
 the lines could not be held. At the end of a year Lord 
 Ponsonby paid me my bet. 
 
 I remember that in the year 1812, being at dinner 
 at Lord Wellington's head-quarters, he called to Lord 
 March (afterwards Duke of Richmond), 'What are you 
 talking of at that end of the table ? ' Lord March : 
 ' We are discussing, sir, the question whether if we 
 went back to the lines at Torres Vedras, we should 
 again be able to hold them.' Lord Wellington said : 
 ' That may be a political question, but as a military 
 question, I would go back twenty times to the lines, 
 and be confident of holding them.' I saw Lord Wel- 
 lington on three other occasions during the Peninsular 
 War. 
 
 The second was, when in compan}^ with my cousin 
 George Bridgeman, and my friend Robert Clive, I en- 
 tered Spain from Oporto. We joined the army at the 
 time when Lord Wellington, after the victory of Sala- 
 manca and the capture of Madrid, had failed in his 
 siege of the castle of Burgos. I sat next to him at 
 dinner in the evening when he had made up his mind 
 to retire, and to withdraw his army both from the siege 
 of Burgos and the occupation of Madrid. I knew 
 nothing of this important and mortifying decision, nor 
 could any thing less prepare me for it than the conver- 
 sation of the great commander. He said he was sorry 
 he could not show me the castle ; talked of the advance 
 of the French army, of which I had been a witness, as 
 a forte reconnaissance, and laughed at the luxury of a 
 Highland soldier, who had piled up a whole tree and 
 set it in a blaze, in order to make himself a comfortable 
 fire-side. The rest of his conversation was taken up 
 by comic descriptions of the defects of liis three iron 
 
LORD WELLINGTON. 11 
 
 guns — Thunder, Lightning, and Nelson — of which one 
 had a severe wound in the mouth, and another had 
 lost its trunnions by the fire of the enemy. After 
 dinner, my companions and I were informed by Colonel 
 Ponsonby that a retreat was resolved upon for that 
 night, and we were advised to pack ourselves off as 
 quickly as we could. We lost no time in following 
 that advice, and, for my part, I found a very comfort- 
 able bed on a heap of chopped straw some leagues 
 from Burgos. We tried to reach Madrid by San Ilde- 
 fonso, but were again driven back by the French ad- 
 vance, and forced to proceed by Salamanca and the 
 Sierra de Gata to Badajoz, Seville, and Cadiz. 
 
 At Cadiz, during the winter, I met Lord Wellington 
 when he paid a visit to that town, to concert with the 
 Government and the Cortes as to future measures. 
 Lord Wellesley had been urging in Parliament the ex- 
 pediency of sending large reinforcements to the British 
 Army in the Peninsula, but Lord WelHngton did not 
 share in this opinion. He related at some length the 
 difficulties encountered in transporting two regiments 
 from Lisbon to the army on the frontier of Portugal, 
 and observed how little statesmen at home knew of 
 these difficulties, in the emphatic words, 'My Lord 
 Wellesley does not know all this.' Lord Wellington 
 was no less solicitous about the arrangements to be made 
 for transporting and provisioning the army, than about 
 the military operations themselves. Mr. Bissett, who 
 acted as Chief Commissary during the absence of Mr. 
 Kennedy, told me that on the day of the battle of 
 Salamanca, Lord Wellington sent for him. He found 
 the General lying on his camp-bed, having devoted an 
 hour or two to repose, while a division which he had 
 sent for, to take part in the battle, was coming up from 
 
12 BEC0LLECTI0N8 AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 a distance. Mr. Bissett told me that Lord Wellington 
 entered with the greatest detail into the arrangements 
 to be made for the transport and supply of the army 
 with provisions. Thus, on the eve of a great battle, 
 Lord Wellington could refresh his bodily energies by a 
 short repose, and dictate the complicated arrangements 
 necessary for an army whose means of transport and 
 whose food were paid for and not extorted by force. 
 While he did so, his mind was undisturbed by the im- 
 mediate prospect of an impending battle, in which his 
 fame and his life were to be exposed to a hazard which 
 might have appalled men of the greatest courage. 
 
 In the autumn of 1813, I again saw Lord Wellington 
 at his head-quarters in the Pyrenees. It was either at 
 Lesaca or at Vera that I was for a day at the British 
 head-quarters. I could not but feel admiration and 
 joy at beholding the General whom I had visited in a 
 critical position, defending with difficulty the capital of 
 Portugal, now advancing in command of an admirable 
 army to the invasion of France. The same coolness, 
 the same imperturbal)le judgment in the midst of dan- 
 ger, distinguislied him in the advance as had marked 
 his prudent defence of the lines of Torres Vedras. 
 My brother. Lord William Russell, who was on his 
 Bluff, tf)ld mo that on one occasion a single division of 
 the army having crossed a river. Lord Wellington with 
 a few officers of his staff likewise crossed with a view 
 to observe the enemy. In the evening the river was 
 flooded, and it swelled with such rapidity that it was 
 impossible to pass from one bank to the other. The 
 officers of the staff showed much anxiety lest the French 
 should take advantage of the dangerous position of a 
 single division of the army and overwhelm General and 
 troops with their superior forces. Lord Wellington, 
 
LORD WELLINGTON. 13 
 
 alone, remained perfectly calm, and never betrayed the 
 slightest symptom of uneasiness or anxiety. Such was, 
 in fact, the strength of mind upon which the whole 
 British Army relied, stronger than the arms they bore, 
 unconquerable as the discipline by which they were 
 united and controlled. Thus Ovid, in describing Cad- 
 mus when about to encounter the Python, says, — 
 
 telura splendenti lancea ferro, 
 Et jaculum ; teloque animus prcestantior ullo. 
 
 Such was the spirit by which, at the end of this great 
 contest, the constancy, courage, and perseverance of the 
 British people, animating the prostrate nations of the 
 Continent, at length achieved a triumph over the most 
 formidable combination of military genius, warlike popu- 
 lation, conquering armies, and political talent, which 
 ever threatened the independence of our country. 
 
 In 1814, happening to be with my father at Florence, 
 I found there was an opportunity of going to Elba in 
 a brig of war, and I eagerly availed myself of the 
 occasion to have an interview with the late master 
 of Europe. To Lord Ebrington (afterwards Lord 
 Fortescue) he had spoken fully of his past life, and the 
 accusations which history might bring against him, but 
 when I saw him he was in evident anxiety respecting 
 the state of France, and his chances of again seizing 
 the crown which he had worn for ten years. I was so 
 struck with his restless inquiry, that I expressed in a 
 letter to my brother in England my conviction that he 
 would make some fresh attempt to disturb France and 
 govern Europe. 
 
 In speaking of the Duke of Wellington, Napoleon 
 said it was a mistake to send him as Ambassador to 
 Paris : — ' On n'aime pas un homme par qui on a dt^ 
 battu.' 
 
14 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The coalition of 1815 and the Battle of Waterloo put 
 an end to Napoleon *8 enterprise, and restored peace to 
 Europe. 
 
 I have pointed out what I conceive to have been 
 the error of policy of the Whig party, when they failed* 
 to see that the war of 1808 was a war in a great popu- 
 lar struggle, linked closely with the cause of the inde- 
 pendence of Europe. After the peace of 1815 the 
 Tory party committed an error as great, and still more 
 irretrievable. 
 
 During the continuance of the war, men readily 
 listened to the saying of Windham, that it is dangerous 
 to repair our house in the hurricane season, and thus 
 Lord Eldon, Lord Sidmouth, and other bigoted Tories 
 were permitted to leave ' windows which shut out the 
 light, and passages that led to nothing,' in the Palace 
 and the Parliament. But when the storm was over, 
 men would naturally survey the building, repair the 
 crumbling walls, and admit the excluded rays of the 
 sun. A wise Ministry would have studied Mr. Pitt's 
 policy from 1784 to 1792, and would have found how 
 little ground there was for considering him as an enemy 
 to extended commerce and religious freedom. 
 
 As, liowever, the majority of the ministers preserved 
 in 181G the attitude their great leader had taken in 
 1793, it behooved the Whigs, who had toasted in the 
 worst of times 'The cause of civil and religious liberty 
 all over the world,' to come forward and under happier 
 auspices to propose the reform of our foreign policy, our 
 financial system, our commercial exclusions, our intol- 
 erant laws, and lastly of our Parliamentry represen- 
 UUion. 
 
 The foreign policy of our Government was at this 
 time a timid repudiation of all those doctrines of 
 
FOREIGN POLICY. 15 
 
 national liberty and independence which had been 
 Id scribed on our flag at the end of the war, and which 
 had led Madame de Stael to declare that the Tories of 
 England were the Whigs of Europe. 
 
 Our financial system was based on the necessity of 
 keeping up a Navy and Army suited to our high posi- 
 tion, and of paying the interest of a debt which, having 
 amounted to one hundred and thirty millions before the 
 American War, had risen to eight hundred and thirtj- 
 six millions at the death of George III. In order to 
 defray these expenses, the taxation of the country had 
 penetrated to every corner and 'cranny of an English- 
 man's life, in the manner described with so much 
 humor, and no less truth, by Sydney Smith. 
 
 With the same object of collecting a large revenue, 
 and also of promoting native industry, prohibition and 
 protection pervaded our commercial code. 
 
 No Roman Catholic could hold high civil oJBfice, or 
 be admitted to a seat in Parliament. No Protestant 
 dissenter could hold any official position without nomi- 
 nally, at least, submitting to what, in his eyes, were 
 degradation and profanation. 
 
 Last of all, our Parliamentary representation was a 
 mockery and a scandal. 
 
 But I must explain these various matters of grievance 
 somewhat further. The Treaty of Paris had replaced 
 the elder Bourbons on the throne of France, and the 
 Congress of Vienna had divided the territories of Eu- 
 rope among the Sovereigns whose arms had defeated 
 Napoleon. It was to be desired at that time that the 
 wishes of the people of Europe should be consulted 
 both in the choice of the Sovereign whom they were 
 in future to obey, and the form of the institutions by 
 which they were thenceforth to be ruled. Both these 
 
16 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 conditions were set at nought by the armed monarchs 
 at Vienna. The Belgians wished to be Belgian ; they 
 were made Dutch. The Lombards wished to be 
 Italian ; they were made Germans. The old Republics 
 of Holland, Genoa, and Venice were not restored ; the 
 Prussians, who had indulged the hope of having a 
 Constitution granted to them, were not gratified ; the 
 charter granted to the French people by Louis XVIII. 
 contained ambiguous phrases by which Charles X. was 
 enabled, fifteen years afterwards, to assume the power 
 of dispensing with its most important provisions. 
 
 Lord Castlereagh was not to blame for the violation 
 of the solemn promises which the military rulers of Eu- 
 rope had made to the people of Europe, with a view of 
 obtaining their aid against Napoleon. At Chatillon 
 Lord Castlereagh had been powerful ; he held the key 
 of the strong-box of England, and could dispense at 
 pleasure million after million of treasure to the coalesced 
 Sovereigns. Again, in 1815, ten millions of pounds 
 Bterling had been granted in subsidies to the German 
 Princes, and Great Britain spent about a hundred and 
 forty millions in that war of a hundred days. But, 
 after Waterloo, the work was done, and the statesman 
 who had been all-powerful at Chatillon was powerless 
 at Vienna. He tried to save Poland from the arms of 
 Russia, and he assisted Talleyrand in defending Saxony 
 against the ambition of Prussia. But neither Russia 
 nor Prussia required any more subsidies; immense 
 armies were employed to watch any symptoms of re- 
 gitttance, and 
 
 Ea«e will recant 
 Vowi made In pain at violent and void. 
 
 Mr. Canning, as Foreign Secretar}% might have done 
 better, but he had unhappily excluded himself from 
 
FOREIGN POLICY. 17 
 
 that office, and was content with a useless embassy at 
 the Court of Lisbon. 
 
 Thus it happened, that after the gigantic efforts 
 made by Spain, by Russia, and by Germany, the Con- 
 tinent lay almost as much enslaved by its old, and for 
 the most part dull Sovereigns, as it had been since the 
 beginning of the century by the marvellous genius of 
 Napoleon and his victorious legions; only, instead of 
 the improvements and material benefits gained by the 
 efforts of the French National Assembly of 1789, the 
 Continent of Europe returned to the old feudal laws 
 and corrupt administration of the despotic monarchies 
 of Europe. 
 
 Thus, the English Government, in conquering Napo- 
 leon, and quenching the flame of Jacobin revolution, 
 did not succeed in establishing a satisfactory or perma- 
 nent settlement. Pitt, in 1805, had drawn out a sketch 
 of a restored Europe, such as he wished it to be, should 
 fortune crown the arms of the Powers then at war with 
 France. In this sketch Belgium was given to Prussia. 
 A military Power of that magnitude might have had a 
 chance of suppressing a Belgian insurrection ; but the 
 supremacy of Holland was sure to tempt a foreign 
 people to resistance, and to provoke a combat in which 
 the Belgians might meet the Dutch on equal terms, 
 and thus bring on European intervention. In 1830, 
 such an insurrection took place, and nothing but the 
 temperate wisdom of the then ruler of France, and the 
 judicious firmness of Lord Grey and Lord Palmerston, 
 prevented a European war. 
 
 Italy could only be coerced, not governed, by Aus- 
 trian archdukes and Austrian armies. 
 
 The treaty by which France was given over to the 
 Bourbons, and liberty kept in check by the passive sub- 
 
 2 
 
18 RECOLLKCTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 mission of the French, was attacked by Mr. Homer in 
 a most able argumentative speech. The cause of the 
 ancient republic of Genoa, and of the old public law of 
 Europe, was pleaded with great weight of reason and 
 authority by Sir James Mackintosh. 
 
 But a question touching England more nearly than 
 the state of the Continent was now to be submitted to 
 lier Government, her Parliament, and her people. What 
 was to be thenceforward her honie policy ? Before the 
 great convulsions of France, in 1785, Mr. Pitt had pro- 
 posed parliamentary reform, not indeed as Minister, 
 but with all the weight of his personal talents. In 
 1786, in concluding a commercial treaty with France, 
 he had founded his measure on the principles of free 
 trade, temperately and gradually introduced. In 1792, 
 Pitt and Fox had lauded, as the source of all our pros- 
 perity and all our greatness, the principles of the British 
 Constitution. In 1801, in framing the measure for a 
 legislative Union with Ireland, Pitt had proclaimed as 
 its basis, that England, Scotland, and Ireland were to 
 be placed on a footing of equality. He contemplated 
 the admission of Roman Catholics to seats in Parlia- 
 ment, and, with few exceptions, to all civil and military 
 employments. He projected a permanent grant to the 
 Roman Catholic clergy, which would have placed them 
 on a footing of virtual equality with the clergy of the 
 Established Church. 
 
 In 1800, the Duke of Bedford, then Lord Lieutenant, 
 directed Mr. Ponsonby, the Chancellor, Mr. William 
 Elliot, the Chief Secretary, and Mr. Grattan, to prepare 
 a measure for the commutation of tithes. They pro- 
 IK)8cd to give the Church a compensation for the tithe 
 of agistment, which had been abolished, without any 
 Tegaitl to justice, by the Irish Parliament. The plan 
 
STATE OF IRELAND. 19 
 
 was transmitted to England, bnt the Ministry soon 
 after resigned, and the Government which succeeded 
 them was not prepared to do justice, either to the 
 people as against the Church, or to the Church as 
 against the landlords. Ireland was again given up to 
 that monopolizing minority, who, by intolerance, corrup- 
 tion, and oppression kept her in a miserable subjection. 
 
 Any one who will read the descriptions given of 
 Ireland by Burke, by Bishop Doyle, by Grattan, by 
 Ponsonby, and by Plunket, before the Union, will find 
 in them a picture of * a country ill-governed, and a 
 government ill-obeyed.' ^ The system of intolerance 
 and corruption there described prevailed from the 
 period of the Union till 1806, and from 1807 till 1830. 
 Lord Grey then undertook the double task of putting 
 down sedition and inaugurating justice. 
 
 Questions of this importance, which occupied Pitt's 
 mind before and during the war, were thrust aside 
 by the imminent perils of the war itself, and by the 
 necessity of combining the elements of a majority who 
 might agree upon the policy of continuing the war, 
 although they might differ upon all other questions. 
 
 Thus Pitt renounced his views on reform of Parlia- 
 ment in gratitude to the supporters who had opposed 
 what he called the Jacobin party ; he put free trade in 
 abeyance in order to raise the supplies for the year; 
 and, after a temporary retirement from office, he con- 
 sented to suspend the pacification of Ireland in def- 
 erence to the King's scruples and the strong religious 
 prejudice which disturbed hie mind. 
 
 But now, with the war concluded, a very large debt 
 contracted, trade embarrassed, and manufactures de- 
 
 1 Grattan. 
 
20 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 pressed, these questions were sure to arise. Free trade, 
 parliamentary reform, pacification of Ireland, might 
 each be expected to excite popular discussion and par- 
 liamentary movement. 
 
 Had Pitt lived till 1815, he might have recurred to 
 his study of Adam Smith, and promoted freedom of 
 trade with foreign countries ; he might have introduced 
 a temperate reform of the representation; he might 
 have pacified Ireland without waiting for the threat of 
 civil war, or fearing the conscientious scruples of the 
 Prince Regent. For the Prince Regent, in 1812, had 
 empowered Lord Wellesley to form a Ministry on the 
 basis of granting what was called * Catholic Emancipa- 
 tion.* 
 
 But these are questions belonging to t^e hypothesis 
 of what might have been; my task is to record what 
 was the policy of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool. 
 
 Lord Liverpool, of whom Lord Melbourne said after 
 his resignation, 'that he had been clear in his great 
 office,* had the merits of unblemished character, of 
 great fairness in debate, and of avoiding extremes in 
 policy. Ho was a man of very moderate understanding, 
 not averse to some relaxations in matters of trade, but 
 utterly averse to parliamentary reform, and too much 
 imbued with the prejudices of the Tory party to admit 
 the claims of Roman Catholics to seats in Parliament 
 or political office. He had been the butt of Canning at 
 Oxford ; ho was his master in Downing Street. Lord 
 Gastlcreagh, who was leader of the Government in the 
 House of Commons, had in fact the superior power in 
 domestic as well as in foreign affairs. 
 
 Lord Castlcrcagh liad entered the Irish House of 
 Commons early in life. Ho had professed opinions 
 favomblo to parliamentary reform. But having re- 
 
LORD CASTLEREAGH. 21 
 
 ceived from the Irish Government the offer of the higfh 
 and responsible office of Chief Secretary, with the 
 lead of the Irish House of Commons, he accepted it, 
 and became the exponent of the policy of the Govern- 
 ment on the critical questions of the Rebellion and the 
 Union. Tiiere can be no doubt that the insurrection 
 was suppressed with little regard to humanity, and that 
 the Union was carried by means of political corruption. 
 But Lord Castlereagh, while he obtained the praise of 
 Lord Cornwallis for his ability, judgment, and habits of 
 business, did not incur any peculiar reproach for want 
 of feeling or want of integrit3\ After the Union it 
 was proposed to him to lead the Irish supporters of 
 Government in the House of Commons. But he de- 
 clined this separate position, and chose rather to be 
 merged in the general body of the ministerial party 
 than to be the leader of the Irish members. He did 
 not resign with Pitt ; on the contrary, he held an im- 
 portant office in the Addington administration. Yet he 
 was favorable to the claims of the Roman Catholics, 
 and gave them his support as soon as George HI. 
 ceased to have personal control over public measures. 
 It is said that many years afterwards, when Grattan's 
 friends were assembled round his sick-bed, the dying 
 patriot said to them, ' Don't be hard upon Castlereagh 
 — he loves our country.' It is added that when Lord 
 Castlereagh heard of these words of his great opponent, 
 he burst into tears. I cannot vouch for the truth of 
 this anecdote, but I think it probably authentic. 
 
 Lord Castlereagh, who had been often pointed out 
 as the successor of Pitt, wanted the large views of that 
 great man. Still more obviously did he fail in emulat- 
 ing the magnificent march of Pitt's eloquence. Lord 
 Castlereagh was an obscure orator, garnishing his 
 speeches with confused metaphors. He took three- 
 
22 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 quarters of an hour in telling the House of Commons 
 that he did not mean to make any motion on the Trea- 
 ties of Vienna, but that any private member was at 
 liberty to do so. On another occasion, he had gone 
 on for an hour speaking upon what subject no one 
 could guess, when of a sudden he exclaimed, ' So much, 
 Mr. Speaker, for the law of nations.* On another 
 occasion, when he had spoken for an hour tediously 
 and confusedly, he declared, ' I have now proved that 
 the Tower of London is a common-law principle.* Of 
 Spain he declared, that ' the pendulum had swung so 
 far on the side of Jacobinism, that it afterwards swung 
 quite as far on the side of anti-Jacobinism, which had 
 prevented its settling in a middle point.* Every one 
 has heard of his exhortation to the country gentlemen 
 not to turn their backs upon themselves. He is said to 
 have ended one of his long orations with the little word 
 'its.* He had no classical quotation, no happ}^ illus- 
 tration, no historical examples with which to adorn 
 argument and enforce conviction. Yet his influence 
 with his party was very great, and he was, till near the 
 close of his life, a successful leader of the House of 
 Commons. ' 
 
 For this end he possessed, besides the halo of glory 
 encircling liis brow as the Minister who had successfully 
 concluded an arduous war, very consideral)le advan- 
 tages. He was, as a man of business, clear, diligent, and 
 decided. His temper was admirable — bold and calm, 
 good-humored and dispassionate. He was a thorough 
 gentleman ; courteous, jealous of his own honor, but 
 full of regard for the feelings of othera. No one 
 doubted his personal integrity, however much they might 
 dislike his policy. That policy was detestable. None 
 of the great subjects which had been in abeyance during 
 the war — free ti*ade, parliamentaiy reform, the griev- 
 
LORD CASTLEREAGH. 23 
 
 ances of Ireland — were made the basis of ministerial 
 measures. The Tory party dreaded free trade doc- 
 trines, as likely to lead to the subversion of the corn- 
 laws. Mr. Canning, who had again become one of the 
 Ministry, was a vehement opponent of parliamentary re- 
 form. On a motion of mine to disfranchise Grampound, 
 he said to his constituents at Liverpool, ' In disfranchising 
 Grampound, if that is to be so, I mean to preserve Old 
 Sarum.' With respect to the Catholic question, brought 
 forward in 1816 by Mr. Grattan, Mr. Peel, then Chief 
 Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, made a powerful 
 speech on the argument, that if the higher Catholics 
 were admitted to Parliament, the great mass of the 
 people would make a demand — an irresistible demand 
 — for the abolition of the Protestant Church. Lord 
 Castlereagh and Mr. Canning were permitted to vote 
 for the motion, but Lord Liverpool maintained that his 
 Ministry must continue divided upon a question vital 
 to the empire ; and for fourteen years after the peace 
 this perilous and discreditable see-saw continued. 
 
 Even upon questions of social progress remote from 
 party politics. Lord Castlereagh resisted innovation. 
 Sir Samuel Romilly, a man of austere virtue and the 
 most enlightened humanity, tried to amend our crimi- 
 nal law ; Lord Castlereagh obstructed, and successfully 
 obstructed, his progress. The same great and liberal 
 man proposed to make freehold property subject to the 
 payment of simple contract debts; the law-ofQcers of 
 the Crown would not hear of so dangerous an innova- 
 tion.^ So with regard to the Slave Trade and slavery ; 
 
 1 One of the Crown lawyers said that it was a mistake to say the law 
 dated from the reign of Henry VIII. ; that its origin was as far back as 
 the time of Edward I. 'What care I,' retorted Romilly, 'whether this 
 law was made by one set of barbarians or another ? * 
 
24 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 in speaking of the omission of Lord Castlereagh to insist 
 on the condition that France should not revive the 
 SLave Trade, and of our own acquisition of new col- 
 onies, Sir Samuel exclaimed, ' These colonies have been 
 bought with the blood of Africa ! * 
 
 His look of stern indignation added to the effect of 
 these words. Never was purer integrity, more en- 
 lightened philosophy, or a more profound love of man- 
 kind shown in the application of political science to 
 practical legislation. 
 
 The conduct of the Government in refusing all meas- 
 ures of. improvement or relief amid the distress which 
 Boon after the peace befell both the manufacturing and 
 the agricultural classes, produced its natural effects — 
 anger, discontent, disaffection, and secret conspiracies. 
 Lord Sidmouth had recourse to the usual weapon of 
 arbitrary government; he employed spies to discover 
 the plans of the conspirators, and the spy, as usual, 
 fomented the disaffection which he was sent to investi- 
 gate. A knot of disaffected persons in Derbyshire were 
 told by the spy that 70,000 men in the neighborhood 
 of Manchester were ready to rise in insurrection, and 
 some of these unhappy dupes having appeared in arms 
 to support their allies, were, on the evidence of the 
 Crown, condemned and executed. 
 
 In 1817 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in 
 England ; in 1819 six bills for the suppression of dis- 
 turbance and for the repression of discussion at public 
 meetings were introduced and passed. Lord Castle- 
 reagh, with his usual boldness, in bringing forward his 
 portion of the bills, said, — * I rise for the purpose of 
 proposing to tlie House measures of severe coercion.* 
 
 It was evident that, if such was to be the peace 
 policy of the Government, it behooved the Opposition to 
 
WHIG OPPOSITION. 25 
 
 declare their own policy, and take issue on their pro- 
 posals, as contrasted with those of the Government. 
 
 The Opposition of that day was neither a strong nor 
 a compact body. Except Lord Grey, who had, much 
 to his annoyance, been transferred from the House of 
 Commons to the House of Lords, and who was not at 
 this time very active in political life, the Opposition had 
 no leader fit to inaugurate a policy or to lead a party. 
 I remember being summoned to a meeting of the mem- 
 bers of the party, both in Lords and Commons, at Bur- 
 lington House, early in the year 1817. Lord Grey, 
 in a few clear, bold, and dignified sentences, sketched 
 the policy expected from the Ministry, and his own 
 determination to oppose to the uttermost such of those 
 measures as should be brought forward in the House 
 of Lords. He ended by sajdng, ' Mr. Ponsonby will 
 explain to you what is expected on the part of the 
 Government in the House of Commons.' Mr. Ponsonby 
 then addressed the meeting, and declared that he knew 
 nothing of the proposals to be made by the Govern- 
 ment in the House of Commons, or of the course that 
 it was fit to pursue. 
 
 While such was the inability of the leader who had 
 been set over us, there was little concord as to the 
 measures to be resisted, or the motions to be brought 
 forward by members of the Opposition. On foreign 
 policy, little was to be done at this time. On the 
 question of retrenchment, I moved in 1816, by the 
 advice of Mr. Tierney, that the estimates should be 
 returned to the Government w4th a prayer for their 
 reduction. This motion failing, the question was 
 taken up by Mr. Joseph Hume, who had great knowl- 
 edge of details, unblemished honesty, and dogged 
 perseverance. 
 
26 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 With regard to parliamentary reform, as I took the 
 lead upon that question from the end of 1819, it may 
 be as well to explain the notions prevailing in the party. 
 The abuses whi^h had existed in the representation, and 
 ■which had gone on increasing ever since the Revolution, 
 had from time to time excited violent bursts of indigna- 
 tion, but tlie flame of reform, after blazing fiercely for 
 a while, flickered and s.ank, and like a fire of straw had 
 burnt itself away. 
 
 Impracticable theories or weak palliatives had been 
 suggested instead of a wholesome remedy. The Duke 
 of Uichraoud and Major Cartwright were in 1780 the 
 advocates of personal suffrage. Pitt and Fox had both 
 professed themselves favorable to a temperate reform. 
 But the majority of Pitt's adherents did not follow him 
 upon this subject, and on the Whig side while Fox, 
 Sheridan, and Grey were favorable to parliamentary 
 reform. Lord Rockingham and Burke were opposed to 
 it. With these traditions, the Whigs of 1819 were 
 much divided in opinion, many dreading, with the old 
 Whigs and the Grenvilles, the agitation of so serious a 
 subject, and others, left to their own inspirations, pro- 
 moting impracticable schemes. Lord Milton opposed 
 refoim. Lord Althorp and Mr. Brougham supported it. 
 
 It seemed to me that this question was the test by 
 which the popular principles of the Whigs, and of the 
 Liberal party in general, were to bo tried. As a ques- 
 tion of men, I could not understand how any Ministry 
 could be formed with a fair prospect of stability while 
 a phalanx of membei's for close boroughs could be mar- 
 shalled at any time, and drive Liberal statesmen from 
 oflice, to expiate by a penance of ten or twenty years 
 Iho crime of having brought forward measures favora- 
 ble to religious liberty, or hostile to corrupt expendi- 
 
THE WHIG OPPOSITION, 1819-1832. 27 
 
 ture. As to measures, similar reasoning might be 
 applied so long as a selfish cabal could feel certain of 
 defeating any plan of reform injurious to their personal 
 interests. There was no hope, therefore, unless parlia- 
 mentary reform were seriously taken up and resolutely 
 pursued, of arresting the course of political repression, 
 religious intolerance, and wasteful expenditure, which 
 was upheld by all the strength of a great party, victori- 
 ous in foreign war, fortified by the possession of bor- 
 oughs which gave a majorit}^ in the House of Commons, 
 and apparently invincible from long possession of Gov- 
 ernment patronage, spreading over the Church, the 
 law, the arm}^, the navy, and the colonies. 
 
 In assailing such a power, it behooved the Opposition 
 to be very cautious ; indeed, I had, like many others, 
 somewhat of a superstitious reverence for a system 
 which seemed entwined with our liberties, and almost 
 linked with the succession to the Crown. There was 
 besides the danger of touching public credit, which 
 was rightly compared by Lord Chatham to the sensitive 
 plant, shrinking from the slightest contact with a rude 
 hand. It was necessary to exorcise what Mr. Bentham 
 called the ' hobgoblin argument,' and this could not be 
 done by bell and candle, but must be met by clear argu- 
 ment, and dispelled by the light of day. 
 
 Such, then, was the problem which in 1819 I had to 
 examine and consider. 
 
 On the question of financial economy, I am con- 
 vinced that when the sums proposed in the yearly 
 estimates are excessive, and show profusion or care- 
 lessness, the motion suggested by Mr. Tiexney in 1816 
 is the proper course for the House of Commons to 
 adopt. Mr. Hume, however, Avith indefatigable indus- 
 try and perseverance, in 1822, and following years, 
 
28 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 attacked the various items of expense, and succeeded 
 in persuading the country that the general character of 
 the Government was not marked by economy. 
 
 The motion which I made in 1816 produced able 
 speeches in debate, but no adequate result on the divi- 
 sion. 
 
 In fact, the men of property, who had the representa- 
 tion in their hands, still feared a fresh explosion of the 
 French Revolution, and were disposed to trust blindly 
 to those who' had ended the war with glory, and re- 
 placed the Bourbons on the throne of France. 
 
 I have said that in 1817 the Habeas Corpus Act was 
 suspended. At this time I had felt attendance in the 
 House of Commons to be too fatiguing for my health, 
 and I resolved to give up my seat in Parliament — at 
 least for a year. Before doing so, I opposed the Sus- 
 pension Bill in the speech contained in the volume of 
 my speeches. 
 
 I was returned to Parliament in 1818 for the borough 
 of Tavistock, and in 1819 I spoke on parliamentary 
 reform. 
 
 The state of the representation of the people in the 
 House of Commons, which in 1780 had excited so much 
 popular discontent, had in the course of a long lapse of 
 time become more and more unsatisfactory. Successive 
 Sovereigns had granted the right, or imposed the burden, 
 of returning members to Parliament on the corporations, 
 freeholders, or burgage-tenants of numerous small 
 towns. Powerful peers and wealthy commoners had 
 bought property in these small boroughs with a view to 
 increase their political influence. One noble lord used 
 to go out liunling followed by a tail of six or seven 
 members of Parliament of his own making. Another, 
 being asked who should be returned for one of his 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, 1819-1832. 29 
 
 boroughs, named a waiter at White's Club ; but as he 
 did not know the man's Christian name, the election 
 was declared void, and a fresh election was held, when, 
 the name having been ascertained, the waiter was duly 
 elected. The object of the boroughmongers, as they 
 were called, was generally to buy up the freeholds or 
 burgage tenures in a small borough, in order to reduce 
 the number of electors to a manageable number. If a 
 freeholder or burgage-tenant refused to sell, it was not 
 a very uncommon practice to blow up his house with 
 gunpowder, and thus disfranchise a political opponent. 
 
 In this manner a number of boroughs, called nomi- 
 nation boroughs, were created, and became valuable 
 property. A seat for the whole duration of a Parlia- 
 ment was sold for 5,000Z. But as Parliaments were 
 subject to sudden death, prudent men made a bargain 
 to pay 1,000^. a year so long as they sat in the House 
 of Commons. Mr. Ricardo, and many others, were 
 members of the House of Commons in virtue of such 
 payment. Sir Francis Burdett entered Parliament by 
 purchase of a seat from the trustees of the Duke of 
 Newcastle — a minor. Other proprietors of boroughs 
 sold their seats to the Treasury for rank, office, or pat- 
 ronage. A friend of mine was concerned for a friend 
 of his in a transaction of this kind. A valuable sinecure 
 was part of the assets to be allotted to the seller of a 
 portion of the representation of the people — I think 
 not less than four seats. The partial remedies applied 
 from time to time by Parliament did little to cure a 
 wide-spread and notorious evil. Shoreham, where rich 
 nabobs from India were all-powerful, and where a club, 
 called the Christian Club, sold the borough and divided 
 the profits, was thrown into the Rape of Bramber. 
 Lord Chatham expressed his satisfaction that Shoreham 
 
30 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 was taken away from Bengal and restored to the county 
 of Sussex. Similar treatment was applied to Aylesbury. 
 
 But these rare punishments were ineffective while 
 the general system was so corrupt. 
 
 The prevailing notion in 1780 was tx) diminish the 
 representation of the boroughs and increase that of the 
 counties; or, at all events, to add one hundred to the 
 representation of the counties, by way, as it were, of 
 diluting the noxious ingredients. Lord Chatham highly 
 approved of this remedy ; but Lord North, with char- 
 acteristic humor, said — * Some ask, with Lear, for a 
 hundred knights; and some, with Goneril, for fifty; but 
 I say, with Regan, Avhat need of one ? ' 
 
 It was clear that no efficient remedy could be applied 
 unless by means of a strong party organization, or a 
 strong public opinion ; and both were then wanting. 
 
 In 1801, Pitt, in his speech on the Union, declared 
 not only that he would not propose reform while the 
 war required the undivided energies of the nation, but 
 that the resistance to Jacobinism displayed by the House 
 of Commons during the French War persuaded him that 
 no reform of Parliament was necessary. 
 
 Fox, on his side, induced Grey to bring forward 
 reform in 1797, not witli a liope of carrying any measure, 
 but as a protest against the whole foreign and domestic 
 policy of the Government. Thus reform became in men's 
 minds closely connected with revolutionary change. 
 
 Sir Francis Burdett, in later years, proposed reform 
 in the spirit of Bolingbroke and the Tory party of the 
 reign of Queen Anne. Tlie Tory theory of that time 
 was, that the House of Commons ought to be a check 
 upon the Crown, but that no Minister ought to sit in 
 the House of Commons. The Whig theory, which was 
 adopted by a compromise called * West^s Expedient,' 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, 1819-1832. 81 
 
 from the name of its proposer, admitted Ministers into 
 the House of Commons, if duly elected after the accept- 
 ance of office, and instead of leaving to the Sovereign 
 the free choic6 of his political servants, insisted that 
 the Ministry, as a united and responsible body, should 
 possess the confidence of the House of Commons. Sir 
 Francis Burdett, reverting to the notion that the pre- 
 rogative of the Crown, in choosing its servants, ought 
 to be unfettered and uncontrolled, said, in bringing 
 forward a motion for reform of Parliament, ' If a coun- 
 try gentleman were to offer to a servant out of place to 
 make him his butler, and the man were to answer, " I 
 will not be your butler unless you will take Harry for 
 your coachman, and Thomas for your groom, and Dick 
 for your footman," the gentleman would be greatly 
 astonished.' This remark proves that Sir Francis Bur- 
 dett was, as he sometimes avowed himself to be, a high 
 prerogative Tory of the days of Queen Anne. Indeed, 
 this mode of arguiilg the question of reform was an 
 arraifrnment of the whole course of constitutional ^ov- 
 ernment, as it had existed from the accession of the 
 House of Hanover, and tended to no practical result. 
 Yet the case against the House of Commons, as an 
 imperfect and distorted image of the people, was stronger 
 than ever. On the one side, the strength of the nomi- 
 nation system was such, that even Mr. Canning felt the 
 weight of the chain he was unable to burst. When he 
 was going to India, Mr. George Vernon Harcourt, 
 meeting him in a passage of the Opera House, said to 
 him, ' I cannot but lament your going to India ; I was 
 in hopes that one day you would have been leader of 
 the House of Commons.' Mr. Canning answered that 
 at one time he had entertained a similar hope, but that 
 when he saw that the Ministry were obliged to yield to 
 
82 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 the dictation of the Duke of and the Duke of , 
 
 he no longer had a wish to be leader. 
 
 On the other hand, while a few men governed the 
 Government, large commercial and manufacturing cities 
 had grown up which had no representatives in Parlia- 
 meni, Mr. Stuart Wortley conducted all the local 
 business of Yorkshire — of Leeds, Halifax, Bradford, 
 and Sheffield ; Lord Stanley that of Lancashire — that 
 is of Manchester, Oldham, and other populous towns. 
 On public affairs these great centres of industry, skill, 
 intelligence, and wealth had no representative voice 
 whatever. 
 
 With a view to work my way to a change, not by 
 eloquence — for I had none — but by patient toil, and a 
 plain statement of facts, I brought before the House of 
 Commons the case of Grampound. I obtained an in- 
 quiry ; and with the assistance of Mr. Charles Wynn 
 I forced the solicitors employed in bribery to reveal the 
 secrets of their employers : the * case was clear ; the 
 borough was convicted. 
 
 At this time Lord Castlereagh, who had always been 
 personally very kind to me, invited me to speak to him on 
 one of the benches behind the Treasury Bench. He told 
 me that the Government would cordially support me, if I 
 would content myself with extending the right of voting 
 for Grampound to the neighboring hundreds. I answered 
 him that I could not agree to that proposal, and that I 
 must persist in proposing that the franchises of Gram- 
 pound should be transferred to the town of Leeds. 
 This was, in fact, the whole principle at issue between 
 the Government and the reformers. The hundreds of 
 Cornwall represented the stationary policy of the Min- 
 istry; Leeds, the new population which I sought to 
 admit, and with tliem, the principle of reform. When, 
 
PAELIAMENTARY REFORM, 1819-1832. 33 
 
 twelve years afterwards, I proposed a bill of reform, on 
 behalf of Lord Grey and his colleagues, Mr. Alexander 
 Baring said, ' The plan takes away representation from 
 the barley-field and gives it to the coal-field.' This 
 was the truth in 1819, as in 1832. My proposal took 
 away representation from the dead bones of a former 
 state of England, and gave it to the living energy and 
 industry of the England of the nineteenth century, 
 with its steam-engines and its factories ; its cotton and 
 woollen cloths ; its cutlery and its coal-mines ; its 
 wealth and its intelligence. ' The present vindicated its 
 rights ; the past lost its privilege. 
 
 But to return. 
 
 After a long conversation, Lord Castlereagh per- 
 sisted in his view and I in mine. I carried my bill 
 in the House of Commons ; but when it went to the 
 House of Lords, the town of Leeds was expunged, and 
 the two disposable seats were given to the county of 
 York. Thus the introduction of new representation 
 was avoided. It is singular, however, that the Govern- 
 ment of 1820 should have thought that by excluding 
 Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham from representa- 
 tion, they were consulting the Conservative interests of 
 the Constitution ! Such, however, was the spirit of 
 the Government of Liverpool and Castlereagh. 
 
 After the disfranchisement of Grampound, I revolved 
 in my mind a plan for the reform of the whole state of 
 the representation. 
 
 In meditating upon this subject, I had to survey not 
 only the danger of shaking an edifice which resembled 
 rather a strong fortress than an ordinary dwelling- 
 house, but also party objections which would be brought 
 against me. 
 
 Mr. Tierney told me that the notes to members 
 
 8 
 
84 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 usually sent out when a party motion was in contem- 
 plation, could not be allowed to me on the question of 
 reform. An old and powerful Whig member of Parlia- 
 ment told me that he never knew the question of 
 parliamentary reform brought forward without doing 
 harm to the party.^ 
 
 Thus discountenanced by my betters and my elders, 
 I had t6 consider the position, the character, and the 
 principles of the Whig party. 
 
 It seemed to me then, as it does now, that the Whig 
 party had from the Revolution of 1688 endeavored to 
 accommodate itself to the wants of the time, without 
 binding itself slavishly to precisely the same course. 
 
 In the reigns of William III. and Queen Anne, the 
 party had devoted its energies to wars against the am- 
 bition of Louis XIV. That contest rendered necessary 
 the exclusion of Roman Catholics from all those vantage 
 points of power of which James II. had availed himself, 
 to subvert the liberties of Englishmen. 
 
 During the reigns of George I. and George II., Wal- 
 pole had confined his home policy to the single point 
 of maintaining the House of Hanover on the throne. 
 When asked by a leading dissenter to support the re- 
 peal of the Corporation and Test Acts, he urged that 
 the time was inopportune. The dissenter, ill-satisfied, 
 wished him to be so good as to point out when he would 
 support such a measure. The Minister said he would 
 answer in one word, * Never.' ^ AValpole was probably 
 as litllo inclined as any man to favor the exclusion of 
 Protestant dissenters, or the enactment of harsh penal 
 laws against Roman Catholics. But he knew that if 
 
 > Lonl George Cavendish. 
 
 « See Coxe'i ♦ Life of Sir R. Walpole.' 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, 1819-1832. 85 
 
 he favored religious liberty, the Church would rise 
 against him, and would probably overthrow the Prot- 
 estant succession. His maxim was, therefore, Quieta 
 non movere. Lord Chatham, who was intrusted with 
 the lead of the House gf Commons when the country 
 had drifted into war, carried on that war so gloriously, 
 that the peace of 1763 marked the ascendancy of Eng- 
 land both in the East and in the West. After this time 
 the Whig party fell into a state of decline, and for 
 several years there was scarcely a perceptible difference 
 between Whigs and Tories. 
 
 The American War and the debating powers of Mr. 
 Fox led to a revival of party distinctions, and the 
 new Whigs engaged in the pursuit of objects which 
 the old Whigs had not dreamt of. These objects may 
 be shortly defined. 
 
 1. Not to interfere in the internal government of 
 ether countries. 
 
 2. To make peace with our American colonies by 
 acknowledging their independence, and to satisfy the 
 people of Ireland by conceding their demand of political 
 equality. 
 
 3. To promote religious liberty, and to remove the 
 political disabilities affecting Protestant dissenters and 
 Roman Catholics. 
 
 4. To favor parliamentary reform and liberty of the 
 press. 
 
 Had these principles prevailed from 1770 to 1820, 
 the country would have avoided the American War 
 and the first French Revolutionary War, the rebellion 
 in Ireland in 1798, and the creation of three or four 
 hundred millions of National Debt. 
 
 Such were the principles which Fox and those 
 whom Burke afterwards called the ' New Wliigs ' 
 
86 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 professed. They had been powerful in argument, but 
 weak in numbers. Both the American and the French 
 wars had the support of the great majority of the 
 country. Sir George Savile and Sir Gilbert Elliot are 
 witnesses to this preponderance of warlike opinion 
 during the American War ; Mr. Fox himself and his 
 few adherents testify to the warlike temper of the 
 majority during the French War. 
 
 Among these adherents were my uncle, Francis, 
 Duke of Bedford, and my father, who succeeded him. 
 
 On a "visit which I paid to Sir James Mackintosh, 
 at his country house, he said to me, with some signifi- 
 cance, 
 
 Ecquid in antiquam virtutem, animosque viriles, 
 Et pater ^neas et avunculus excitat Hector 1 
 
 He urged me especially to undertake the question of 
 reform of Parliament. 
 
 Thus animated, I brought forward the whole ques- 
 tion in 1822. 
 
 My friend Mr. Lambton had a little while before 
 made a motion in favor of reform. But his plan of 
 electoral districts was not generally approved, and a 
 premature division put an early stop to the debate. 
 
 That carelessness and forgetfulness which are so 
 common about events a little preceding our own time« 
 are well illustrated by a passage in the ' Quarterly 
 lleview ' of January, 1869, which I proceed to copy : — 
 • Any thing on the scale of Mr. Pitt's Reform Bill of 
 '80, or Mr. Grey's of '95, never entered into the heads of 
 statesmen as a practical object to be attained from the 
 beginning of the nineteenth century to the death of 
 Canning. The extreme Radical party, led by Sir 
 Francis Burdett, did, in 1819, move for something of 
 the sort: but Lord John Russell opposed it as revolu- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, 1819-1832. 37 
 
 tionary, and substituted for it his own little pop-gun 
 against Grampound. From that time to 1826 the 
 Whigs never stirred in the matter.' The inaccuracy of 
 this statement in a publication which professes to be 
 the organ of the great Tory party is something mar- 
 vellous. In the first place, Mr. Grey's Reform Bill 
 was brought forward, not in '95, but in '93 and '97. 
 Admitting this to be a slip of the pen, or an error of 
 the press, the assertion with regard to my exertions in 
 the cause of reform is directly opposed to the fact. 
 
 In 1822, in a speech of three hours on the subject 
 of reform, I suggested that one hundred members should 
 be added to the House of Commons, and that they should 
 be chosen by the larger counties and the great com- 
 mercial and manufacturing communities of the king- 
 dom. So little did Mr. Canning consider my motion 
 as a mere pop-gun, at which no one could be alarmed, 
 that he gave me a solemn warning, in words which, 
 thus challenged by the Quarterly Reviewer, I will not 
 refrain from copying : — ' Our lot is happily cast in the 
 temperate zone of freedom, the clime best suited to the 
 development of the moral qualities of the human race, 
 to the cultivation of their faculties, and to the security 
 as well as the improvement of their virtues ; a clime 
 not exempt indeed from variations of the elements, but 
 variations which purify while they agitate the atmos- 
 phere that we breathe. Let us be sensible of the ad- 
 vantages which it is our happiness to qnjoy. Let us 
 guard with pious gratitude the flame of genuine liberty, 
 that fire from heaven of which our Constitution is the 
 holy repository ; and let us not, for the chance of 
 rendering it more intense and more radiant, impair its 
 purity or hazard its extinction ! The noble lord is 
 entitled to the acknowledgments of the House, for the 
 
88 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 candid, able, and ingenuous manner in which he has 
 brought forward his motion. If, in the remarks which 
 I have made upon it, there has been any thing which 
 has borne the appearance of disrespect to him, I hope 
 he will acquit me of having so intended it.. That the 
 noble lord will carry his motion this evening, I have no 
 fear ; but with the talents which he has shown himself 
 to possess, and with (I sincerely hope) a long and bril- 
 liant career of parliamentary distinction before him, he 
 will, no doubt, renew his efforts hereafter. Although 
 I presume not to give any weight to observations or 
 warnings of mine, yet on this, probably the last op- 
 portunity I shall have of raising my voice on the ques- 
 tion of parliamentary reform, while I conjure the House 
 to pause before it consents to adopt the proposition of 
 the noble lord, I cannot help conjuring the noble lord 
 himself to pause before he again presses it upon the 
 country. If, however, he shall persevere — and if his 
 perseverance shall be successful — and if the result of 
 that success shall be such as I cannot help apprehend- 
 ing — his be the triumph to have precipitated those 
 results — be mine the consolation that to the utmost, 
 and the latest of my power, I have opposed them. 
 (Loud cheers.)' ^ 
 
 Mr. Canning's speech was eloquent and successful. 
 But his peroration showed that he did not expect that 
 ■ the representation, as then existing, would very long 
 endure. And my friends were encouraged not only by 
 the large number who supported me, but by remarking 
 that among those who appeared in the division, and 
 who had never voted for reform before, were three 
 members, each said to be worth a million. In the 
 
 ^ Caunlng's Speeches. 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, 1819-1832. 39 
 
 days when it was said that reform threatened propert}^ 
 such substantial support was worth a great deal. 
 
 The melancholy death of Lord Londonderry (Lord 
 Castlereagh) produced a change, at first gradual, but 
 afterwards abrupt, in the state of public affairs. Lord 
 Liverpool considered Mr. Canning as the only fit suc- 
 cessor, and being supported by the Duke of Welling- 
 ton, did not fail to obtain the reluctant consent of the 
 King. The transfer of power from a man of business, 
 endowed with common sense and discretion, but bound 
 by traditional Toryism, to a man of genius, a brilliant 
 orator, and a no less shining wit, was in itself a novelty. 
 But the change was far greater from one who professed 
 adherence to principles of non-intervention with the 
 supremacy of the Holy Alliance, and who spoke coldly 
 in favor of Catholic relief, to one whose impulses were 
 strongly in favor of freedom abroad, and religious lib- 
 erty at home. The expedition to Portugal, and the 
 speeches which heralded its departure from our shores, 
 gave assurance to the Continent that the arm of Eng- 
 land was yet powerful. The eloquent speeches of 
 Canning in favor of granting the petitions of the 
 Roman Catholics, and the speeches of Huskisson and 
 Canning in favor of free trade, created a new feeling 
 in the country. Neither the expedition to Portugal 
 nor the measures of Mr. Huskisson with regard to free 
 trade were of themselves very important. But every 
 Liberal felt that 
 
 Night's candles are burnt out, and jocund Day 
 Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops. 
 
 Lord Holland, observing the cooling zeal of the Tory 
 party on behalf of the Government, said that their 
 feeling was like that of Nisus : — 
 
 Absistamus, ait, nam lux inimica propinquat. 
 
40 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The first step of Canning in regard to the French 
 invasion of Spain was not, and could not be, success- 
 ful, but, in my opinion, was not open to censure. I 
 could not, therefore, concur in the motion made against 
 it, and I absented myself from the House of Commons 
 on that occasion. 
 
 The substitution of Mr. Peel for Lord Sidmouth 
 gave the country a ciiminal law reformer and a friend 
 of free trade, in place of a Minister who was the incar- 
 nation of prejudice and intolerance. Upon one great 
 subject, however, no advance was made. In 1825, a 
 last attempt was made in Parliament to settle the 
 Roman Catholic question on the basis originally laid 
 down by Pitt. In 1805, on a motion made by Fox, 
 Pitt said : — ' My idea was not to apply tests to the 
 religious tenets of the Catholics, but tests applicable to 
 what was the source and foundation of the evil; to 
 render the priests, instead of making them the instru- 
 ments of poisoning the minds of the people, dependent 
 in some sort upon the Government, and thus links, as 
 it were, between the Government and the people.' ^ 
 
 In 1825, it was proposed by Lord Francis Egerton, 
 * That it is expedient that a provision should be made 
 by law towards the maintenance of the secular Roman 
 Catholic clergy, exercising religious functions in Ire- 
 land.' ^ The motion was carried by 205 to 162. It 
 was proposed at the same time that the 40«. freeholders 
 should be disfranchised. These two measures were 
 called the wings. They would have settled the Cath- 
 olic question without the evil and the reproach of yield- 
 ing to intimidation; without uprooting the Pix)testant 
 
 t Pltt'i • Speeches.' vol. 111. p. 424. 
 ' llnnsorU, vol. xiii. new scrioa, p. 818, 
 
ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION. 41 
 
 Church EstabHshment ; civil, political, and ecclesiastical 
 equality would have been attained ; peace with Ireland 
 would have been permanently concluded. The Roman 
 Catholic clergy, who would have rejected a pecuniary pro- 
 vision taken alone, would hardly have refused it as part 
 of a settlement by which the Roman Catholic laity would 
 have been admitted to Parliament and political office. 
 
 Lord Liverpool, a man of honest but narrow views, 
 would not allow this civil crown to be placed on his 
 brow. He told Lord Harrowby that he would not 
 agree to the words ' by law ' in the resolution respect- 
 ing the provision to be made for the Roman Catholic 
 clergy. He said to Mr. Arbuthnot, ' Even if I were to 
 give way, Peel would not.* 
 
 Thus, from weakness, from the want of a directing 
 mind in the Ministry, from the jealousy of Canning 
 entertained by the Tories, and from some personal 
 feelings on the part both of Government and Opposi- 
 tion, this promising scheme fell through ; a great man 
 was wanting in the Cabinet, and a great opportunity 
 was neglected by Parliament. 
 
 In 1827, Lord Liverpool was disabled by a fit, which 
 removed him from office, and which was soon followed 
 by death. Thus ended a Ministry of fifteen years, 
 marked by great events, but not by the predominance 
 of any great statesman. 
 
 But Lord Liverpool's disappearance from the political 
 scene gave rise to a great debacle. The fragments of 
 the old system rushed against each other, and for a 
 time all was confusion. 
 
 The question who was to succeed Lord Liverpool 
 in the King's Council gave rise to much conversation in 
 ministerial circles, and to some, if not much, intrigue 
 in the cottage where George IV. resided during the 
 
42 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 rebuilding of Windsor Castle. What passed in Parlia- 
 ment, and among the members of the Liberal party in 
 Parliament, was sufficiently interesting and exciting. 
 
 Canning was pointed out to be First Minister by the 
 usual order of succession ; by thirty years' experience 
 of political life, begun under the immediate guidance 
 of Pitt ; by his eloquence and his genius ; by his Lib- 
 eral sympathies, and his Conservative tendencies ; by 
 his position as the official representative of the Govern- 
 ment in the House of Commons. 
 
 Objections both political and personal were raised 
 against his appointment. The intolerant party, who 
 had enjoyed the greater share of patronage, and espe- 
 cially of ecclesiastical patronage, under Lord Liverpool, 
 would not consent to the transfer of bishoprics and 
 deaneries to men who might be favorable to the grant 
 of equal rights and privileges to Roman Catholics. 
 This change was especially distasteful to Mr. Peel, the 
 Home Secretary. 
 
 But there were likewise objections of a personal 
 nature. The quarrel with Lord Castlereagh had left 
 disagreeable impressions. The frankness with which 
 Canning had urged the reasons for free trade, and had 
 told men who objected to improvement, because it was 
 innovation, that if they persisted they might have to 
 submit to innovations which were no improvement, had 
 offended and alarmed the real Tories, as much as it had 
 attracted and conciliated the real Whigs. 
 
 The apparent objections to Canning were of little 
 weight. If the Roman Catholic question was to be 
 treated as an open question in the Cabinet, it was ob- 
 viously unfair to deny to a pro-Catholic leader that 
 supremacy which liad been long and quietly yielded to 
 an anti-Catholic Prime Minister. The quarrel with 
 
CANNING. 43 
 
 Lord Castlereagli was owing rather to the weakness of 
 the Duke of Portland and Lord Camden than to any 
 fault of Canning. It was no wonder, therefore, that 
 Canning felt deeply the wound inflicted upon him, 
 when (upon his selection for the post of Prime Minis- 
 ter) six of his colleagues sent in their resignations. In 
 a debate upon this subject, in the House of Commons, 
 he said : ' My position is not that of gratified ambition.' 
 But he went on to say that he could not be a consent- 
 ing party to his 'helotism.' This was, in fact, the 
 question to be decided. Canning, with all his powers 
 of debate, his experience in public affairs, his conduct 
 of foreign affairs, which had raised England in the 
 scale of nations, was to be reduced to execute the 
 orders of some man evidently his inferior! 
 
 He justly resented these resignations as a proof of 
 want of confidence on the part of his Tory colleagues, 
 but he also, from his excitable nature, felt them as 
 personal attacks : and when, like Burke, he saw Blanche, 
 Tray, and Sweetheart all barking at him ; the clerks and 
 underlings of Lord Liverpool's Ministry assailing him 
 from every quarter, his spirit rose to meet the open 
 attack, but his heart sank under the secret hostility by 
 which it was prompted. 
 
 With the alteration of one word, I may apply to him 
 Dryden's lines on Shaftesbury — 
 
 A fiery soul, which, working out its way, 
 
 Pretted the fragile body to decay, 
 
 And o'er informed the tenement of clay. 
 
 In the conduct of affairs he had not preserved 
 the calm and cold demeanor of Castlereagh. When 
 Brougham attacked him for his tergiversation, he rose 
 with passion to repel the imputation. When an anony- 
 
44 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 mous pamphleteer threatened him with death,^ he was 
 so imprudent as to send a personal challenge to the 
 antagonist whose mask was worn for the very purpose 
 of evading responsibility. Thus easily exasperated, 
 thwarted in his foreign policy by the King and half his 
 colleagues, holding a position on the Catholic question 
 which kept Ireland in perpetual ferment, distrusted by 
 many of his party, and prevented by his opinions on 
 reform from cordially uniting with the Whigs, it is no 
 wonder that his temper and health gave way. I re- 
 member the impression made upon me painfully by a 
 single word, uttered by him in answer to a question 
 evidently intended to vex and embarrass him. The 
 resignation of all the anti-Catholic members of the 
 Government placed at Mr. Canning's disposal the office 
 of Judge- Advocate. There was some delay in naming 
 a successor. The question was asked whether the office 
 had been filled up. The answer was the monosyllable 
 * Yes,' but pronounced in such a tone of mingled scorn, 
 anger, and grief, that it seemed as if the heart of him 
 who uttered it were breaking with vexation and dis- 
 appointment. I remember nothing like it but Kean's 
 answer to lago, * You are moved,* when he replied, 
 *Not a jot,' in a voice of the deepest anxiety and 
 emotion. 
 
 Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Tierney joined the Cabinet 
 of Mr. Canning. Mr. Tierney stipulated that he should 
 be free to vote in favor of parliamentary reform. Mr. 
 Abercromby, Mr. Stanley (the late Loixi Derby), and 
 Mr. Macdonald accepted office. 
 
 The new pieces were not very well dovetailed into 
 
 1 Trecentl coi\jurnvlmu8 principes juventutU RomansB, ut te in hao 
 tU grMMTomur. — Livii iliit., ii. 12. 
 
ORATORY. 45 
 
 the remains of the Tory Ministry, but the importance 
 of the change thus indicated was enormous. The Tory 
 party, which had survived the disasters and the follies 
 of the American War, which had borne the defeats and 
 achieved the final glories of the French War, was 
 broken by its separation from Mr. Canning into frag- 
 ments, which could not easily be reunited. 
 
 It is singular to observe how this well-disciplined 
 Tory party was ready to break forth into mutiny when 
 any one of its favorite errors or rooted prejudices was 
 abandoned. Neither the eloquence, nor the financial 
 talents, nor the experience of Pitt, prevented his being 
 left with only fifty followers, when the King refused to 
 conciliate Ireland, and to repair injustice. Neither the 
 brilliant genius nor thirty years of experience saved 
 Canning from desertion, obloquy, and hatred. The 
 great services and patriotic disinterestedness of the 
 Duke of Wellington availed him little when he pre- 
 ferred the pacification of Ireland to civil war. The 
 eminent qualities of Peel did not protect him from in- 
 vective «,nd vituperation on the part of his followers, 
 when he proposed to free from taxation the daily food 
 of the laborer. 
 
 The period from 1820 to 1827 was the most brilliant 
 period for oratory in the House of Commons within 
 my recollection. The graceful, finished, well-prepared 
 speeches of Canning, sparkling with classical quotation, 
 happy illustration, and refined wit, were delightful to 
 all who heard him. Sometimes, indeed, the purpurei 
 panni did not well combine with the plain broadcloth 
 of a business argument, but, on the whole, the effect 
 was entrancing and attractive to all the young members, 
 who cared rather to support a cause well defended than 
 to examine the solidity of the defences themselves. 
 
46 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Mr. Ward, himself an orator of no mean rank, said 
 once to me, ' I like what is polished and perfect — I 
 admire Virgil, Racine, and Pitt.' To such men the 
 eloquence of Canning was irresistible. Those who 
 above all admired what was sublime, though not fault- 
 less, and who preferred to finished poetry and elaborate 
 oratory Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Fox were, 
 however, not ready to yield altogether to the seduction 
 of a statesman who, while he fought for Roman Catholic 
 relief and the reduction of protective duties, contended 
 for restrictions on political freedom, and utterly opposed 
 parliamentary reform. 
 
 On one occasion, when Canning was concluding a 
 speech in favor of coercion he deprecated the forth- 
 coming reply of Brougham by the quotation — 
 
 Stetimus tela aspera contra, 
 
 Contulimusque manus; experto credite, quantus 
 In clypeum assurgat, quo turbine torqueat liastara. 
 
 Brougham well earned a great reputation. With pro- 
 digious force of argument he struck down any common 
 adversary, pouring fiery sarcasm, and unsparing, over- 
 whelming refutation upon his head, and leaving him an 
 object of ridicule or of pity, crushed beneath the weight 
 of accumulated epithets and a burning mass of invec- 
 tive. 
 
 The third whom I have to mention, Plunket, was, in 
 the opinion of the best judges, the most perfect orator 
 of that time. Plunket so restrained his brilliant fancy, 
 that it was ever ready to help, to adorn, to illustrate, 
 while it was never used to eclipse or encumber his argu- 
 ment, lie usually confined his speeches to the sul>ject 
 of Roman Catholic disabilities, but his defence of his 
 own conduct, in answer to Mr. Brownlow, was a great 
 
triumpli of oratorical art ; and his answer to Brougham 
 on the proposal to make a provision for the Roman 
 Catholic clergy, was a memorable display of wit and 
 wisdom. 
 
 On the Catholic question, while Copley and Peel 
 made the most of a bad cause, the union of Plunket, 
 Brougham, and Canning, in defence of justice to Ire- 
 land, produced three speeches in different styles, une- 
 qualled in power to convince, combining the eloquence 
 of great orators with the counsels of wise statesmen. 
 
 This brilliant period was about to terminate. Can- 
 ning died in 1827 at Chiswick, where Fox had died in 
 1806. Plunket accepted a seat in the House of Lords ; 
 Brougham remained only three years longer in the 
 House of Commons. But the fire which these three 
 men had kindled blazed on for many years after their 
 disappearance. After a short period of official rule, 
 Lord Goderich, First Lord of the Treasury, who had 
 taken no means to strengthen his Government, resigned, 
 and the King sent for the Duke of Wellington, who 
 retained the Canning portion of the Cabinet, and got 
 rid of the Whig members of the Ministry. Mr. Tier- 
 ney said he had been killed in a chance-medley. 
 
 Mr. Peel was the new leader of the House of Com- 
 mons. 
 
 In 1828, at the request of a body of Protestant dis- 
 senters, I brought forward a motion for the repeal of 
 the Corporation and Test Acts, and to my great surprise 
 carried it by a majority of forty. 
 
 Peel, finding himself defeated, after a vain attempt 
 to avoid a total repeal, proposed a useless and feeble 
 declaration, which the Bishops accepted in the House 
 of Lords, after adding a mischievous barrier against the 
 admission of the Jews, in the words ' on the true faith 
 
48 KECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 # 
 
 of a Christian.' The whole of this declaration was 
 repealed in 1868 ; it had kept out nobody, and its re- 
 moval will admit nobody. 
 
 Huskisson and the friends of Canning voted against 
 the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. 
 
 The successive steps which brought on the Roman 
 Catholic Relief Bill are to be found in Sir Robert Peel's 
 Memorandum upon this subject. It has always seemed 
 to me, that, however pure his motives, and however 
 clear his integrity, he would have done better, both for 
 himself and his country, if he had resigned office, and 
 given his support, either to the Duke of Wellington 
 with another leader in the Commons, or to Lord Grey 
 and the Whig party, in the settlement of a question 
 wliich, since the peace, had been the apparent cause of 
 their proscription. 
 
 The only reason alleged in the Memorandum alluded 
 to, is the King's personal dislike of Lord Grey. But 
 this dislike was not so strong as that which his father 
 entertained to Mr. Fox. Fox had, notwithstanding this 
 dislike, when an emergenc}'^ arose, been admitted to the 
 councils of the King, and when he died, George IIL 
 said to his daughter, the Duchess of Gloucester, who 
 told it to me, 'I did not think I should ever have re- 
 gretted the death of Mr. Fox, as I find I do.' But 
 George IIL's religious scruples, and even his personal 
 prejudices, were respected by the nation, and formed 
 real banders so long as he did not himself waive them ; 
 the religious scruples of George IV. did not meet with 
 ready belief, nor did his personal dislikes inspire national 
 respect or obtain national acquiescence. 
 
 However, as Mr. Peel had thought it his duty to re- 
 main in office, the Whig party determined to give him 
 a cordial support. I was present at a small meeting 
 
ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION. 49 
 
 of the leaders of the party, at Sir Francis Burdett's, 
 when Lord Althorp was authorized to communicate to 
 Peel our objections to part of the ministerial measures. 
 But when Lord Althorp reported to us the answer of 
 Peel, that the Ministers could not go further than they 
 had done, we all acquiesced, and waived every objection, 
 in order to give a thorough support to the Government 
 which had undertaken this mighty task. 
 
 One of the shrewdest of the Tory party, who after- 
 wards held a Cabinet office, is reported to have ob- 
 served that he should not have felt so much objection 
 to Catholic emancipation, had he not felt sure that it 
 would be followed by reform of Parliament, 
 
 He was not mistaken. The Catholic question having 
 been moved out of the way, attention was more eagerly 
 directed to the faults of the existing state of the repre- 
 sentation of the people. 
 
 Standing one day at the bar of the House of Com- 
 mons, in the year 1830, I showed Mr. Huskisson some 
 resolutions on parliamentary reform which I intended 
 to move. Huskisson said : ' I cannot vote for these 
 resolutions, but something to this effect will be carried 
 before long.' 
 
 The events which immediately preceded the General 
 Election of 1830 had prepared the way for the fall of 
 that Tory supremacy which had for sixty years, with 
 little interruption, ruled England ; had carried on the 
 American War and the French Revolutionary War, and 
 had placed the country in a position of immense power, 
 enormous debt, and great internal difficulty. 
 
 The sudden change of the Duke of Wellington and 
 Sir Robert Peel on the policy to be pursued towards 
 Ireland, had struck men with astonishment and inspired 
 them with distrust. That the same man who in 1827 
 
 4 
 
50 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 had declared, with six of his colleagues, that not only 
 could he not consent to admit the Catholics to Parlia- 
 ment and to high office, but that he could not even 
 submit to serve as Secretary of State under a Prime 
 Minister who was favorable to their claims, should, 
 two yeai-s afterwards, have come forward, and, in a 
 speech of great length and ability, have recommended 
 concession on all those points, without conditions and 
 without security, produced a very natural and very 
 general distrust. ' If,' they said, ' Peel, while he was 
 opposing Canning in 1827, knew that concession must 
 be the end of his policy, what becomes of his honesty ? 
 If such was to be the inevitable termination, why should 
 he not rather, even out of office, have assisted Canning, 
 who, by his genius, by his eloquence, and by his great 
 reputation, was entitled to that assistance, rather than 
 have proclaimed a continued and determined resistance 
 to claims which he then declared to be inconsistent with 
 our political Constitution and our religious Establish- 
 ment? But if, in 1827, Peel hoped to resist success- 
 fully all further concessions to Roman Catholics, and in 
 1829 perceived that it required only a continuance of 
 the balanced state of the House of Commons, and the 
 agitation of a skilful demagogue in Ireland, to make the 
 defence of all those buttresses which he had so long 
 and so pertinaciously defended, hopeless, where was his 
 wisdom ? ' In fact, the whole framework of our repre- 
 sentation, the whole machinery of government by which 
 Loixl North, Mr. Pitt, and Lord Liverpool had ruled, 
 seemed to be tumbling into ruins after this great politi- 
 cal earthquake. 
 
 Few men saw justly and clearly the consequences at 
 home of the couree pursued by the Duke of Wellington 
 abroad. The Revolution in France, overthrowing Legit- 
 
FALL OF TOKY MINISTRY. 51 
 
 imacy, and crowning a monarchy founded upon popular 
 resistance ; the excitement of a General Election, and 
 the accession of a new Sovereign ; the internal state of 
 the country, resulting from long mismanagement; all 
 contributed to bring about, on the one side a desire of 
 change, and on the other discouragement and despond- 
 ency. 
 
 When, therefore, at the meeting of Parliament, No- 
 vember the 3d, the Duke of Wellington declared that 
 the constitution of the House of Commons was perfect, 
 and that the wit of man could not a priori have devised 
 any thing so good, the general feeling was one of dis- 
 may. The House of Lords, usually so calm, showed 
 signs of amazement and perturbation. The Duke whis- 
 pered to one of his colleagues, ' What can I have said 
 which seems to make so great a disturbance ? ' ' You 
 have announced the fall of your Government, that is 
 all,' replied his more clear-sighted colleague. 
 
 Accordingly, when Sir Henry Parnell, in the House 
 of Commons, moved an amendment respecting the ap- 
 pointment of a Committee on the Civil List, which Mr. 
 Tierney had frequently brought forward unsuccessfully, 
 it was carried by a majority of upwards of thirty. Al- 
 though, in ordinary times, this victory of the Opposition 
 would have been of little consequence, it was now 
 thought so serious, that Mr. Peel went at once to the 
 Duke of Wellington, at Apsley House, to declare he 
 could no longer remain in office ; the following day the 
 whole Ministry resigned. Lord Gre}^ was sent for by 
 the King, and desired by his Majesty to form an ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 At this period the situation of affairs at home was 
 very critical. The fifteen years which had elapsed 
 since the peace had not been employed to good pur- 
 
52 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 pose; the currency, indeed, had been restored to its 
 old value, and the guinea no longer represented more 
 than the twenty-one shillings which it professed to be 
 worth ; but, generally speaking, old abuses which had 
 been left uncorrected during the pressure of war had 
 been still uncorrected during the leisure of peace, and 
 the new abuses which had arisen in times of scarcity, 
 and at periods of emergency, had been allowed to grow 
 up in rank luxuriance, till they overspread the land. 
 Among these abuses, there was none more contrary to 
 sound principle, none more destructive to the peace and 
 prosperity of the country, than the perversion of the 
 Poor-law of Elizabeth. During the years of scarcity 
 which had afflicted the country at the end of the last 
 and the beginning of the present century, the poor had 
 suffered grievously from the great rise in the price of 
 provisions, unaccompanied by a similar rise in the rate 
 of wages. It occurred to some not very wise country 
 gentlemen, that the laborers might be enabled to main- 
 tain themselves and their families, without putting their 
 employers to the expense which a general rise in the 
 rate of wages would involve. They accordingly framed 
 a scale : so much to an unmarried laborer ; so much to 
 a married laborer with one child ; so much to a married 
 laborer with two children ; and so on, till the allowance 
 given to a laborer with ten or twelve children was 
 equivalent to a very high rate of wages. In the course 
 of ycare, this foolish scheme produced the evils that 
 might have been expected. The individual laborer was 
 no longer paid according to the value of his strength 
 and skill as a laborer, but according to the number of 
 his family, without reference to the work he might per- 
 form. The population of a parish increased, not in 
 proportion to the demand for labor, but in proportion to 
 
POOR LAWS. 53 
 
 the readiness of farm laborers to take advantage of the 
 perverted law to marry, and live on the public as parish 
 pensioners. The mischiefs produced by this system in 
 the agricultural counties were extensive and appalling. 
 In Buckinghamshire whole parishes were pauperized, 
 and farmers abandoned tillage rather than attempt to 
 pay a rate of nineteen or twenty shillings in the pound. 
 A farmer in Huntingdonshire, giving evidence before a 
 Committee of the House of Commons, over which I 
 presided, stated that the young laborers said to the 
 members of the vestry, ' We will marry, and you must 
 maintain us.' In Bedfordshire, a state of society ex- 
 isted, which is portrayed with much fidelity in a petition 
 presented to the House of Commons in 1830. In the 
 agricultural parishes, gangs of forty or fifty laborers out 
 of employment were sent nominally to repair the roads, 
 but in fact loitered all day by the side of their wheel- 
 barrows, and passed the night in poaching, and spend- 
 ing the fruits of their plunder in the public-houses. In 
 the parish of Woburn, where there were forty of these 
 able-bodied laborers unemployed, I asked a farmer why 
 he did not give wages to two or three of them in return 
 for work upon his farm. He answered, ' They would 
 do me no good ; they would be more likely to steal what 
 I have than to do any work on the farm.' In the west- 
 ern counties, large bodies of these idle young men went 
 about destroying thrashing-machines, and setting fire to 
 ricks of hay and stacks of corn. At night, the whole 
 atmosphere was lighted up by fires, the work of lawless 
 depredators. The yeomanry were called out and capt- 
 ured many offenders, but still the evil went on. Farm- 
 ers were alarmed for their property, members of parish 
 vestries were afraid to refuse the demands of sturdy 
 
54 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 beggars, and the whole framework of society seemed 
 about to yield to force and anarchy. Sir Robert Peel, 
 the Home Secretary, confessed that he had no remedy 
 to propose for this diseased condition. 
 
 The state of the metropolis was not better than that 
 of the rural districts. The King was advised not to 
 pay that visit to the city which is customary upon the 
 accession of a Sovereign, lest his presence should excite 
 tumult and disorder. A tradesman in Westminster, 
 being asked why he had provided himself with a mus- 
 ket, answered, ' In the first place to get reform of Par- 
 liament, and in the next place to defend my house 
 against a mob.* A certain vague desire, and a fear 
 equally undefined, seemed to possess all classes of men. 
 The events of the three glorious days of Paris had filled 
 the mind of England with a notion that the public good 
 was to be sought by revolution, by barricades in the 
 streets, and by force employed to obtain popular meas- 
 ures. But of what nature, to what extent to be carried, 
 or what were the precise benefits to be attained by these 
 measures, no one well knew. It was therefore the task 
 of the new Government to frame measures large enough 
 to satisfy expectation, and at the same time to maintain 
 the dignity of the monarchy and the authority of Par- 
 liament. 
 
 The aspect of affairs abroad was at the same time 
 disquieting. The weak and unnatural connection which 
 the treaties of 1815 had formed between Holland and 
 Belgium had, after many years of jealousy and discon- 
 tent, ended in a general insurrection of the Belgium 
 people. A proclamation beginning * To arms I to arms I ' 
 had been signed by men of the first rank and ability as 
 leaders of the insurgent party. It was to be feared 
 
MINISTRY OF LORD GREY. 55 
 
 that the French appetite for annexation, which had 
 been indulged by the Jacobin Republic of 1792, might 
 revive under the excitement of a recent revolution, and 
 the sympathies of the popular party. The great Powers 
 had already communicated to each other their anxieties 
 upon this subject, and a conference under the auspices 
 of Lord Aberdeen had been assembled in London. 
 
 It was in this state of affairs that Lord Grey was 
 called to the councils of his Sovereign, and, happily, 
 his abilities and his experience were found equal to the 
 emergency. 
 
 Lord Grey determined to construct his administra- 
 tion upon a broad and comprehensive basis. He in- 
 vited Lord Goderich, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Charles 
 Grant, who had been members of Mr. Canning's Min- 
 istvj, to accept offices in the Cabinet. He placed Lord 
 Palmerston at the head of the Foreign Department, 
 and confided the Home Office to Lord Melbourne, who, 
 having belonged from his early youth to the Whig 
 party, had accepted the office of Chief Secretary in 
 Ireland when Mr. Canning was Prime Minister. It is 
 even supposed that Lord Grey would have consented 
 to leave the Great Seal in the hands of Lord Lynd- 
 hurst. The chiefs of the Whig party, however, were 
 not willing to see this high office in the hands of any 
 other person than Mr. Brougham, whose splendid elo- 
 quence and extraordinary talents had won for him the 
 applause of the country and the admiration of his party. 
 Lord Althorp, therefore, on the part of Lord Grey, 
 offered him the Great Seal, and, after a long discussion, 
 succeeded in persuading Brougham that he might ren- 
 der greater services to his country and to his party by 
 accepting this very eminent post than by remaining in 
 
56 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 an independent position in the House of Commons.^ 
 Lord Althorp himself accepted the post of Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, with the lead of the House of Com- 
 mons. He was very unwilling to take ofi&ce, but Lord 
 Grey assured him that he could not make his Ministry 
 without him, and it was some consolation to him to 
 reflect, in accepting the office of Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, that he could only hold it as a member of 
 the House of Commons. Mr. Stanley was made Chief 
 Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, an office 
 for which he was qualified by his great abilities and 
 his unequalled powers of debate ; but his declarations 
 in favor of the Established Church of Ireland, and his 
 temper, little tolerant of opposition, gave warning of 
 storms. 
 
 The Ministry being thus constituted, the first and 
 most important object to which their attention was 
 turned was the great question of parliamentary reform. 
 Lord Durham, by Lord Grey's desire, invited me to 
 consult with him on the formation of a committee for 
 the purpose of framing a plan ; Lord Durham proposed 
 that the Duke of Richmond should be a member of 
 the committee, but, as the Duke had never been a 
 reformer, I objected to this proposal, and we agreed 
 to invite Sir James Graham and Lord Duncannon to 
 form with us a committee for the proposed purpose. 
 Lord Durham and Sir James Graham were in the 
 Cabinet; Lord Duncannon and I were not. Lord 
 Althorp was not a member of the committee. An 
 
 I Brougham lind at tliis time made up his mind that no office but thnt 
 of Ixm] Cluuuellor could properly be offered to him, but he did not till 
 the lost moment nmko up his mind to leave the House of Commons, nnd 
 give up his Bent for Yorkshire. His mother, who hud much sense and 
 much talent, always regretted his decision. 
 
COMMITTEE ON REFORM. 67 
 
 outline of a plan of reform, to which I have elsewhere 
 referred, was laid by me before that committee, and, 
 with some alterations, adopted by them. On the prop- 
 osition of Lord Durham, vote by ballot was added to 
 the outline, and the whole scheme was submitted to 
 Lord Grey. 
 
 The Cabinet of Lord Grey contained very few mem- 
 bers who had supported proposals for reform of Parlia- 
 ment. Lord Grey himself, and Lord Durham, had brought 
 forward motions on the subject. Lord Brougham and 
 Lord Althorp had warmly supported the principle of 
 reform, without favoring any particular plan. Lord 
 Durham had proposed to introduce a bill dividing 
 the country into equal' electoral districts; and Lord 
 Brougham had, if I recollect aright, opened to a meet- 
 ing of members of the House of Commons, in Lord 
 Al thorp's room at the 'Albany,' a scheme for taking 
 away one member from a certain number of the smaller 
 boroughs.^ Lord Palmerston and Mr. Grant had, with 
 Lord Melbourne, followed Mr. Canning in his opposi- 
 tion to parliamentary reform. Lord Lansdowne and 
 Lord Holland had never been very eager on the sub- 
 ject ; but the circumstances of the country required 
 decisive measures, and Lord Grey was persuaded that 
 nothing but a large reform of Parliament would ward 
 off revolution. In this opinion the Cabinet partici- 
 pated, and adopted our plan, but without the ballot. 
 
 I was so fully persuaded that the country would 
 respond with enthusiasm and ready assent to a large 
 proposal of reform, that I entreated Lord Grey to im- 
 
 1 I see, on referring to Lord Brougham's * Speeches/ vol. iv., that he 
 says he was in favor of the disfranchisement of some boroughs, though 
 not to the extent proposed in the bill of 1831. 
 
^ 
 
 68 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 press upon his colleagues the necessity of secrecy, in 
 order that the plan might come with all the freshness 
 of novelty upon the public ear, and deprive our oppo- 
 nents of the advantage of making adequate prepara- 
 tions to resist the first assault upon the well-fortified 
 entrenchments of the enemy. So little were the oppo- 
 site party prepared for the bill, that a few days before 
 the first of March, Sir Robert Peel, in a careful speech, 
 derided what had been done on the subjects of peace 
 and retrenchment, and predicted that when the plan of 
 reform should be developed, it would occasion disap^ 
 pointment by the meagreness of its proportions, and 
 the trifling nature of the changes recommended. 
 
 The effect, therefore, of the revelations of the first 
 of March was astounding. I had purposely omitted, 
 or passed slightly over, those arguments in favor of 
 reform, which in 1822 I had developed at length. Sir 
 Robert Peel observed sarcastically that I had said that 
 many ingenious arguments were urged in favor of the 
 ballot, but that I had not stated any ingenious argu- 
 ments in favor of my proposition of that night. This 
 was subs tan tiall}'- true. It seemed to me that the 
 arguments in favor of reform had made their impres- 
 sion — a very deep impression — upon the country ; 
 but that tliose arguments had become trite and familiar, 
 and that the great novelty of my speech must consist 
 in a clear and intelligible statement, of the nature of 
 the proposition I had to make. The extinction of one 
 hundred and fifty scats in the House of Commons, tdl 
 taken from the class of boroughs which were either 
 dependent or venal, would amount, if carried, to a 
 revolution. 
 
 It was no wonder, therefore, that this proposition, 
 when placed boldly and baldly before the House of 
 
REFORM BILL, 1831. 59 
 
 Commons, created feelings of astonishment, mingled 
 with joy or with consternation, according to the temper 
 of the hearers. Mr. John Smith, himself a member for 
 a nomination borough, said the proposal took away his 
 breath. Some, perhaps many, thought that the measure 
 was a prelude to civil war, which, in point of fact, it 
 averted. But incredulity was the prevailing feeling, 
 both among the moderate Whigs and the great mass of 
 the Tories. Sir Henry Hardinge told Sir James Graham 
 that he supposed we should all go out the next morn- 
 ing. Many of the Whigs thought it impossible the 
 Government could succeed, either in the existing House 
 of Commons or by an appeal to the people. 
 
 The Radicals alone were delighted and triumphant. 
 Joseph Hume, when I met him in the streets a day or 
 two afterwards, assured me of his hearty support of the 
 Government. He said (on another subject, in a public 
 speech) that he was ready to vote black white in order 
 to carry the measure of reform. Lord Durham, who was 
 sitting under the gallery on the first of March, told me 
 he was inclined to doubt the reality of what was passing 
 before his eyes. A noble lord who sat opposite to me, 
 and who has long ago succeeded to a seat in the House 
 of Lords, cheered me so vociferously that I was myself 
 inclined to doubt his meaning. J found afterwards that 
 his cheers were meant derisively, to show his thorough 
 conviction of the absurdity and impracticability of my 
 proposals.^ 
 
 For my own part, my impression had always been 
 that if the Reform Bill of Lord Grey could go down to 
 
 1 I had thought it due to the Cabinet to conceal in my speech the part 
 •which I had taken in preparing the measure. In this concealment I was 
 not justified ; I ought to have told the whole truth. 
 
60 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 the country, it would receive such an amount of sup- 
 port as would ensure its ultimate, if not its immediate, 
 success. I was, therefore, much pleased when I found 
 that the leaders of the Opposition did not intend to dis- 
 pute the introduction of the bill, and still more satisfied 
 when, by nine nights of debate, time was given to the 
 country to hold public meetings, and to communicate 
 to their members the popular, and, what turned out to 
 be the almost universal, opinion in favor of the proposed 
 measure. 
 
 The second reading was fixed for an early day, and 
 both parties prepared anxiously for the coming conflict. 
 
 Before the day arrived, many members who had 
 never voted for reform on previous occasions, and who 
 were really hostile to any change in the representation, 
 received such accounts of the ferment existing in the 
 country, that they made up their minds to vote in favor 
 of the second reading. Among these may be reckoned 
 Sir Thomas Acland and Mr. WUson Patten, the one 
 member for Devonshire, and the other for Lancashire, 
 both excellent country gentlemen. The second reading 
 was carried, after a long debate, by a majority of one. 
 I never saw so much exultation expressed in the Hous^ 
 of Commons as upon that occasion. One member threw 
 his hat up in the air, and the vociferous cheering was 
 prolonged for some minutes. 
 
 Yet this majority, trifling as it was, was far from ex- 
 pressing the intention of those who composed it to give 
 a cordial and thorough support to the bill in the shape 
 in which it was introduced. Many amendments, de- 
 structive of its chief provisions, would have been intro- 
 duced and carried, had the bill been proceeded with in 
 that House of Commons. 
 
 The cry, which owed its origin to Lord Brougham, of 
 
DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT, 1831. 61 
 
 « The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill,' 
 was intended to meet this disposition, and gave the 
 Government a very powerful lever in raising the country 
 to the height of their lofty proposals, while it did not 
 prevent them from modifying some clauses which were 
 ill-considered or unpopular. 
 
 The indisposition of the House was soon manifested. 
 Upon a resolution moved by General Gascbigne, that 
 the number of members for England and Wales should 
 not be diminished, this latent hostility burst out. Mr. 
 William Holmes, in the course of the debate, said pri- 
 vately to a friend of the Government, ' For good or for 
 ill, there is a majority of eight in the House in favor of 
 this motion.' So it appeared on the division, a majority 
 of eight voting in favor of General Gascoigne's motion. 
 
 Upon this event, it became the duty of Lord Grey 
 and his colleagues to consider seriously their position. 
 They had brought forward a great measure affecting 
 the constitution of the country and the course of legis- 
 lation for generations to come. They could neither 
 tamely abandon their situation, nor allow their measure 
 to be frittered away, and rest contented with the frag- 
 ment of a plan, the whole of which had been enthusi- 
 astically accepted by the country. It was manifest 
 that the existing House of Commons would endeavor 
 to destroy in detail that which they had sanctioned in 
 the bulk. It was evident that the country was ready 
 to follow Lord Grey, and to adopt his measure as a 
 satisfactory settlement of a question which, since 1780, 
 had always been in the minds of Liberal politicians, and 
 which was now rooted in the heart of the people. 
 
 Lord Grey, therefore, prepared the King for the deci- 
 sion to which the Cabinet arrived, to advise his Majesty 
 to have recourse to an immediate dissolution of Parlia- 
 
62 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 ment. The King, though averse to the adoption of 
 such a proceeding, little more than six months after the 
 general election, was disposed, at this time, to trust 
 implicitly to Lord Grey, and I am inclined to believe 
 the popular story, that when it suddenly appeared nec- 
 essary, in order to prevent remonstrance from the House 
 of Lords, that the King should appear in person to dis- 
 solve Parliament, and some trifling difficulty of plaiting 
 the horses' manes in time was interposed as an objection, 
 the King said at once, ' Then I'll go down to Parliament 
 in a hackney-coach.' Had such been the spirit of Louis 
 XVI. he might have been the leader instead of the vic- 
 tim of the French Revolution. 
 
 The scenes which occurred in the two Houses of 
 Parliament, so far as I was a witness of them, were 
 singular and unprecedented. Before the King arrived, 
 tlie House of Commons was assembled, and Sir Robert 
 Peel and Sir Francis Burdett rose at the same time to 
 address the House. Lord Althorp, amid the confusion 
 and clamor of contending parties, following the prec- 
 edent of Mr. Fox, moved that Sir Francis Burdett be 
 now heard. Sir Robert Peel, on the other hand, imitat- 
 ing a precedent of Lord North, said, ' and I rise to speak 
 to that motion.' But instead of saying a few words, as 
 Lord North had done, to put an end to all further debate, 
 Sir Robert Peel quite lost his temper, and in tones of 
 the most violent indignation attacked the impending 
 dissolution. As he went on, the Tower guns began to 
 fire, to tmnounce the King's arrival, and as each dis- 
 charge was lieard, a loud cheer from tlie Government 
 side interrupted Sir Robert Peel's declamation. Sir 
 Henry Hardinge was licard to exclaim, ' The next time 
 those guns are fired they will be shotted I ' Presently 
 we were all summoned to the House of Lords, where 
 
GENERAL ELECTION, 1831. 63 
 
 the King's presence had put a stop to a violent and un- 
 seemly discussion. The King in his speech announced 
 the dissolution and retired to unrobe. The scene that 
 followed was one of great excitement and confusion. 
 As I was standing at the bar, Lord Lyndhurst came up 
 to me and said, ' Have you considered the state of Ire- 
 land ? do not you expect an insurrection ? ' or words to 
 that effect. It so happened that in going into the House 
 of Commons, I had met O'Connell in the lobby. I asked 
 him, ' Wni Ireland be quiet during the general election ? ' 
 and he answered me, ' Perfectly quiet.' He did not 
 answer for more than he was able to perform. But of 
 course I said nothing of this to Lord Lyndhurst, and 
 left him to indulge his anger and his gloomy foreboding. 
 
 Many good Liberals were in great despondency about 
 the election, and fancied, as they well might, that an 
 appeal to the condemned boroughs to sanction their own 
 extinction, would meet with a very unfavorable recep- 
 tion, while, on the other hand, Manchester, Birmingham, 
 Leeds, and Sheffield, and the principal manufacturing 
 towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, would be unable to 
 take part in the election. 
 
 But the forty-shilling freeholders, both in those towns 
 and in the rural counties, made themselves heard in 
 favor of reforn). Middlesex, Yorkshire, Lancashire, 
 Devonshire, were unanimous in their choice of reform 
 candidates. 
 
 The members for the English counties, with the addi- 
 tion of two members for Yorkshire in place of Gram- 
 pound, were altogether 82; of these upwards of 70, I 
 think 76, pledged themselves to support Lord Grey and 
 the Reform Bill. The proportion of the two parties 
 appeared on the second reading, when there divided in 
 favor of the bill 367, making, with 9 pairs and 2 tellers, 
 378; against it 231, with the same addition of pairs and 
 
64 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 tellers, 242, giving a majority of 136 for the Government 
 and the Reform Bill. This was a majority which no 
 skilful manoeuvres, nor even the authority of the time- 
 honored House of Lords, although led by such men as 
 the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst, were 
 likely to counteract or overbear. 
 
 The Parliament met on June 14, and after the election 
 of a Speaker, and a debate on the address, the new 
 Reform Bill was immediately introduced. The second 
 reading, as I have said, was carried by a large majority, 
 and the opponents of the bill, no way dismayed, reserved 
 their opposition for committee. For forty nights the 
 subject was discussed, in its principles as well as in its 
 details. Sir Robert Peel, besides objecting to the large 
 amount of disfranchisement and to the ten-pound fran- 
 chise, took special exception to the partial disfran- 
 chisement in Schedule B, and, after a very neat and 
 well-arranged speech of Mr. Praed, Sir Robert argued, 
 with his usual force and ability, that more room should 
 be left for the entrance into Parliament of men of retired 
 and studious habits. Subsequent legislation seems to 
 indicate that, according to public opinion, too many 
 seats, rather than too few, were left to men of retired 
 and studious habits. But, besides these fair and plaus- 
 ible objections to the extent and democratic tendency 
 of the bill, skilful lawyers like Sir Edward Sugden and 
 Sir Charles Wetherell, tried to unpick it thread by 
 thread, leaving no remnant of the original texture. 
 That which Penelope did to keep off her suitors, they 
 attempted to do to keep off reform. But, at the end of 
 forty nights, on the seventh of September, the debate 
 was closed, and after much labor, and considerable sac- 
 riJBce of healtli, I was able, on that night, to propose, 
 amid much cheering, that the bill should be reported to 
 the House. 
 
REFORM BILL, 1831. 65 
 
 The bill was then carried to the House of Lords, 
 and on October 2, the second reading was proposed 
 by Lord Grey. There never was a debate of greater 
 importance, or one marked by more ability. Lord 
 Grey's opening speech recording that, in 1786, he had 
 voted with Mr. Pitt in favor of reform of Parliament ; 
 his clear and able statement of the reasons which seemed 
 to him to require that the bill should be adopted by 
 Parliament, and that in order to be safe and enduring, 
 it should be large and commensurate with the evil to be 
 abated, was powerful and convincing. 
 
 One of the greatest speeches ever delivered in the 
 House of Lords was spoken on this occasion by Lord 
 Brougham ; and among the most striking parts of that 
 speech, was the reference to the events in Ireland 
 which preceded the grant of Catholic emancipation. I 
 copy this remarkable passage : — ' Those portentous 
 appearances, the growth of later times, those figures 
 that stalk abroad, of unknown stature and strange 
 form — unions, and leagues, and musterings of men in 
 myriads, and conspiracies against the Exchequer — 
 whence do they spring, and how come they to haunt 
 our shores? What power engendered those uncouth 
 shapes — - what multiplied the monstrous births, till they 
 people the land ? Trust me, the same power which 
 called into frightful existence, and armed with resistless 
 force the Irish volunteers of 1782 — the same power 
 which rent in twain your empire, and conjured up 
 thirteen republics — the same power which created the 
 Catholic Association, and gave it Ireland for a .portion. 
 What power is that ? Justice denied — rights withheld 
 — wi'ongs perpetrated — the force which common in- 
 juries lend to millions — the wickedness of using the 
 sacred trust of government as a means of indulging 
 
 5 
 
66 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 private caprice — the idiocy of treating Englishmen like 
 the children of the South Sea Islands — the frenzy of 
 believing, or making believe, that the adults of the 
 nineteenth century can be led like children or driven 
 like barbarians. This it is that has conjured up the 
 strange sights at which we now stand aghast. And 
 shall we persist in the fatal error of combating the 
 giant progeny, instead of extirpating the execrable 
 parent? Good God! Will men never learn wisdom, 
 even from their own experience? Will they never 
 believe, till it be too late, that the surest way to pre- 
 vent immoderate desires being formed, ay, and unjust 
 demands enforced, is to grant, in due season, the 
 moderate requests of justice? You stand, my Lords, 
 on the brink of a great event — you are in the crisis 
 of a whole nation's hopes and fears. An awful im- 
 portance hangs over your decision. Pause, ere you 
 plunge I There may not be any retreat. It behooves 
 you to shape your conduct by the mighty occasion. 
 They tell you not to be afraid of personal consequences 
 in discharging your duty. I, too, would ask you to 
 banish all fears ; but, above all, that most mischievous, 
 most despicable fear, — the fear of being thought afraid. 
 If you won't take counsel from me, take example from 
 the statesmanlike conduct of the noble Duke (Wel- 
 lington), while 5"0u also look back, as you may with 
 satisfaction, upon your own. He was told, and you 
 were told, that the impatience of Ireland for equality 
 of civil rights was partial, the clamor transient, likely 
 to pass away with its temporary occasion, and that 
 yielding to it would be conceding to intimidation. I 
 recollect hearing this topic urged within this House, in 
 July, 1829 ; less regularly I heard it than I have now 
 done, for \ belonged not to your number — but I heard 
 
REFORM BILL — LORD BROUGHAM. 67 
 
 it urged in the self-same terms. The burthen of the 
 cry was — "It is no time for concession: the people 
 are turbulent and the Association dangerous." That 
 summer passed, and the ferment subsided not. Autumn 
 came, but brought not the precious fruit of peace — on 
 the contrary, all Ireland was convulsed with the un- 
 precedented conflict which returned the great chief 
 of the Catholics to sit in a Protestant Parliament. 
 Winter bound the earth in chains; but it controlled 
 not the popular fury, whose surges, more deafening 
 than the tempests, lashed the frail bulwarks of law, 
 founded upon injustice. Spring came, but no ethereal 
 mildness was its harbinger, or followed in its- train — the 
 Catholics became stronger by every month's delay, 
 displayed a deadlier resolution, and proclaimed their 
 wrongs in a tone of louder defiance than before. And 
 what course did you, at this moment of greatest excite- 
 ment and peril and menace, deem it most fitting to 
 pursue ? Eight months before, you had been told how 
 unworthy it would be to yield when men clamored 
 and threatened. No change had happened in the 
 interval, save that the clamors were become far more 
 deafening, and the threats beyond comparison more 
 overbearing. What, nevertheless, did your Lordships 
 do? Your duty — for jon despised the cuckoo-note 
 of the season, '' Be not intimidated." You granted all 
 that the Irish demanded, and you saved your country. 
 Was there in April a single argument advanced that 
 had not held good in July? None, absolutely none, 
 except the new height to which the dangers of longer 
 delay had risen, and the increased vehemence with 
 which justice was demanded — and yet the appeal to 
 your pride which had prevailed in July was in vain 
 made in April, and you wisely and patriotically 
 
68 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 granted what was asked, and ran the risk of being 
 supposed to yield through fear. But the history of 
 the Catliolic claims conveys another important lesson. 
 Though, in right and policy and justice, the measure 
 of relief could not be too ample, half as much as was 
 received with little gratitude, when so lately wrung 
 from you, would have been hailed twenty years before 
 with delight ; and even the July preceding, the measure 
 would have been received as a boon, freely given, 
 which, I fear, was taken but with sullen satisfaction in 
 April, as a right long withheld. Yet, blessed be God, 
 the debt of justice, though tardily, was at length paid, 
 and the noble Duke won by it civic honors, which 
 rival his warlike achievements in lasting brightness — 
 than which there can be no higher praise. What if he 
 had still listened to the topics of intimidation and 
 inconsistency which had scared his predecessors ? He 
 might have proved his obstinacy, and Ireland would 
 have been the sacrifice.' 
 
 Lord Grey concluded the debate, and closed his 
 speech in the following remarkable manner : — 
 
 * The noble and learned lord has said, that if I were 
 to resign of&ce, it would be a culpable abandonment of 
 the King. It is my duty to consider what course I 
 shall follow under the circumstances in which I may be 
 placed. I certainly will not abandon the King as long 
 as I can be of use to him. I am bound to the King by 
 obligations of gratitude, greater, perhaps, than subject 
 ever owed to a sovereign, for the kind manner in which 
 he has extended to me his confidence and support, and 
 for the indulgence with which he has accepted my hum- 
 ble but zealous exertions in his service. Therefore, so 
 long as I can be a useful servant to him, I trust that it 
 never will bo a reproach to me that I abandoned so gra- 
 
REFORM BILL — LORD GREY. 69 
 
 cious a master. But I can only serve him usefully by 
 maintaining the character which belongs to a consistent, 
 conscientious, and disinterested course of public con- 
 duct ; this character I should deservedly forfeit, if, by 
 any consideration, I should desert principles which I 
 believe to be just, or give up, for any consideration 
 whatever, measures which I believe to be essential to 
 the security, happiness, and honor of my Sovereign and 
 of my country. If I could fall into such disgrace, I 
 should be at once disqualified from rendering to his 
 Majesty any useful service. As to abilities, I am too 
 sensible of my own deficiency, which is not less in those 
 other quaUfications which long habits of office give. All 
 that I can pretend to is an honest zeal, an anxious desire 
 to do my duty in the best way I can ; as long as he is 
 content to accept my services on those terms, no per- 
 sonal sacrifice shall stand in the way of my performing 
 the duty which I owe to a Sovereign whose claims upon 
 my gratitude and devotion can never be obliterated from 
 my heart, whatever may happen, to the last moment of 
 my existence. I had no desire for place, and it was not 
 sought after by me ; it was offered to me under such 
 circumstances that nothing but a sense of duty could 
 have induced me to accept it. To such as have ob- 
 served my public conduct, I think I need make no such 
 professions, for I can appeal to the history of my whole 
 life to prove that I have not been actuated by an un- 
 worthy desire for office. But I found myself placed in 
 a situation in which, to shrink from the task imposed 
 upon me by the too partial opinion of a benevolent mas- 
 ter, would have been the dereliction of a great pubhc 
 duty. I have lived a long life of seclusion from office 
 — I had no official habits — I possessed not the advan- 
 tages which those official habits confer. I am fond of 
 
70 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 retirement and domestic life, and I lived happy and 
 contented in the bosom of my family. I was surrounded 
 by those to whom I am attached by the warmest ties of 
 affection. What, then, but a sense of duty could have 
 induced me to plunge into all the difficulties, not unfore- 
 seen, of my present situation ? What else, in my declin- 
 ing age. 
 
 What else could tempt me on those stormy seas, 
 Bankrupt of life, yet prodigal of ease ? ^ 
 
 I defy my worst enemy, if he has the most moderate 
 share of candor, to find ground for charging me with 
 any other motive. I have performed my duty as well 
 as I am able. I shall still continue to do so, as long 
 as I can hope to succeed in the accomplishment of an 
 object which I believe to be safe, necessary, and indis- 
 pensable ; but should this, hope fail me, and should the 
 Parliament and the public witlidi-aw the confidence with 
 which I have been hitherto supported, as, in that case, 
 I could no longer prove a useful servant to my King 
 or to my country, I would instantly withdraw from 
 office into the retirement of private life, with the con- 
 soling reflection that, whatever my other defects may 
 be, I had not been wanting, according to the best of my 
 ability and judgment,, in a faithful, conscientious, and 
 zealous discharge of what I felt to be my duty.* 
 
 The House divided about six o'clock in the morning, 
 at the end of five days and nights of debate. The * not 
 contents,' including proxies, were 199, the * contents' 
 
 A Dry den's lines are — 
 
 Punish ft body which ho could not please, 
 Bankrupt of life, yet prodigal of ease. 
 
 Kither Lord Grey altered the lines, or quoted only the last line, and the 
 reporter supplied the first. 
 
REFORM BILL — LORD GREY. 71 
 
 158, giving a majority against the second reading of 41. 
 It became now a very serious question with Lord Grey, 
 whether he should remain in office, or whether he should 
 throw upon his opponents the entire responsibility of 
 carrying on the Government in the midst of an excite- 
 ment of a very dangerous character. Lord Grey decided, 
 rightly, as I think, that he would not desert his Sover- 
 eign nor abandon his high post, while he had any hopes 
 of being able to carry a great measure of reform. On 
 the seventeenth of the same month (October), in ex- 
 plaining what he was alleged to have said to a deputa- 
 tion, he gave the following account of his position : — 
 ' He did state that some alterations in the late bill would 
 be necessary before it was re-introduced, and that it 
 would be for his Majesty's Ministers, during the recess, 
 carefully to consider what those alterations should be ; 
 but he distinctly added that he would never be a party 
 to, or recommend any measure of reform which was not 
 founded on any similar principles, and as effective, as 
 regarded its declared object, as that which was lately 
 before Parliament. This was the whole of what passed 
 between him and the delegates from the parishes, except 
 that when they represented to him that if satisfaction 
 was not given to the public, as to the length of time on 
 which Parliament was to be prorogued, it would tend to 
 increase the agitation and excitement which prevailed ; 
 he felt himself called upon to inform those who commu- 
 ■ nicated with him, that it was their duty to use all the 
 means in their power to repress agitation and excite- 
 ment, and to keep the people in obedience to the laws 
 of the country, that the Ministers might not be placed 
 in the painful situation of being compelled to use those 
 powers which, as a Government, it was their duty to 
 use, for the preservation of the public peace. With 
 
72 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 respect to the prorogation, he would only say, that 
 whatever might be the length of the period to which his 
 Majesty's Ministers thought it their duty to recommend 
 his Majesty to prorogue Parliament, it would be regu- 
 lated by a sincere desire to do that which they consid- 
 ered most conducive to the advancement of the great 
 measure of parliamentary reform.' 
 
 Tlie rejection of the bill in the House of Lords made 
 it necessary to review some of the most important pro- 
 visions of the original bill, so as to preserve its prin- 
 ciples and maintain its efficiency, correcting at the same 
 time some of the details which, from the ignorance and 
 inexperience of its authors in matters of government 
 and legislation, had proved to be defective. The first 
 list of boroughs to be entirely or partially disfranchised 
 had been made out by consulting the tables of popula- 
 tion for 1821. These tables contained the population 
 of parishes, not of boroughs or towns ; and the bounda- 
 ries of parishes were sometimes widely different, either 
 in excess or deficiency, from those of the boroughs 
 which were to be the objects of penal extinction. Com- 
 missioners were appointed by the Secretary of State for 
 the Home Department to rectify these details, and tliey 
 were instructed to ascertain the boundaries of the bor- 
 oughs to which the right of sending members to Parlia- 
 ment had been granted. Further than this, a new test 
 of importance was taken, borrowed very much from the 
 tests of defranchisement applied in the Act of Union 
 with Ireland, and announced by Pitt at the time. We 
 took, therefore, the number of houses as a test of the 
 €xisting population, and the amount of assessed taxes 
 paid as the test of property in boroughs. 
 
 From these two elements combined, a list of the bor- 
 oughs was formed, with a view to their relative impor- 
 
EEFORM BILL, 1831. T3 
 
 tance. The compound ratio was calculated by Mr. 
 Drummond, on a scientific principle. This was ap- 
 proved by Mr. Davies Gilbert, a mathematician of emi- 
 nence, who was at one time President of the Royal 
 Society. Mr. Croker, who seemed to be ignorant of 
 all mathematical science, alone doubted the accuracy of 
 the rule adopted. 
 
 With regard to the boundaries of boroughs, of towns 
 newly enfranchised, and of counties to be divided, the 
 reports of commissioners were sent up to London, and 
 were referred to Mr. Littleton, afterwards Lord Hather- 
 ton, a liberal but moderate politician, and to Admiral 
 Beaufort, whose views were purely scientific. I some- 
 times assisted at their deliberations, especially when 
 there was any discrepancy in the opinions of the differ- 
 ent commissioners. But the whole process, whether of 
 singling out small boroughs, and placing them in the 
 list for disfranchisement, or of enlarging the boundaries 
 of old boroughs, or of marking the limits of new bor- 
 oughs and divisions of counties, was performed, so far 
 as I am aware, with an entire absence of party bias. 
 
 Of course, the addition or subtraction of particular 
 districts hail an effect favorable to one party or the 
 other ; thus the Liberal party at Stamford, who had 
 succeeded in returning Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt, in 
 opposition to the influence of the Marquis of Exeter, 
 lost all chance of opposing that influence with success 
 when a suburb was added, which properly formed a 
 part of the town of Stamford, but which was chiefly 
 inhabited by the tenants of Lord Exeter. Thus, in an 
 opposite political direction, the influence of the Duke 
 of Somerset at Totnes was increased, by adding to the 
 borough a part of the town which lay on the opposite 
 side of the river Dart. Thus, in particular counties, 
 
7'4 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Whig or Tory proprietors derived some advantage from 
 the particular line of boundary adopted, but without 
 any intention on the part of the Government to secure 
 any advantage to themselves. In fact, the Boundary 
 Bill, framed upon these reports, was adopted with very 
 little discussion, and, except with regard to the borough 
 of Arundel, now disfranchised, with no important altera- 
 tion. 
 
 The number of boroughs to be wholly or partially 
 disfranchised had been, in my original sketch, arbitrarily 
 fixed. Lord Durham had suggested that the penalty 
 of total disfranchisement should be confined to towns, 
 or rather villages, of less than two thousand inhabitants, 
 and that none under four thousand should return more 
 than one member. But the arbitrary line was now 
 again resorted to ; the number of boroughs to be wholly 
 or partially disfranchised was copied from the bill re- 
 jected by the House of Lords, and the test I have men- 
 tioned was applied to that number, so that fifty-six 
 boroughs, returning one hundred and eleven members, 
 were placed in Schedule A for total extinction, and 
 thirty boroughs, returning sixty members, were con- 
 demned to lose half their representatives. In this man- 
 ner,^ one hundred and forty-one seats belonging to 
 boroughs which, since the days of Charles I., had regu- 
 larly sent members to Parliament, were cut off on account 
 of their dependence or their insignificance. By my 
 original sketch, one hundred and forty-nine scats would 
 have been disfranchised. 
 
 This was the most popular part of the Reform Bill. 
 The country argued that from these boroughs, in 
 scarcely any of which the element of popular represen- 
 tation existed, had arisen all obstructions to the reforms 
 and retrenchments which the people so evidently de- 
 
REFORM BILL, 1881. -75 
 
 sired. As this was the strong and popular position of 
 the Government, it would evidently be a great mistake, 
 on the part of our opponents, to direct their attack 
 against it; yet, as we shall presently see, this was. the 
 part of our lines singled out for attack in the House of 
 Lords. 
 
 The obstruction and delay from which the former 
 bill had suffered in its passage through the House of 
 Commons were only partially renewed. On March 9, 
 the bill was in committee for the twenty-first day, and 
 on the next day, March 10, the report was received. 
 On March 22, the bill was read a third time, after a 
 division, in which the ayes were 355, and the noes 
 239; majority, 116. 
 
 Throughout the debates which took place upon the 
 Eeform Bill, while Lord Althorp and I had the greater 
 portion of the labor, and a still larger portion of the 
 responsibility, the palm of eloquence in debate belonged 
 undoubtedly to Lord Stanley. Conscious of my own 
 deficiencies, I had, on the first introduction of the 
 Reform Bill, stipulated with Lord Althorp that Mr. 
 Grant, and not I, should undertake the task, the 
 weightiest that belongs to a leader, of reply at the end 
 of the debate. But Mr. Grant contented himself with 
 general adherence to the principles of the bill, while 
 Lord Stanley, by his animated appeals to the Liberal 
 majority, by his readiness in answering the sophisms of 
 his opponents, by the precision and boldness of his 
 language, by his display of all the great qualities of a 
 parliamentary orator and an able statesman, successfully 
 vindicated the authority of the Government, and satis- 
 fied their supporters in the House of Commons. 
 
 While Sir Robert Peel was the most eminent, both 
 in weight of argument and in oratorical ability, of the 
 
76 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 opponents of the bill, Mr. Croker, by his profusion 
 of words, by his warmth of declamation, and by his 
 elaborate working out of details, was perhaps a still 
 more formidable adversary. He told Lord Althorp, 
 in private, that when he discovered the error we had 
 made of confounding the limits of parishes with those 
 of Parliamentary boroughs, he thought himself sure of 
 defeating the bill. But his own statements of details 
 were singularly inaccurate ; and even where the par- 
 ticular point upon wliich he insisted was not mistaken, 
 his exaggerations of its importance were repulsive to 
 the House of Commons. Above all, the tide of opinion 
 flowed so rapidly, that all obstacles were swept away, 
 like Canute's chair, by the advancing waves. Thus the 
 bill which had been introduced to the notice of the 
 House of Commons on March 1, 1831, was finally 
 passed on March 22, 1832, but little impaired in effi- 
 ciency. It overthrew a system which had been left 
 untouched at the Revolution, — a period when the wisest 
 patriots, forced by necessity to transfer the Crown to a 
 foreign prince, had been careful rather to maintain the 
 ancient privileges of the Constitution than to disturb 
 other parts of the existing edifice. The same system 
 had enabled Sir Robert Walpole to consolidate the 
 throne of the House of Hanover, amidst internal and 
 external dangers. But the same system enabled Lord 
 North to maintain his power against the fair demands 
 and justifiable insurrection of the North American Col- 
 onies, even after the people had become tired of tho 
 contest against our fellow-subjects in America. The 
 same system enabled Mr. Pitt and his successors to 
 increase the public debt from about two hundred and 
 thirty millions to eight hundred millions, and to restrict, 
 by the most severe laws, the right of public meeting, 
 
REFORM BILL, ISSlf 77 
 
 and the liberty of the press. The fidelity with which 
 the majority of the House of Commons had supported 
 the French War, and its costly armaments, led Pitt to 
 renounce all his early theories upon reform, and induced 
 him to rely on the construction of that House as a firm 
 barrier against democratic, or, as it was then called, 
 Jacobin revolution. But the same willingness to sanc- 
 tion expense on the part of the Government, and to 
 punish excesses on the part of the people, which had 
 conciliated the opinion of Pitt, had estranged the j)ublic 
 mind. Government, by nomination-boroughs, had be- 
 come odious to the community at large ; ^nd the House 
 of Commons, which voted by a majority of more than 
 a hundred its own extinction, did but sanction the 
 judicial sentence of the country. 
 
 New perils, however, awaited the measure in the 
 House of Lords. In view of the large majority which 
 had rejected the bill in October, Lord Grey had thought 
 it right to consider what should be done if the same 
 obstacles should recur. He and his colleagues could 
 perceive no other resource than that of advising the 
 King to create a large number of peers. 
 
 From 1784 to 1830, the prerogative of the Crown to 
 create peers had been exercised almost entirely by the 
 chiefs of the Tory party. The addition of about eighty 
 or one hundred peers, solely from one party, had en- 
 tirely overthrown the old balance of parties in the 
 House of Lords. Besides the new creations, many 
 peers who attached themselves to the Minister of the 
 day had received higher titles as the reward of their 
 political attachment. Earls had been made Marquises ; 
 Viscounts and Barons had been made Earls. The old 
 and venerable titles which they had received from their 
 ancestors were exchanged for coronets of a more ex- 
 
78 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 alted degree, siGfnificant of their adhesion to Tory policy 
 and Tory Ministers. They could not be expected to 
 forget these recent favors, or .the hands by which they 
 had been conferred. At the same time, the creation 
 of sixty or seventy peers for a particular purpose, 
 though undoubtedly within the prerogative of the 
 Crown, and not more than an adequate exercise of the 
 power which had secured a majority to the Tory Min- 
 isters of Queen Anne, was felt to be a measure likely 
 to shake the confidence of the country in the stabiHty 
 of our ancient institutions. Admitting that the pre- 
 rogative of cheating peers had been abused by Pitt, 
 and still more by Lord Liverpool, Lord Grey, as a fol- 
 lower of Fox, was sure to be averse to any steps which 
 might seem inconsistent with unbounded reverence for 
 the Constitution of these realms. It was thought, there- 
 fore, by the Ministry and their supporters, that every 
 effort ought to be made to secure a majority by con- 
 ciliating the opponents of the bill. Lords Harrowby 
 and Wharncliffe, who were in that day called the 
 waverers, met Lord Grey and Lord Palmerston, in 
 order to suggest alterations which might conciliate some 
 who were not hostile in principle to reform, but who 
 considered the bill of 1831 as dangerous and revolu- 
 tionary. It was found, however, that the alterations 
 proposed would seriously impair the efficiency of the 
 bill. Lord Harrowby and Lord Wharncliffe, therefore, 
 while they agreed to support the second reading, were 
 left at liberty to propose their own amendments in 
 committee, without the promise of any concession on 
 the part of Lord Grey. Various members of the ISIin- 
 istry wrote to their friends in the House of Lords, 
 pointing out to them the danger of a large creation of 
 peers, and exhorting them to ward off that danger by 
 
REFORM BILL, MAY, 1832. 79 
 
 supporting the Reform Bill. Of three peers to whom 
 I wrote with this object, one supported the second 
 reading, one abstained from voting, and the third re- 
 peated his vote against the bill. 
 
 It was considered by the Cabinet that these endeav- 
 ors to procure a majority were not of themselves suffi- 
 cient, and that the King should be asked to consent to 
 a creation of peers as guarded and limited as possible, 
 in case of the rejection of the bill on the second reading. 
 This proposal, although very unpalatable to the King, 
 received his Majesty's sanction. Whether the leaders 
 of the Tory party had any inkling of what had passed 
 I cannot tell, but they seemed to have framed their plan 
 of campaign on the supposition that the second reading 
 would be carried by the Government. On April 13, 
 the House divided : contents, 184 ; non-contents, 175 ; 
 majority, 9. The bill was read a second time, and or- 
 dered to be committed on the first day after the recess. 
 The House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock in 
 the morning. On April 17, the House adjourned for 
 the Easter recess, and on May 7, when the House met 
 again, the bill was considered in committee. It was 
 understood that Lord Lyndhurst meant to move the 
 postponement of the disfranchising clauses of the bill. 
 On that day I met Lord Grey riding in the Park, and 
 rode with him to the Park door of his official house in 
 Downing Street. I was anxious to ascertain what lan- 
 guage he intended to hold, and was gratified to find that 
 he considered Lord Lyndhurst's proposal one of vital 
 importance, and that he meant to hold firm language in 
 the debate. With this assurance from Lord Grey, 1 felt 
 quite certain of a speedy and triumphant issue of the 
 contest. The debate was anxious and interesting, but 
 was not protracted. The Tory peers who had supported 
 
80 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 the second reading of the bill, with an unconquerable 
 aversion to its principles and its objects, now went over 
 in a body to the Opposition. Some of the more prudent 
 of the Tories were alarmed at the near prospect of their 
 temporary triumph. 
 
 The Earl of Harewood, who had had much experience 
 in the House of Commons, said : * He wished to exoner- 
 ate himself from being a party to any project or indirect 
 contrivance to defeat the bill. If the proposition (the 
 amendment) contained in it any thing which he did not 
 understand, or any thing sinister, he would not support 
 it. He wished that more time were allowed to promul- 
 gate what was meant to be proposed, if the proposition 
 were successful ; and if that were the case, he was sure 
 all feelings of acrimony on the other (the Ministerial) 
 side would be done away. He thought, if the amend- 
 ments to be proposed were seen and known, they would 
 remove all the objections which the noble Lords oppo- 
 site might have to the amendment. He had no idea 
 that the object was to get rid of Schedule A ; and if it 
 were, he certainly would not join in any such object. 
 He believed that the plan of enfranchisement to be pro- 
 posed would include all Schedule A, and perhaps more, 
 and he had no predisposition to defeat that schedule. 
 There might be sooue variations, perhaps, in the places 
 to be disfranchised, but he believed if the enfranchise- 
 ment were first agreed to, the places to be disfranchised 
 would be identical with those places in Schedule A. 
 There were difficulties about the question which the 
 plan proposed by the noble and learned Lord might get 
 rid of. If the noble Earl (Grey) did not look on the 
 proposition in a hostile light, much might be done to 
 bring about a satisfactory settlement of the whole ques- 
 tion.' 
 
EEFORM BILL, MAY, 1832. 81 
 
 Lord Wharncliffe, who spoke before Lord Hare wood, 
 said he could assure the noble Lords opposite that there 
 was no disposition on the Opposition side of the House 
 to be niggardly as to the amount of disfranchisement. 
 The Duke of Newcastle, he remarked, had said that he 
 would give his support to the amendment, in order 
 that the bill might not pass ; but that was not his view. 
 After what had passed, he could not do any thing to 
 violate the pledge he had given ; and he was prepared 
 to go the whole length of Schedule A. If the amend- 
 ment succeeded, he should vote, he believed, for the 
 whole of Schedule A, and would not give his consent to 
 any amendment which would reduce the amount of dis- 
 franchisement. 
 
 Earl Grey was not, however, to be intimidated or 
 cajoled. * He hoped,' he said, ' the noble Lords present 
 would not deceive themselves ; but he must say that if 
 the motion was successful, it would be fatal to the 
 whole bill. Should the amendment be carried, it will 
 be necessary for me to consider what course I shall take. 
 More I will not say than what, on a former occasion, 
 was stated by the noble Earl on the other side, — and 
 it was not denied by any other person, — that this bill 
 had found support in public opinion. Noble Lords de- 
 ceive themselves if they suppose that opinion^ in favor 
 of this bill is relaxed ; and certainly I dread the effect 
 of the House of Lords opposing itself a^n insurmount- 
 able barrier to what the people think necessary for the 
 good government of the country, and a sufficient repre- 
 sentation.' ' More he would not say, than' that to the 
 motion of the noble and learned Lord he meant to give 
 his most determined opposition.' '^ 
 
 The committee divided on the amendment: con- 
 
 6 
 
82 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 tents, 151 ; non-contents, 116 ; majority in favor of the 
 amendment, 35. 
 
 On the motion that the next clause be postponed, 
 to which Lord Grey did not object. Lord Ellenborough 
 took the opportunity, ill-timed as it appeared to be, to 
 propose a scheme of his own. He said he should not 
 object to the disfranchisement to the full extent of 
 Schedule A, making, with the members for the borough 
 of Weymouth, one hundred and thirteen seats to be 
 placed at the disposal of Parliament. Neither did he 
 object to the ten-pound qualification, provided it were 
 better defined. 
 
 The immediate consequence of the vote on Lord 
 Lyndhurst's amendment was a meeting of the Cabinet 
 to consider their new position. It was evident that the 
 House of Lords had determined, by a large majority, 
 to defeat the bill, which had the enthusiastic support 
 of the House of Commons. With the exception of the 
 Duke of Richmond, the Cabinet were unanimous in 
 thinking that no course was left to them but that of 
 proposing to the King to sanction a creation of peers 
 sufficiently numerous to overbear the opposition of the 
 Lords. Lord Grey as Prime Minister, ani Lord 
 Brougham as Lord Chancellor, carried this advice to 
 Windsor. The King, anxious as he was to see a Re- 
 form Bill carried, and even willing to go to a consider- 
 able extent in favor of Lord Grey's bill, shrank from the 
 alternative now proposed to him. It seemed to hin>y 
 that to overbear the majority of the House of Lords was 
 to destroy the independence of that body. He there- 
 fore at once rejected the advice of his Ministera. Lord 
 Grey and Lord Brougham returned to London to report 
 this decision to their colleagues. 
 
 The next day Lord Lyndhiu^t was sent for, and 
 
REFORM BILL, MAY, 1832. , 88 
 
 informed that the King had accepted the resignation of 
 his Ministers, and was determined, if possible, to form 
 a Government on the principle of carrying an extensive 
 reform in the representation of the people. The Duke 
 of Wellington, impelled by that honorable feeling of 
 loyalty to the Crown which induced him to incur any 
 risk, and almost to surrender any opinion, rather than 
 show himself wanting in zeal for his Sovereign, informed 
 Lord Lyndhurst that he would endeavor to form a 
 Government in compliance with the King's wishes. 
 From Sir Robert Peel Lord Lyndhurst received a very 
 different answer. He declined to make himself respon- 
 sible for a bill which, in his opinion, as he had often and 
 publicly declared, would entail great calamities on the 
 country. He therefore refused to accept office, while 
 he professed his readiness to give such support to the 
 efforts of the Duke of Wellington as his opinions would 
 permit him to afford. " 
 
 There was something remarkable in the contrast 
 between the conduct of the Duke of Wellington and 
 that of Sir Robert Peel at this crisis. They were both 
 men of high character, both anxious for the honor of 
 their Sovereign and the welfare of their country. Their 
 position appeared similar, if not identical. Yet the 
 Duke of Wellington declared that if he had refused 
 to assist in the formation of a Government he should 
 have been ashamed to show his face in the streets ; 
 while Sir Robert Peel declared in the House of Commons 
 that if he had accepted the task proposed to him he 
 could not have walked upright into that House. The 
 Duke of Wellington's feeling was one of excessive loy- 
 alty as a subject, Sir Robert Peel's that of dignity and 
 consistency as a statesman. We have no right to with- 
 hold our meed of respect from either of them. 
 
84 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 It has been commonly supposed that, after the refusal 
 of Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington had recourse 
 to Mr. Alexander Baring, a man of great experience, of 
 great abiUty, and intimately acquainted with the means 
 by which the credit of the country was upheld. But 
 while these negotiations were pending, and while Mr. 
 Baring, whose mind was irresolute, doubted as to the 
 course he should pursue, events rushed rapidly on, and 
 turned liis hesitation into despair. 
 
 London and the country were not only awake, but 
 highly excited at the crisis before them. Men who 
 would have accepted with satisfaction the disfranchise- 
 ment of ten small boroughs, and the enfranchisement 
 of ten large manufacturing towns three years before, 
 were now not in the least appeased by Lord Ellen- 
 borough's offer to sacrifice one hundred and thirteen 
 seats, and to fill them up from unrepresented places. 
 Nine years previously I had said that if reform were not 
 allowed to follow its course with the majesty of a river, 
 it would rush on with the madness of a torrent. I had 
 been laughed at by one of my Tory friends for tliis 
 phrase, but he and others were now earned away by that 
 torrent, the approach of which they had so little fore- 
 seen. This was indeed a moment of peril. It was the 
 only time during my political life in which I have felt 
 uneasy as to the result. Fortunately, in this as in other 
 cases, the House of Commons proved the safety-valve of 
 society. 
 
 On the very day, May 9, when Lord' Althorp an- 
 nounced the fact of the resignation of Ministers, Lord 
 Ebrington gave notice of a motion, for the next day, 
 for an address to the Crown, to implore his Majesty to 
 call to his councils such persons only as will carry into 
 • effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions, that bill 
 
RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 85 
 
 for reforming the representation of tlie people, which 
 has recently passed this House. Notice was also given 
 of a motion for a call of the House. On the next daj^, 
 accordingly, Lord Ebrington made his motion, and was 
 opposed by Mr. Baring, who said that if the opposition 
 had been imputed to personal motives, he would only 
 ask those who made such an imputation to look to the 
 fact that almost all the members of the Government 
 opposite had been opposed to reform, except the noble 
 Lord (Lord John Eussell), and there was hardly a 
 public man in the country, and more particularly in the 
 King's councils, who had not, at one time or another, 
 been opposed to such a sweeping measure of reform as 
 that introduced by his Majesty's Government. Mr. 
 Baring pretended to be ignorant of the causes of the 
 resignation of the Ministers. In answer to this asser- 
 tion. Lord Althorp gave a clear and manly statement 
 of the causes which had induced the Ministers to resign. 
 ' I stated last night,' he said, ' that the advice which we 
 gave was occasioned by our finding that it was impossi- 
 ble to carry the Reform Bill. We, therefore. Sir, asked 
 his Majesty to enable us to take such steps as were nec- 
 essary to carry the bill ; and to carry it where. Sir ? 
 Why, in the House of Lords. That was the statement 
 which I made last night. But as my hon. friend does 
 not think that was enough, I have no objection to state, 
 for his better satisfaction, that the advice which we 
 thought it our duty to offer to his Majesty was, that he 
 should create a number of peers sufficient to carry the 
 Reform Bill through the other House of Parliament in 
 an efficient form.' A division took place the same night, 
 when there appeared for the motion, 288 ; noes, 208 ; 
 majority, 80. Before the debate began, the Sheriff and 
 Remembrancer of the city of London had presented a 
 
86 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 petition from the city, praying the House to stop the 
 supplies till the Reform Bill was passed. On the next 
 day, May 11, Mr. John Wood presented a petition from 
 Manchester, which, he said, was signed in the space of 
 three hours by 25,000 persons, and which, he believed, 
 would be followed by thousands of other petitions, pray- 
 ing the House not to vote any supplies until a measure 
 essential to the happiness of the people and the safety of 
 the throne shall be carried into a law. 
 
 The excitement continued to increase. At a meet- 
 ing at Brooks's Club, Mr. Stanley made a most violent 
 speech against the formation of a Ministry which was 
 not prepared to carry the Reform Bill in its integrity. 
 
 This occurrence is said to have taken place on Satur- 
 day, the 12th. I was not present at the meeting. On 
 Monday, the 14th, the Ministry of the Duke of Welling- 
 ton was nipped in the bud in the House of Commons. 
 After a debate upon a petition which had been passed 
 at a meeting of the livery of the city of London, in the 
 Common Hall assembled, in which debate Mr. Baring, 
 Lord Al thorp. Sir Henry Hardinge, Lord Palmerston, 
 and the Attorney-General spoke. Sir Robert Inglis rose. 
 He said, * that while he held, as an old Tory, that the 
 King had the same right to give his decision on any 
 measure which might pass the two Houses, he could not 
 forget also this other great constitutional truth, that the 
 opinions and wishes of the King were known to the 
 House in no other way than by his public acts, for 
 which his known confidential advisers were responsible. 
 He was told that the new Government was actually to 
 take charge, had, indeed, already taken charge, of the 
 Reform Bill. 
 
 * He was willing to make the greatest allowance for 
 changes of opinion in young men ; but, when he was 
 
REFORM BILL, MAY 14. 87 
 
 told of men of mature age — statesmen who all their 
 lives had been opposed to a particular measure, who 
 had in April protested against it as revolutionary, adopt- 
 ing it and making it their own measure in May, he must 
 own that he could imagine no consideration which could 
 justify such a change of conduct. He did not accuse 
 any one of love of pelf, or even of power ; he did not say 
 that ambition, that last infirmity of noble minds, had 
 misled any one : but the conduct itself, from whatever 
 motive, he must deprecate as fatal to that singleness 
 and consistency of public character which, as he had 
 already stated, he considered to be the best property of 
 public men, and, in them, of their country.' Sir Robert 
 Inglis's character, universally respected, added great 
 weight to these words, and, when it became quite clear 
 that the new Government would neither be joined by 
 Sir Robert Peel nor supported by Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. 
 Baring saw that his task was hopeless. Accordingly, 
 before the end of the night, he intimated clearly that 
 the attempt would not be proceeded with, and that he 
 wished to see the former Ministers resume their offices. 
 In reviewing these events, it is impossible to refuse to 
 the Duke of Wellington the tribute at all times due to 
 him of having acted from conscientious motives and a 
 high sense of honor. But while the Duke of Welling- 
 ton was actuated only by undeviating loyalty to his 
 Sovereign — and it is not surprising that this feeling 
 should take deep root in the mind of a military man 
 used to obedience as a soldier, and attached to the 
 throne — it was indeed strange that Mr. Baring and 
 others should have supposed that to such a principle 
 could be sacrificed the character of a public man, and 
 the Constitution of these realms. I had stated in the 
 debate of the 12th that if a Cabinet was formed it would 
 
88 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 be a Cabinet into which honor could not enter. I ought 
 to have excepted the Duke of Wellington. The failure 
 of this attempt to set aside the very basis of the Con- 
 stitution was a happy event, on which the House of 
 Commons might justly pride itself. 
 
 As soon as the Duke of Wellington perceived, from 
 the discussions in the House of Commons, that it was 
 impossible to form a Government which would obtain 
 the confidence of the country, he felt it his duty to 
 report that he could not fulfil the commission with 
 which his Majesty had been pleased to honor him. 
 The King thereupon resolved to renew his communica- 
 tions with his former Ministry. 
 
 When Lord Grey received this communication, he 
 merely informed the King that he was aware that the 
 Duke of Wellington had failed in forming a Ministry, 
 and that he would consult his former colleagues on the 
 state of affairs. 
 
 When the Cabinet assembled, very serious discussions 
 took place. It was unanimously resolved that the bill 
 must be carried in its integrity, and the question was, 
 how this object was to be effected. It was understood 
 that Sir Herbert Taylor, on the part of the King, would 
 use the royal influence, and that the Duke of Welling- 
 ton, on his part, would do allin his power to induce the 
 peers to abstain from further opposition to the bill. 
 Sir Herbert Taylor was very active in concert with 
 others in reconciling the King to a course which, al- 
 though it did not directly overpower the House of 
 Lords by a large creation of peers, yet, upon this occa- 
 sion, and on a question of the gravest importance, 
 absolutely destroyed their privileges as a House of 
 Parliament, and reduced them to a cipher in the work- 
 ing of the Constitution. 
 
REFORM ACT — ROYAL ASSENT, 1832. 89 
 
 But the Cabinet was not satisfied with the probable 
 effect of the influences thus brought to bear upon the 
 peers ; they thought it necessary that Lord Grey should 
 be armed with the power to create peers in a number 
 sufficient to carry the bill, should any. of its essential 
 provisions be interfered with in its further progress 
 through the House of Lords. It was not until the 
 King had given to Lord Grey his solemn promise that, 
 if called upon, he would create peers in a sufficient 
 number for this purpose, that the Ministers consented 
 to resume their offices.^ 
 
 Lord Althorp, in announcing the restoration of the 
 Ministry, said he could not reveal the nature of the 
 securities for carrying the bill which Lord Grey and 
 his colleagues had obtained, but that he trusted the 
 House had sufficient confidence in him to be satisfied 
 with his assurance that they had that security. 
 
 After this the bill passed triumphantly through 
 committee without much debate, and with no impor- 
 tant alteration. It was read a third time by a majority 
 of eighty. The Reform Bill received the royal assent 
 on June T, 1832. A Boundary Bill, complicated in its 
 details, was successfully carried through both Houses. 
 The Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland were like- 
 wise carried, and on August 16 Parliament was pro- 
 rogued. 
 
 A session more successful for the Ministry could not 
 well have been. The manly and straightforward con- 
 duct of Lord 
 received from the people, overcame all 
 
 It may be a question, however, whether the manner 
 
 Q. ihe manly and straightiorward con- 
 Grey, and the enthusiastic support he / 
 ]he people, overcame all opposition. / 
 
 1 See ' Correspondence of King William IV. and Earl Grey/ vol. ii. 
 p. 464. 
 
90 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 in which the vote of the House of Lords was nullified 
 by the compulsory absence of a great many of the 
 majority, was not more perilous for their authority 
 than the creation of peers which the Cabinet of Lord 
 Grey proposed. In the reign of Queen Anne there 
 had been a decided majority in the House of Lords 
 which had interfered so far with the royal prerogative 
 as to address the Queen not to consent to any peace 
 which should leave the Crown of Spain in the possession 
 of any branch of the House of Bourbon. This was a 
 most unconstitutional interference with the prerogative 
 of the Crown, and the discretion of its advisers, who 
 could not fail to be influenced by the events of the war. 
 The Tory Minister of that day, strong in the confidence 
 of the Queen and of the country, obtained from the 
 Crown the creation of a sufficient number of peers to 
 overbear the majority, and secure the harmonious 
 working of the Constitution. In those days, when the 
 House of Peers was not crowded by the host of parti- 
 sans who were added to it by Mr. Pitt and his succes- 
 sors, the creation of twelve peers was sufficient for the 
 purpose of Harley and St. John ; but whether twelve 
 or one hundred be the number requisite to enable the 
 peers to give their votes in conformity with public 
 opinion, it seems to me that a House of Lords sympa- 
 thizing with the people at large, and acting in concur- 
 rence with the enlightened state of the prevailing wish, 
 represents far better the dignity of the House, and its 
 share in legislation, than a majority got together by the 
 long supremacy of one party in the State, eager to show 
 its ill-will by rejecting bills of small importance, but 
 afraid to appear, and skulking in clubs and country 
 houses, in face of a measure which has attracted the 
 ardent sympathy of public opinion. 
 
COERCION BILL, IRELAND, 1833. 91 
 
 Yet such was tlie state in whicli the House of Lords 
 was left by the forbearance and regard for royal scru- 
 ples of Lord Grey and his colleagues. Mr. Pitt, in a 
 few years, had advised the creation of one hundred 
 peers. Lord Liverpool had sanctioned the creation of 
 fifteen in a single day. Lord Grey, on succeeding to 
 power in 1830, found in the House of Peers a majority 
 of at least eighty party adherents arrayed against him. 
 After the Reform Bill had been carried, this majority 
 was held back with scrupulous care by the Duke of 
 Wellington, but it was unscrupulously .emploj^ed by 
 Lord Lyndhurst to stop the course of wholesome legis- 
 lation, and to nip in the bud measures which, while 
 they were useful, were at the same time unpretending, 
 and were not likely to rouse popular enthusiasm, or to 
 justify in the eyes of the country a large addition to the 
 House of Lords. 
 
 After the passing of the Reform Act, a duty of the 
 highest importance, of the gravest responsibility, but at 
 the same time of the clearest necessity, devolved upon 
 the Government. 
 
 The long war in which England had been engaged 
 had brought with it immense . burdens, an enormous 
 debt, an inconvertible currency, an entire derangement 
 of the relations between capital and labor, and an 
 abuse of the poor-laws which had placed the rural 
 population in a state of idleness and discontent, and 
 threatened to absorb alb the funds of the land-owners 
 and farmers. To these permanent disorders was to be 
 added a condition of Ireland destructive of life and 
 property, which urgently required immediate remedies. 
 
 Of these evils, the last, as being the most urgent, 
 required the earliest attention. A measure of coercion 
 containing very strong provisions was sent over by the 
 
92 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Government of Ireland. Lord Grey accepted it, be- 
 cause, in his opinion, the protection of life and property 
 was a duty incumbent upon every Government. Lord 
 Althorp accepted it also, because, in his opinion, the 
 stronger the measure the more likely was it to be tem- 
 porary, and to give way after a short time to the resto- 
 ration of the ordinary law. But while Lord Althorp 
 was as fully persuaded as any member of the Cabinet 
 of the necessity for this bill, he was little fitted to per- 
 suade a Liberal House of Commons to acquiesce in a 
 proposal repugnant to their dispositions, and at variance 
 with their settled opinions. It was thought right, how- 
 ever, that he, as the leader of the Government in the 
 House of Commons, should introduce the Coercion Bill. 
 He did so in a manner tame and ineffective. His detail 
 of the outrages committed in Ireland was like reading 
 a few of the blackest pages of the ' Newgate Calendar.' 
 The Liberal majority were disappointed, sullen, and 
 ready to break out into mutiny against their chief. 
 Mr. Stanley, who was sitting next to me, greatly an- 
 noyed at the aspect of the House, said to me, ' I meant 
 not to have spoken till to-morrow night, but I find I 
 must speak to-night.' He took Lord Althorp's box of 
 official papers, and went upstairs to a room where he 
 could look over them quietly. After the debate had 
 proceeded for two or three hours longer, with no change 
 of temper in the House, Stanley rose. He explained 
 with admirable clearness the insecure and alarming state 
 of Ireland. He then went over, case by case, the more 
 dreadful of the outrages which had been committed. 
 Ho detailed, with striking effect, the circumstances 
 attending the murder of a clergyman, and the agony of 
 his widow, who, after seeing her husband murdered, 
 had to bear the terror of running knocks at the door, 
 
LORD STANLEY. 93 
 
 kept on all night by the miscreants who had committed 
 the crime. The House became appalled and agitated 
 at the dreadful picture which he placed before their 
 eyes ; they felt for the sorrows of the innocent ; they 
 were shocked at the dominion of assassins and robbers. 
 When he had produced a thrilling effect by these 
 descriptions, he turned upon O'Connell, who led the 
 opposition to the measure, and who seemed a short 
 time before about to achieve a triumph in favor of 
 sedition and anarchy. He recalled to the recollection 
 of the House of Commons, that at a recent public 
 meeting, O'Connell had spoken of the House of Com- 
 mons as six hundred and fifty-eight scoundrels. In a 
 tempest of scorn and indignation, he excited the anger 
 of the men thus designated against the author of the 
 calumny. The House, which two hours before seemed 
 about to yield to the great agitator, was now almost 
 ready to tear him to pieces. In the midst of the storm 
 which his eloquence had raised, Stanley sat down, 
 having achieved one of the greatest triumphs ever won 
 in a popular assembly by the powers of oratory. 
 
 On February 12, a bill was brought into the House 
 of Commons by Lord Althorp, for the reform of the 
 Church of Ireland. Ten bishoprics were to be sup- 
 pressed, the Church-rates entirely abolished, and ar- 
 rangements made for the transfer to other districts of 
 the income of benefices where divine service had not 
 been performed for three years. Three members of 
 the Cabinet, Lord Althorp, Lord Durham, and I, had 
 wished to transfer some of the revenues of the Estab- 
 lished Church to general purposes of education ; but 
 Lord Grey having declared himself strongly against 
 any such provision in the bill. Lord Althorp gave way, 
 and Lord Durham and I followed his example. But 
 
94 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 the difference of opinion which was at this time stifled 
 broke out with irresistible force in the following year. 
 
 The year 1833 was, in my opinion, the most dis- 
 tinguished and the most memorable of Lord Derby's 
 political career. In the course of the discussions which 
 arose upon the subject of slavery in the West Indies, 
 Lord Grey had thought it desirable that Mr. Stanley 
 should be transferred from his post in Ireland to the 
 office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the 
 measure for the abolition of slavery fell, consequently, 
 into his hands. But he was not thereby freed from 
 the responsibility of mastering and defending the details 
 of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill ; and, therefore, 
 besides the Irish Coercion Bill, which he had carried 
 by the force of his eloquence, he had to conduct 
 through Parliament and defend, clause by clause, the 
 Irish Church Temporalities Bill and the Colonial Sla- 
 very Abolition Bill, two of the largest and most important 
 measures that were ever proposed for the consideration 
 of Parliament. He performed these tasks with infinite 
 skill, readiness, and ability; and, for my part, I felt and 
 expressed to my friend the Duke of Richmond the 
 opinion which I firmly entertained, that whenever Lord 
 Althorp should retire, or, by his father's death, be re- 
 moved to the House of Lords, Mr. Stanley would be 
 fully qualified to assume his place as leader of the 
 Liberal party in the House of Commons. It will be 
 seen how subsequent events destroyed this prospect, 
 and produced a disastrous rupture in the Ministry. 
 
 In the year 1834, Parliament met early in February. 
 The King remarked in his speech, that during the last 
 session more numerous and more important questions 
 were brought under the consideration of Parliament 
 than during any former period of similar duration. In 
 
POOR LAWS. 95 
 
 fact, the embarrassment of the Government and of Par- 
 liament arose rather from the abundance of subjects 
 and the difliculty of considering them in due order, than 
 from any want of diligence either on the part of the 
 Ministry or of the House of Commons. In the royal 
 speech, attention was called to the state of the munici- 
 pal corporations, to the administration and effect of the 
 poor-laws, and to ecclesiastical revenues and patronage 
 in England and in Wales. With respect to Ireland, 
 the King recommended the early consideration of such 
 a final adjustment of the tithes in that part of the 
 United Kingdom as might extinguish all just causes of 
 complaint without injury to the rights and property of 
 any class of subjects, or to any institution in Church or 
 State. These subjects occupied four or five years, and 
 their consideration was constantly interrupted by topics 
 of immediate interest, by events connected with foreign 
 policy, and by the impatience of the more eager reform- 
 ers to introduce into debate proposals of change which 
 would have required fifteen or twenty sessions to deal 
 with. Besides these topics, there were other proposals, 
 compliance with which would either have been incon- 
 sistent with, the due faith to be observed to the Crown, 
 or injurious to the interests of the country. 
 
 Among the subjects recommended to consideration 
 in the King's speech, there was none more urgent or 
 more important than the reform of the Poor-laws. A 
 commission had been appointed upon this subject, and 
 their labors had for result a valuable report, which 
 formed matter for anxious deliberation in a committee 
 of the Cabinet of which Lord Althorp was the principal 
 member. Lord Brougham did not attend the commit- 
 tee, but took much interest in the subject. The report 
 of the Commissioners of Enquiry was presented to the 
 
96 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Government in February, 1834, and on April 17 of that 
 year Lord Althorp introduced a bill into the House of 
 Commons. This bill underwent much discussion, and 
 had to encounter a violent, though by no means a 
 party, opposition in the House of Commons. But the 
 patience, the good sense, the practical experience, 
 the unremitting labor, and the just influence of Lord 
 Althorp overcame the obstacles which ignorance, preju- 
 dice, and the violent opposition of a person of much 
 influence in the press, interposed against this great 
 measure. The bill was sent to the House of Lords 
 July 1, and received the royal assent August 14 of 
 this year. 
 
 Increase of the amount raised for poor-rates had been 
 enormous in three-quarters of a century. In 1748, '49, 
 '50, the average amount raised within the year for poor- 
 rates and county rates was 730,000Z. In 1775, it was 
 1,720,000?. In 1801, the sums expended for the relief 
 of the poor exceeded 4,000,000?. In 1811, these sums 
 exceeded 6,600,000?. In 1821, they amounted to 6,959,- 
 000?. ; in 1831, to 6,798,000? ; and in 1832, to upwards 
 of 7,000,000?. 
 
 But within three years after the passing of the new 
 law the decrease was equally remarkable. In 1837, 
 poor-rates amounted only to 4,000,000?., and in the 
 years 1838 and 1839, they did not reach 4,500,000?. It 
 cannot be denied, however, that the sound principles 
 inculcated by the commissioners of 1834 have been re- 
 laxed in practice by the ignorance, the carelessness, or 
 the fear of unpopularity, which have checked the due 
 administration of the law. With respect to other sub- 
 jects, but little progress was made ; and dissensions in 
 the Ministry produced a fatal effect on the union of the 
 Cabinet. I have already stated that, on the subject of 
 
CHURCH OF IRELAND. 97 
 
 the Irish Church, I had the misfortune to differ from 
 Mr. Stanley, and on May 6, after Stanley had spoken, 
 and had declared that he adhered to his former opinions, 
 I made the following statement : ' With respect to the 
 proposition of the hon. and learned member, that one- 
 fifth of the composition should be paid out of the pub- 
 lic revenue, he was quite certain that this contribution 
 of the nation would be entirely thrown away, unless 
 some new principle were established by Parliament with 
 regard to appropriation. Upon the subject of appro- 
 priation, the hon. and learned member for Tipperary 
 alluded, the other night, to an opinion which he (Lord 
 John Russell) gave, when out of office, which the hon. 
 and learned member said was contrarj^ to the opinion 
 he had since given when in office. But the only opinion 
 he had ever given on this subject, when out of office, 
 was by giving a silent vote in favor of a motion made 
 by the hon, member for Middlesex. He did not under- 
 stand that this bill contained any proposition on that 
 subject. As he understood it, the object of this bill 
 was to ascertain and secure the amount of the* tithe. 
 The question of appropriation was to be kept entirely 
 distinct. If the object of the bill were to grant a cer- 
 tain sum to the Established Church of Ireland, and the 
 question were to end there, his opinion of it might be 
 very different. But he understood it to be a bill to 
 secure a certain amount of property and revenue des- 
 tined by the State to religious and charitable purposes ; 
 and if the State should find that it was not appropriated 
 justly to the purposes of religious and moral instruction, 
 for which such revenues were intended, when given to 
 any Church Establishment, it would then be the duty 
 of Parliament to consider of a different appropriation. 
 His opinion upon that subject was declared — not when 
 
 7 
 
98 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 out of office, but when in office — and that opinion was, 
 that the revenues of the Church of Ireland were larger 
 than necessary for the religious and moral instruction 
 of the persons belonging to that Church, and for the 
 stability of the Church itself. The more he had seen 
 and reflected since, the more had that opinion been con- 
 firmed. He did not think it would be advisable or wise 
 to mix the question of appropriation with the question 
 of amount of the revenues ; but when Parliament had 
 vindicated the property in tithes, he should then be pre- 
 pared to assert his opinion with regard to their appro- 
 priation ; and if, when the revenue was once secured, 
 the assertion of that opinion should lead him to differ 
 and separate from those with whom he was united by 
 political connection, and for whom he entertained the 
 deepest private affection, he should feel much regret ; 
 yet, considering himself pledged, not only by his general 
 duty as a member of that House, but by the resolution 
 which had been passed the other day, to attend to the 
 just complaints of the people of Ireland, and consider- 
 ing that if there ever were a just ground of complaint 
 on the part of any people against any grievance, it was 
 the complaint of the people of Ireland against the pres- 
 ent appropriation of tithes — he should then, deeply 
 lamenting the decision he should feel himself bound to 
 come to, but at the same time reflecting that he had to 
 the utmost of his power resisted all projects for the 
 repeal of the Union, and that he had, by the support he 
 gave to this and former bills for the maintenance of 
 tithes, vindicated the right of property against those 
 who wrongfully withhold them, he should, at whatever 
 cost and sacrifice, do what he should consider his boun- 
 den duty ; namely, do justice to Ireland.' 
 
 This speech was prompted by what I understood to 
 
SPEECH OE LORD JOHN RUSSELL. 09 
 
 be a declaration of Mr. Stanley, that he meant to perse- 
 vere in the opinions he had given respecting the per- 
 manence of the Church of Ireland, and I thought that 
 if that declaration were received in silence by his col- 
 leagues, the whole Government would be considered 
 pledged to the maintenance of the revenues of the 
 Church of Ireland, undiminished. I do not find in 
 Hansard any such declaration ; but it was strongly fixed 
 in my mind at the time, and is so fixed in my. memory 
 at present. Perhaps Stanley's words were not so per- 
 emptory as I supposed ; perhaps the words he uttered 
 have been omitted in the reports. Be that as it may, 
 my speech made a great impression, the cheering was 
 loud and general, and Stanley pronounced his sense of 
 it in a well-known note to Sir James Graham : ' Johnny 
 has upset the coach.' When the Cabinet next met, 
 much dissatisfaction was expressed ; some wished me to 
 retract what I had said, but that I positively refused to 
 do. Lord Althorp testified to the hearty cheering from 
 all sides of the House of the Liberal party. The question 
 of the Irish Church was evidently advancing to a crisis. 
 Eedress was not immediately granted ; justice was not 
 done then ; but a commencement had been made, and 
 that which was not performed at the Union by Pitt, and 
 which the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel left 
 undone in 1829, was yet to be accomplished. Mr. Ward 
 did not fail to bring forward a motion upon the Irish 
 Church. He quoted the opinions of Lord Brougham, 
 and those which Lord Althorp had stated in 1824. He 
 ended with the following motion : ' That the Protestant 
 Episcopal Establishment in Ireland exceeds the spiritual 
 wants of the Protestant population : and that, it being 
 the riglit of the State to regulate the distribution of 
 Church property in such manner as Parliament may 
 
100 KECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 determine, it is the opinion of this House that the tem- 
 poral possessions of the Church of Ireland, as now 
 established by law, ought to be reduced.' The debate 
 was interrupted after the motion had been seconded by 
 Mr. Grote, who said that when the advocates for the 
 repeal of the Union put forward the evils arising from 
 the Irish Church Establishment, no man replied to them. 
 He continued : ' When the magnanimity of England in 
 her conduct to Scotland, as compared with her conduct 
 to Ireland, with regard to their respective Churches, Avas 
 urged, no man replied to them ; and why ? Because 
 no reasonable answer could be given to such objections. 
 The first step towards the reform of an abuse was to lay 
 down a good principle ; such a principle was laid down 
 in this motion, and, as a first step, he earnestly hoped 
 that the House would concur in it.' After this speech. 
 Lord Althorp rose and spoke to the following effect : 
 * Since my hon. friend who rose to support this motion 
 commenced his address, circumstances have come to my 
 knowledge which induce me to move that the further 
 debate upon this subject be adjourned to Monday next. 
 I cannot now state what those circumstances are, but I 
 hope the House has sufficient confidence in me (the 
 noble Lord was interrupted by loud and long-continued 
 cheering from all parts of the House) — I hope, I repeat, 
 that the House will have sufficient confidence in me to 
 believe that I would not make such a proposition unless 
 I were convinced of its propriety. I now move that the 
 further debate on this motion bo adjourned to Monday 
 next.' 
 
 On the ^londay following, it was well known that 
 four members of the Cabinet, and those among the 
 most important, had resigned. The Cabinet, previously 
 to their taking this step, had resolved on advising the 
 
RESIGNATION OF FOUR CABINET MINISTERS. 101 
 
 Crown to appoint a commission to inquire into the 
 revenues of the Church of Ireland, and the number of 
 members belonging to that Church, compared with the 
 whole population of Ireland. The consequence was, 
 the resignation of the Earl of Kipon, Lord Privy Seal, 
 Mr. Stanley, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir 
 James Graham, First Lord of the Admiralty, and the 
 Duke of Richmond, Postmaster-General. The issuing 
 of this commission wa^ considered by these four mem- 
 bers of the Cabinet as a preliminary step towards the 
 partial disendowment of the Established Church of 
 Ireland. The motives of the seceders were thus 
 explained by the Earl of Ripon, on June 6, in the 
 House of Lords, in answer to a speech of Lord Grey: 
 * As his noble friend (Lord Grey) had correctly stated, 
 the proposition to appoint a commission arose out of 
 peculiar circumstances, and was not taken up suddenly. 
 The question was deeply considered, and certainly 
 great objections were felt by himself, as well as by his 
 colleagues, to the adoption of that measure. He had 
 no particular desire to avail himself of the compliment 
 that had been paid to himself and his colleagues, in 
 adverting to their having been described as the " drags " 
 of the Government of which they were members ; 
 but he might remark that possibly they had been 
 useful "drags." At all events, he certainly did feel, 
 with regard to the commission, that if he assented to it, 
 the question as to the appropriation of the revenues of 
 the Church to secular purposes was settled ; and when 
 he asked himself if he could assent to such a proposi- 
 tion, his answer was, no. He thought that the prin- 
 ciple of inquiry into the state of the population of 
 parishes, to ascertain the number of resident Protestants 
 therein, as compared with the number of Catholics, if 
 
102 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 it meant any thing, must mean something that had a 
 direct tendency to effect an alteration of the principles 
 on which the Church Establishment was based. His 
 noble friend stated that he did not contemplate the 
 possibility of any great change as the result of appoint- 
 ing the commission; but it was because he (the Earl 
 of Ripon) believed that the effect of the commission 
 must be to alter the footing on which the EstabHshed 
 Church stood, that he could not concur in that prehmi- 
 nary step.' Lord Ripon went on to argue, that if the 
 revenue of the Church in a particular parish was to be 
 regulated by the number of the Protestant population 
 in that parish, then they destroyed the principle on 
 which alone the Established Church existed. 
 
 Such was the commencement of the contest on the 
 subject of the Established Church of Ireland. Had it 
 been continued in every session, from 1834 to the present 
 time, a period of thirty-five (now forty) years, it is 
 probable that little progress would have been made ; 
 parties would have been marshalled against each other 
 every year, and popular interest on the subject would 
 have languished, and perhaps have perished. During 
 the truce of this long period, discussion has taken place, 
 information has been given, floods of light have been 
 poured upon the subject ; Parliament has divided and 
 disestablished the Protestant Church ; and public opin- 
 ion has perceived the absurdity, the injustice, and the 
 insult of a monopoly kept up for the benefit of one- 
 eighth of the population of Ireland, and repugnant to 
 the sentiments of at least three-fourths of the people. 
 
 An event of far greater importance than the secessioa 
 of four members of the Cabinet, important as that was, 
 occurred in the same session. The head of the Cabinet 
 himself retired from oflBce, and thenceforth took little 
 
RESIGNATION OF EARL GREY. 103 
 
 part in public life, leaving, however, a brilliant example 
 of unstained honor, of consistent public principle, and of 
 success in legislation achieved in strict conformity with 
 the principles which, in conjunction with his great 
 leader, Mr. Fox, he had always strenuously maintained. 
 It is well that those who embrace politics as the occupa- 
 tion of their lives should have before them the example 
 of two such men as Fox and Grey, who having early in 
 life distinguished themselves by their attachment to the 
 cause of civil and religious liberty, of peace abroad and 
 of reform at home, should have persevered in those sen- 
 timents in spite of the proscription of a court, and the 
 mistaken passions of a people — should have vindicated 
 in Parliament the suppression of the Slave Trade, the 
 abolition of slavery in our Colonies, and the cause of 
 justice in Ireland, together with all those measures which 
 flow from the adoption of sound principles, maintained, 
 during many years of political contention, and cherished 
 to their last breath with unswerving rectitude. If the 
 seventeenth century saw, in Sunderland and Shaftes- 
 bury, examples of selfishness and faction, the names of 
 Fox and Grey should ever be used to incite men who 
 enter public life to keep their honor unstained, and to 
 look to the welfare of their country as the object of all 
 their exertions. 
 
 The immediate occasion of Lord Grey's retirement 
 was in itself not very creditable to those by whom it was 
 caused. Lord Wellesley, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 
 was led by private correspondence to suppose that he 
 should facilitate the course of the Government on the 
 Irish Coercion Bill by departing partially from the sen- 
 timent he had expressed in a public dispatch — that 
 political agitation and rural outrage were joined together, 
 ' by one unbroken chain of indissoluble connection.' 
 
104 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Lord Althorp, in a manner quite inconsistent with his 
 usual guarded conduct, allowed Mr. Littleton, Chief 
 Secretary of Ireland, to inform O'Connell that in all 
 probability the Cabinet would not renew the Coercion 
 Act in its full rigor. When, therefore. Lord Grey pro- 
 posed to his Cabinet the renewal of the Coercion Act 
 without alteration, although he carried with him a 
 majority of his colleagues, he was strongly opposed by 
 Lord Althorp, who was followed by Mr. Grant, Mr. 
 Spring Rice, and Mr. Abercromby. Upon the proposal 
 being made in the House of Commons, in conformity 
 with the opinion of the majority, O'Connell referred, in 
 a way that Lord Althorp could not misunderstand, to 
 the assurances he had received, and protested with his 
 usual power and eloquence against the Government pro- 
 posal. Lord Althorp tliat same night called together 
 those who had agreed with him in the Cabinet, and with 
 their concurrence sent his resignation to Lord Grey. 
 Lord Grey, in laying this letter before the King, accom- 
 panied it with his own resignation.^ 
 
 A Cabinet was summoned for the following evening ; 
 meeting Lord Melbourne in the Park he said, * I believe 
 we are summoned to-night to consider a decision already 
 made.' At the meeting of the Cabinet in the evening, 
 Lord Grey placed before us the letters containing his 
 
 * I was sitting by Lord Altliorp when ho announced, after O'Connell's 
 speech, in his own homely way, his resolution to resign. * The pig's 
 killed,' lie said. A porcine illustration was not new in our history. 
 "When Henry VIII. was considering of the best means of procuring hU 
 divorce from Catherine of Aragon, he gave his decision in favor of Cran- 
 iner's opinion by saying, ' Cranmer has got the right sow by the car.' 
 When Sir Robert Walpole was asked how he had overcome Sir Spencer 
 Compton, to whom the King was partial, he replied, ' He got the wrong 
 sow by the ear, and I the right.* So vulgar and idiomatic are the phrases 
 of English monarchs and ministers. 
 
LORD ALTHORP. 105 
 
 own resignation, and that of Lord Althorp, which he 
 had sent early in the morning to the King. He like- 
 wise laid before us the King's gracious acceptance of his 
 resignation, and he gave to Lord Melbourne a sealed 
 letter from his Majesty. Lord Melbourne, upon opening 
 tills letter, found in it an invitation to him to undertake 
 the formation of a Government. Seeing that nothing 
 was to be done that night, I left the Cabinet and went 
 to the Opera. 
 
 The acceptance of Lord Grey's resignation by the 
 King was somewhat hurried ; there was no Teason why, 
 upon friendly discussion between Lord Grey and Lord 
 Althorp, the difference with respect to the clauses in 
 the Coercion Bill, objected to by Lord Althorp, should 
 not have been arranged. The whole measure was at 
 that time one rather of precaution than of urgency ; 
 and had the dangers of the former year again arisen, 
 Parliament might have been called upon to supply the 
 want of authority. 
 
 But the King's purpose in this hasty acceptance soon 
 became apparent. His Majesty desired Lord Melbourne 
 to consider whether the Duke of Wellington and Sir 
 Robert Peel might not be invited to join the Adminis- 
 tration. Lord Melbourne, who was very averse to coali- 
 tions, declined in positive, though very courteous, terms, 
 to undertake any such task. He had in view the main- 
 tenance of the Administration, taking himself the place 
 of Lord Grey, and giving Lord Duncannon the Home 
 Department. Lord Grey asked me, at the levee, whether 
 I had any objection to continue in office under Lord 
 Melbourne ? I told him I had not. 
 
 But the great difficulty which every one felt, was 
 how to secure the continuance of Lord Althorp in his 
 post as leader of the House of Commons. It was 
 
106 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 obviou8 that he would not consent to the renewal of 
 the Coercion Act, unless those clauses to which he had 
 objected were omitted. But there was a still greater 
 difficulty ; it might seem that Lord Grey's resignation 
 was forced upon him by Lord Althorp, and that Lord 
 Althorp's object had been to remain in office himself 
 without Lord Grey. This supposition was totally 
 inconsistent with the known inclinations and wishes of 
 Lord Althorp. One of the ministers who had seceded 
 on the question of the Irish Church, said to me that if 
 he had been told that Lord Althorp had engaged in an 
 intrigue to get out of office he might have believed it, 
 but an assertion that Lord Althorp had intrigued in 
 order to remain in office was utterly incredible. In 
 fact, Lord Althorp detested office, and it was only at 
 the earnest solicitation of his friends, the leaders of the 
 Liberal party in the House of Commons, that he very 
 reluctantly consented to retain his official position under 
 Lord Melbourne. He told me that every morning Avhen 
 he woke, while *he was in office, he wished himself dead. 
 His acquiescence thus cost him a painful effort, and ho 
 no doubt determined at this time that if any event should 
 set him free, he would never again take office upon any 
 terms. 
 
 The death of Lord Spencer put this resolution to 
 the test. Lord Althorp ceased to be the leader of the 
 House of Commons, and no entreaties could induce liim 
 to accept, as a peer, the post of Secretary of State for 
 the Colonies. Mr. Spring Rice becoming Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer in his place, he retired for ever from 
 public life. 
 
 There had been an impression in the Liberal party, 
 that no one but Lord Althorp could lead the party in 
 the House of Commons, and the difficulty was very 
 
DISMISSAL OF THE MINISTRY. 107 
 
 great. Lord Melbourne informed me that he had con- 
 sulted all his colleagues, and that each had said, with 
 more or less warmth of expression, that I was the per- 
 son to whom that position should be offered. Thus 
 invited, I considered it my duty to accept the task, 
 though I told Lord Melbourne that I could not expect 
 to have the same influence with the House of Commons 
 which Lord Althorp had possessed. In conversation 
 with Mr. Abercromb}^ I said, more in joke than in 
 earnest, that if I were offered the command of the 
 Channel fleet, and thought it my duty to accept, I should 
 not refuse it. On this private and casual remark, Syd- 
 ney Smith afterwards constructed an elaborate charge ; 
 and as I had consented, in the ecclesiastical commission, 
 to a proposal that the patronage of the deans and chap- 
 ters should be transferred to the bishops, he was so 
 angry as to impute to me a want of feeling with which 
 I trust I am not justly chargeable. 
 
 Lord Melbourne went to Brighton, and proposed to 
 the King that I should succeed Lord Althorp as leader 
 in the House of Commons. The King objected.' Lord 
 Melbourne then proposed successively the names of Mr. 
 Spring Rice and Mr. Abercromby. But the King ob- 
 jected to both ; and the next morning gave Lord Mel- 
 bourne a written paper, saying that he had no further 
 occasion for his services, or those of his colleagues. 
 Lord Melbourne returned to London that day, bringing 
 with him a letter for the Duke of WelUngton. He saw 
 no one that evening but Lord Brougham and Lord 
 Dun cannon, and he earnestly impressed upon them 
 the importance of keeping the whole matter secret till 
 after the meeting of the Cabinet, which was fixed for 
 twelve o'clock on the following day. Before that time 
 arrived, however, two of the morning newspapers, the 
 
108 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 * Times ' and the ' Morning Chronicle,' had announced 
 the dismissal of the Ministry, and the ' Morning Chron- 
 icle ' added to the announcement the words, ' the Queen 
 has done it all.' This comment gave just offence to the 
 King. He required the Duke of Wellington to deprive 
 the Ministers at once of their offices. Lord Duncannon 
 "was interrupted at church, during the time of divine 
 service, by a messenger commanding the instant delivery 
 of the Seals of the Home Department. The Duke of 
 Wellington recommended that a messenger should be 
 Bent for Sir Robert Peel, who was at Rome, and that 
 to him should be entrusted the formation of a new 
 Administration. 
 
 This whole proceeding was a very ill-judged step 
 on the part of the King. Whatever might ultimately 
 be the views of Lord Melbourne's Ministry on the Irish 
 Church, no measure upon that subject had hitherto 
 been matter of agreement, or even of deliberation in the 
 Cabinet. Lord Melbourne and his colleagues possessed 
 the confidence of a great majority of the House of Com- 
 mons. If no one of the Ministry should be found 
 to inherit the confidence so freely accorded to Lord 
 Althorp, that fact would be tested by debate and divi- 
 sion in the House of Commons itself. If the measure 
 which the Ministry should introduce on the Irish Church 
 should prove in the opinion of the House of Commons 
 dangerous or impracticable, the vote upon that subject 
 would involve their fall. Thus the King would have 
 been relieved from responsibility ; but by taking upon 
 himself the initiative, he naturally offended the whole 
 body of the people, who considered the exercise of the 
 royal prerogative an act of caprice rather than of rea- 
 sonable judgment. Sir Robert Peel was placed in a 
 most unfavorable position ; and he aggravated his own 
 
NEW PARLIAMENT. 109 
 
 disadvantages by advising an immediate dissolution. 
 Had lie boldly met Parliament, and been thwarted in 
 his attempt to govern, he might fairly have appealed to 
 the country, and would probably have had a majority 
 in his favor. 
 
 As it was, the very large majority which had fol- 
 lowed the dissolution of 1832 was very sensibly di- 
 minished, but not entirely destroyed. The confidence 
 placed in Sir Robert Peel, and the fear of any inter- 
 ference with the Irish Church, were the chief reasons 
 of the diminished number of the Whig members. Still 
 the Liberal party had a clear majority on the elections, 
 but that majority consisted of every shade, from the 
 most moderate of the Whigs to the most resolute of 
 the Radicals. It seemed to me, as commander-in-chief 
 of an army so variously composed, that they could not 
 be too soon brought into action, and that motions ought 
 to be framed in which the whole party could agree. 
 With this view, Mr. Abercromby was proposed as 
 Speaker, in the place of Mr. Manners Sutton, and was 
 elected. An amendment was proposed to the address, 
 advising a popular reform of corporations, and censur- 
 ing the dissolution, the only act of importance for 
 which the Ministers of the Crown were actually as 
 well as virtually responsible. This amendment was 
 carried. A motion for constituting an unsectarian 
 University of London was carried by a majority of 
 eighty. It was made evident that Sir Robert Peel had 
 not the confidence of the House of Commons. His 
 position, therefore, was not consistent with the prin- 
 ciples of the Constitution. But he determined to re- 
 main as Minister till that want of confidence was 
 shown by some overt act, and the difficulty was to 
 frame a resolution by which a proof should be given 
 
110 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 that the Minister was not supported by the House of 
 Commons. A notion prevailed, even among Liberals, 
 that Sir Robert Peel should have a fair trial, — an ad- 
 vantage which had been denied to Lord Melbourne. 
 It seemed to me that this fair trial would be given, 
 and the House of Commons would still have in its 
 hands the power of the purse — the citadel of its 
 strength, if the supplies were only voted for three 
 months. But when the party was consulted upon this 
 suggestion, it was found that there were several who 
 feared that any limitation of the ordinary vote in sup- 
 ply would affect public credit and alarm the country. 
 I therefore reluctantl}^ renounced this intention. 
 
 As leader of the Liberal party in the House of Com- 
 mons, I had no smooth path before me. To turn the 
 majority into a minority by a direct vote of want of 
 confidence would have been easy. But my object was 
 to keep the majority together ; and in the whole twenty 
 years during which I led the Liberal party in the House 
 of Commons, I never had so difficult a task. The 
 plain and obvious plan of voting the supplies for three 
 months being given up, the question naturally occurred, 
 in what manner could Sir Robert Peel obtain that fair 
 trial which his own partisans and many independent 
 Whigs called for on his behalf? There appeared no 
 question so well fitted for an experimentum cntcis as 
 the question of the Irish Church. The proposal for a 
 commission, made by Lord Grey*s Government, had 
 been considered by four of the leading membei*s of the 
 Cabinet as a test of principle ; and the Liberal members 
 of the first reformed House of Commons had accepted 
 the question of the integrity and perpetual endowment 
 of the Irish Church, as marking the frontier line be- 
 tween Liberal and Tory principles. I therefore pro- 
 
KESOLUTION ON IRISH CHURCH. HI 
 
 posed to bring forward a resolution, wliich, on tlie one 
 hand, would be supported by Lord Ho wick, and was, on 
 the other, the basis of an alliance with O'Connell and 
 the Irish members. Compact there was none ; but an 
 alUance on honorable terms of mutual co-operation 
 undoubtedly existed. The Whigs remained as before, 
 the firm defenders of the Union; O'Connell remained 
 as before, the ardent advocate of repeal ; but upon 
 intermediate measures, on which the two parties could 
 agree consistently with their principles, there was no 
 want of cordiality. Nor did I ever see cause to com- 
 plain of O'Connell's conduct. He confined his opposi- 
 tion fairly to Irish measures. He never countenanced 
 the Canadian Catholics in their disaffection, nor pro- 
 moted a recurrence to physical force, nor used trades- 
 unions as a means of discord and separation among 
 classes. 
 
 I may pass over the interval between the first pro- 
 posal of interference with the revenues of the Irish 
 Church and Sir Robert Peel's surrender of power. 
 Those proceedings are amply detailed in the ' Parlia- 
 mentary Debates.' 
 
 On Lord Melbourne's return to power, a question of 
 great interest arose. He had determined, some months 
 before the dissolution of Sir Robert Peel's Ministry, that 
 he would not again sit in the same Cabinet with Lord 
 Brougham. What were the reasons for this determina- 
 tion ? In order to form even a conjecture, it is neces- 
 sary to give a sketch, however slight, of the character 
 of Lord Brougham. 
 
 Lord Brougham was a man of extraordinary powers 
 of mind. It must be said also that, with many aber- 
 rations, those powers of mind were generally directed 
 to great and worthy objects, — to the abolition of the 
 
112 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Slave Trade and of slavery, to the improvement of law, 
 to the promotion of education, to the furtherance 
 of civil and religious liberty. His speech on the 
 trial and condemnation of missionary Smith combined 
 the closest and most pressing logic with the most elo- 
 quent denunciations of oppression and the most power- 
 ful appeal to justice. It contributed, no doubt, in a 
 very marked degree, to the extinction of slavery 
 throughout the dominions of the Crown of England. 
 His speech of six hours on the amendment of the law 
 was large and comprehensive in its general view, search- 
 ing and elaborate in its details. The institution of the 
 Judicial Committee of Privy Council was a most valua- 
 ble result of his exertions as a law reformer. His 
 labors regarding the endowed schools and misapplied 
 charities of England destroyed many flagrant abuses, 
 detected the perversion of a large amount of charitable 
 funds, and led the way to those further inquiries, and 
 those remedial measures, of which we have seen the 
 commencement and progress, but of which the con- 
 summation is yet to come. It would be taking a 
 narrow view to complain that large sums have been 
 spent upon inquiries, and we have not as yet had an ' 
 adequate return. Lord Brougham's speeches at the bar 
 of the House of Lords, on the Bill of Pains and Penal- 
 ties against Queen Caroline, were striking specimens of 
 a powerful understanding; and his great speech in 
 opening the defence was the most wonderful effort of 
 oratory I ever heard. Nor can any one who heard him 
 remember with any other feelings than those of the 
 highest admiration his speech on the second reading of ' 
 the Reform Bill in the House of Lords. The speech 
 which he made at the assizes, in defence of Ambi-ose 
 Williams, in 1821, carries satire and sarcasm to a height 
 
LORD BROUGHAM. 113 
 
 that may be called sublime. But his speech on the 
 conduct of the continental powers of. Europe towards 
 Spain — a country which had been guilty of the offence 
 of endeavoring to dispose of its own destiny, and to 
 establish a free government — was certainly one of his 
 brightest flights. His allusion to the protest of the 
 Russian Minister at Madrid, who had declared, with 
 horror, that blood had been shed in the Royal Palace, 
 was at once a withering invective and a just condemna- 
 tion of despotism. ' If I had been one of the counsel- 
 lors of the Emperor of Russia,' he said, 'the last 
 subject I would have advised my master to touch upon 
 would have been that of " bloodshed in the Royal 
 Palace." ' The reigning Emperor of Russia was Alex- 
 ander I. At the epoch of his coronation, a lady, writ- 
 ing from St. Petersburg, had described the ceremony ii? 
 these terms : ' The Emperor entered the church pre- 
 ceded by the assassins of his grandfather, surrounded 
 by the assassins of his father, and followed by his own.' 
 
 The question recurs, if such were the qualities and 
 such the achievements of Lord Brougham, why was 
 the Great Seal not restored to him ? After one of his 
 most striking speeches against Lord Melbourne, Lord 
 Melbourne replied in these terms : ' My Lords, you have 
 heard the eloquent speech of the noble and learned 
 Lord — one of the most eloquent he ever delivered in 
 this House — and I leave your Lordships to consider 
 what must he the nature and strength of the objections 
 which prevent any Government from availing them- 
 selves of the services of such a man.' 
 
 What, then, was the nature of the objections which 
 prevented Lord Melbourne from offering to return the 
 Great Seal into the hands of Lord Brougham when he 
 himself resumed o£Qce ? These objections came first 
 
 8 
 
114 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 from Lord Melbourne, and were frankly communicated 
 by him to Lord Brougham, before he finally decided to 
 form an Administration. In the next place, these objec- 
 tions could not fairly be said to imply any charge of 
 treachery towards his chief, or his colleagues, during 
 the former Administration. He had not written to 
 Lord Wellesley with a purpose to undermine Lord 
 Grey; he had willingly assented to the selection of 
 LorcV Melbourne as Prime Minister. He had not 
 attempted to carry measures to which the Prime Minis- 
 ter was opposed, nor, like Lord Thurlow and Lord 
 Loughborough, to thwart measures which the Prime 
 Minister had approved. His faults were, a recklessness 
 of judgment, which hurried him beyond all the bounds 
 of prudence, an omnivorous appetite for praise, a per- 
 petual interference in matters with which he had no 
 direct concern, and, above all, a disregard of truth. 
 This spirit of interference led him to promise his sup- 
 port to Mr. Canning, without any communication with 
 Lord Althorp, and with great indiscretion to influence 
 Lord Wellesley on the renewal of the Coercion Act 
 without any communication with Lord Grey. I remem- 
 ber Lord Dudley saying to me, many years before this 
 time, ' What a character Brougham would have been 
 for the pen of Lord Clarendon ! *' Lord Appleby (sup- 
 posing he had got his peerage) was a man who, if the 
 solidity of his judgment had been equal to the preg- 
 nancy of his wit, would not have been surpassed in 
 this or any other time." ' This was the truth. Lord 
 Brougham^s vast powers of mind were neutralized by a 
 want of judgment, which prevented any party from 
 placing entire confidence in him, and by a frequent 
 forgetfulness of what he himself had done or said but a 
 short time before. 
 
LORD MELBOURNE. 115 
 
 Lord Melbourne was a man of a very different char- 
 acter. His ease of manner and apparent indifference 
 tended to conceal the excellence of his understanding 
 and the warmth of his feelings. He would have been 
 ready, perhaps too ready, from the easiness of his tem- 
 per, to yield to the incessant urgency of Brougham's 
 interference. But his understanding would have con- 
 demned the concessions he made, and his feelings of 
 pride and shame would have made him deeply sensible 
 to the reproach that, while nominally Prime Minister, 
 he was adopting decisions which he could not approve, 
 and was degraded by the very elevation upon which he 
 apparently stood. It was for these reasons, I conceive, 
 that, many weeks before the change of Government, he 
 resolved not to offer the Great Seal to Lord Brougham. 
 He told me of his fixed resolution on this head many 
 weeks before the dissolution of Sir Robert Peel's Min- 
 istry. When his resolution became known. Lord Mel- 
 bourne exposed himself and his party to the charge of 
 ingratitude to a man whose vast powers and splendid 
 services made him an object of general admiration.' 
 Observing as I did the characters of the two men, I 
 thought Lord Melbourne justified in his decision, and 
 I willingly stood by him in his difficulties. Nor did 
 Lord Brougham ever act towards me with less cordi- 
 ality on account of the part I took. Indeed, I should 
 have been glad to see Brougham in the Cabinet, and it 
 could not be denied that a Liberal Ministry, deprived 
 of the assistance of Lord Grey, Lord A] thorp, and 
 Lord Brougham, opposed by the Duke of Wellington, 
 Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Aberdeen, Sir Robert Peel, Lord 
 Stanley, and Sir James Graham, and resting its claims 
 to support on the justice of its Irish poUcy, of which 
 the merits were Kttle understood, stood daily in great 
 
116 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 risk of overthrow. Yet, from April, 1835, to August, 
 1841, the Ministry stood its ground, and was able to 
 pass measures of great importance to the public wel- 
 fare. But these measures encountered much opposi- 
 tion, and the task was one of constant labor and 
 anxiety. To add to the public discontent and impa- 
 tience. Lord Lyndhurst contrived to induce the peers to 
 throw out measures which were of undoubted public 
 utility, but had no strong breeze of popular approbation 
 in their favor. Among the measures which owed their 
 success to the restoration of a Liberal Administration, I 
 may mention three. 
 
 First, the commutation of tithes. The unsettled 
 state of this question was deeply injurious to the in- 
 terests of agriculture, and to those of the Church. In 
 many instances, where waste lands might have been 
 brought into cultivation, or the produce of cultivated 
 lands and the supply of food to the people largely aug- 
 mented, the right of the Church to appropriate a tenth 
 of the produce, without regard to the expense of the 
 improvement, was a positive bar to cultivation. In 
 many other instances, the attempts of the farmer to 
 abate the rights of the Church, and to force the clergy- 
 man to be content with a twentieth part of the produce, 
 or even less, instead of his legal tenth, had been the 
 source of wrangling and ill-will between the farmers 
 and the clergymen, to the destruction of Christian 
 charity, and of the harmony that ought to prevail be- 
 tween the pastor and his flock. Pitt had attempted in 
 vain to frame a complete measure on this subject. Peel 
 had endeavored to remedy the notorious evils by a 
 voluntary commutation ; but a commutation short of 
 compulsory would have left many of the worst cases 
 untouched — cases in which the Church had insisted un- 
 
TITHES, REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS. HT 
 
 wisely upon its full rights, or a combination of farmers 
 had determined to vex and worry a clergyman of easy 
 disposition, till they reduced him to penury by their 
 obstinacy and injustice. All the evils of the tithe sys- 
 tem were the subject of fair compromise and permanent 
 settlement by the Act of 1836. Three commissioners, 
 two of whom were appointed by the Crown and one by 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury, were empowered, after 
 examination, to proceed by certain fixed rules to a final 
 adjudication. In about seven years this process was 
 completed, and a work from which Pitt had shrunk was 
 accomplished. The progress of agriculture was freed 
 from vexatious impediments, and the clergy were spared 
 the unseemly contentions which had fostered ill-will 
 and disturbed social relations. 
 
 Other questions affected religious liberty. The Church 
 had taken possession of the registers of baptism, by 
 which alone the number of births was ascertained. 
 Marriage was legally a religious ceremony, and although 
 by the ancient laws it was a civil contract, those who 
 did not belong to the Church could neither be married 
 in their own places of worship, nor in any building of 
 a civil character, nor by any other form than that of 
 the Establishment. So, likewise, the performance of the 
 Burial Service was confined to those who had been 
 baptized according to the Anglican rite, and there ex- 
 isted no civil reo^istration of deaths. These matters 
 were made the subject of legislation. An Act was 
 introduced providing for the marriage of Protestant 
 Dissenters, Roman Catholics, and Jews, according to 
 their own rites, and enacting a civil marriage in the 
 office of a registrar for those who were contented with 
 a civil contract only. 
 
 The question of civil marriages raised much objec- 
 
118 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 tion, on the part of Sir Robert Inglis in the House of 
 Commons, and of the Bishop of Exeter in the House of 
 Lords ; and although the Tory, party did not generally 
 join in the opposition, the principle Ls so important that 
 I may be excused for dilating upon it. 
 
 Generally speaking, Scripture is unfairly or unwisely 
 quoted in political controversy ; but there are some 
 words of Christ's uttered on a memorable occasion, which 
 it is impossible for politicians to keep out of view, in 
 the course of discussions on government and legislation. 
 Those words are, ' Render unto Caesar the things which 
 are Caesar's, and unto God the things that ar^ God's.' ^ 
 The immediate question was the payment of tribute : 
 but the precept is general, and statesmen must ask 
 themselves what things are Caesar's and what things 
 are God's, or, in other words, what are the limits of 
 the temporal and spiritual power. 
 
 The spirit of priestcraft, or, as the present age, fond 
 of long words, calls it, the spirit of sacerdotalism, has 
 been continually engaged in extending the spiritual, 
 and restricting the temporal, power. Time was when 
 in England a priest who had committed murder was 
 withheld from the civil, and claimed by a spiritual tri- 
 bunal. In the same spirit, the birth of a child was not 
 acknowledged or recorded by the State until it had 
 undergone the rite of baptism as ordained by one sect 
 of Christianity. 
 
 Other distinctions have been made, and other usurpa- 
 tions attempted. Some of these have been repelled, 
 others quietly withdrawn. But there are two points 
 upon which disputes still exist, and with regard to 
 
 1 St. Matthew, xxU. 1& 
 
LEGALITY OF MARRIAGE. 119 
 
 which what is called by diplomatists a rectification of 
 frontiers, appears to be urgently required. 
 
 One is marriage, the other education. 
 
 The question of marriage is one that obviously con- 
 cerns civil interests of the highest importance. The 
 succession to property, to political rights of subjects 
 and citizens, nay, the very succession to the throne, is 
 decided, if we attend to the priesthood, according to 
 the law of marriage which prevails in the Church. If 
 we listen to some of the highest Roman Catholic authori- 
 ties, the divorce of Napoleon I. was null and void, and 
 the prince whom the French call Napoleon II. must 
 have been an illegitimate son.^ According to the same, 
 or still higher Roman Catholic authorities, the marriage 
 of George, Prince of Wales, to Mrs. Fitzherbert was 
 valid, and if that lady had had a son, he must have 
 been considered by Roman Catholics as the true heir of 
 the Crown of England.^ 
 
 Thus far and thus high reaches the question whether 
 the State or the Church is supreme in regard to the 
 validity of marriage. Property in all its forms, legiti- 
 macy of birth in every class of society, depends on the 
 decision. 
 
 The Marriage Bill of 1836, in contradiction to these 
 sacerdotal authorities, considered marriage as a matter 
 within the competence of the State, and not as part of 
 the jurisdiction of the Church. 
 
 Sir Robert Inglis, a firm supporter of Church preten- 
 sions, said in the committee on the bill, ' With the 
 single exception of the time of the Great Rebellion, 
 
 1 See * Memoir8 of Cardinal Gonsalvi.' 
 
 2 See tlie statements of Mr. Langdale in ' Memoirs of Mrs. Fitzher- 
 bert.' 8vo. 1866. 
 
120 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 there was no one instance in the history of the country 
 of marriage having been considered otherwise than as 
 a religious ceremony. This was a solitary attempt to 
 give a civil character to a religious contract.' 
 
 In reply to this speech, I said, ' That the great object 
 of the bill was to allow every person to be married 
 according to whatever form his conscience dictated. 
 Here were, first, members of the Church of England, 
 next the Dissenters, who considered maiTiage a relig- 
 ious ceremony, and preferred being married in their 
 own chapels ; the first were left in their present situa- 
 tion, the second were permitted to carry their wishes 
 into effect. There were other classes of Dissenters who 
 considered marriage not a religious but a civil cere- 
 mony. Taking the broad principle of religious liberty, 
 I felt that we were bound to provide for all these 
 classes ; I did not think that the House had a right to 
 tell one class of men that their scruples were just and 
 reasonable, and to reject all regard for those of others. 
 If the bill were carried with that clause, I entertained 
 no doubt but that ninety-nine marriages out of one 
 hundred would still be considered as religious ceremo- 
 nies. Although the number of marriages celebrated 
 upon any other principle might be few, the principle 
 was a great one, and we were bound to maintain it.' 
 
 In the House of Lords, the Bishop of Exeter spoke 
 on behalf of the Church, and thus shortly summed up 
 his objections : ' This bill, in his opinion, went the 
 length of inviting the members of the Church of Eng- 
 land to contract marriage without any religious cere- 
 mony, and that was a principle ho hoped the legislature 
 never would adopt. By this bill parties would be able 
 to contract marriage without uttering a syllable as to 
 the nature of the contract, beyond that they desired to 
 
MARRIAGE BILL. 121 
 
 live together as man and wife. They would not even 
 be obliged to say that it was a contract for life, not- 
 withstanding it was a contract of the most solemn and 
 binding description. The only period in the history 
 of this country at which a similar attempt was made 
 was during the time of the usurpation ; but, although 
 marriage might then be contracted before a magistrate, 
 a strictly solemn and religious formula was enjoined. 
 Here, however, the contract was to be purely civil, and 
 attended with no greater solemnities than would be 
 required for a contract entered into between parties 
 for mere service. He must insist that a contract so 
 sacred and indissoluble should be accompanied with 
 suitable solemnities, and, unless this were done, no 
 earthly inducement could prevail with him to allow 
 the measure to progress another stage without oppos- 
 ing it.' 
 
 Although much was done by the Act of 1836, 1 stated, 
 when the bill was returned to the Commons, that I 
 accepted the amendments of the Lords, on account of 
 the great principle they admitted, but not as a final 
 settlement of the question. ^ ' In France and Italy, by 
 the prevailing laws of these countries, the civil marriage 
 is alone recognized, and alone gives the right of succes- 
 sion. In the United Kingdom various laws prevail. 
 The pretensions of the clergy were got rid of by the 
 Act of 1836, so far as England is concerned. But in 
 Scotland and Ireland the law is still very uncertain, and 
 Sir Roundell Palmer has wisely proposed, in a very 
 clear and able speech, that there shall be one uniform 
 law for the United Kingdom. It will be matter for 
 consideration whether the future law, instead of recog- 
 
 1 Hansard's ' Debates/ vol. xxxv. p. 1305. 
 
122 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 niziiig the marriage registers of every Chiistian com-, 
 munion, and every Jewish synagogue, should not be 
 founded on the same principle as the law of France and 
 Italy, constituting civil marriage the only bond recog- 
 nized by the State, and leaving to the parties concerned 
 to add any religious ceremony or ceremonies they may 
 think proper. 
 
 Upon this subject I should have liked to listen to the 
 opinions of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the Lord 
 Justice-General of Scotland ; but as Lord Malraesbury 
 will not admit life peers into the House of Lords, I 
 fear we have no chance of hearing the voices of those 
 eminent and learned persons in that assembly. 
 
 Still I hope, although we have no promise from the 
 Government to that effect, that a bill on marriage will 
 be introduced by them during the next session. I trust, 
 above all, that Sir Roundell Palmer will not lose sight of 
 this great matter, so worthy of his large capacity and 
 undoubted zeal for the public welfare. 
 
 On the subject of Education, the Church of England 
 has not been slow to follow the traces of the Church of 
 Rome by an attempt to monopolize the question; 
 
 In 1807, the British and Foreign School Society com- 
 menced its work, with the flag of ' Schools for all I ' 
 The Established Church pronounced at first the opinion 
 that the children of the poor should not go to school at 
 all ; but, finding that George III. had expressed a wish 
 that every child in his dominions should be able to read 
 the Bible ; that the Duke of Kent, the Duke of Bed- 
 ford, and others were promoters of the British schools, 
 and that national opinion was favorable to education, 
 changed its ground, and in 1809 set up the so-called 
 National Society on a narrow and exclusive principle. 
 
 In 1832, Lord Brougham induced the Government to 
 
EDUCATION. 123 
 
 -propose a vote of 10,000Z. each to the National and 
 British and Foreign School Societies. 
 
 In 1839, with her Majesty's sanction, I wrote a letter 
 to Lord Lansdowne, President of the Council, proposing 
 a scheme of National Education. The principles I laid 
 down were, that ' the youth of the kingdom should be 
 religiously brought up,' and that ' the rights of con- 
 science should be respected.' 
 
 These last words raised a storm. Mr. Stanley quoted, 
 in a great speech, a dictum of Henry IV., only four 
 centuries old, assuming for the Church the monopoly of 
 education. The Archbishop of Canterbury carried, in 
 the House of Lords, an address adverse to our unhal- 
 lowed scheme. The grant proposed was only carried in 
 the House of Commons by a majority of two. 
 
 In these circumstances. Lord Lansdowne and I met 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Howley), the 
 Bishop of London (Dr. Blomfield), and the Bishop of 
 Salisbury (Dr. Denison), and agreed to a compromise. 
 
 Inspection, which Lord Lansdowne especially insisted 
 upon, was to be conducted in the schools of the National 
 Society by inspectors, in the appointment of whom the 
 bishops were to concur, and whose reports, comprising 
 religious as well as secular instruction, were to be com- 
 municated to the bishop of the diocese, as well as to the 
 Committee of the Privy Council. Tuition in British 
 schools, and in Protestant Dissenting and Roman Cath- 
 olic schools, was likewise to be subjected to inspection, 
 but only so far as regarded secular teaching. 
 
 This arrangement, in which, with Lord Lansdowne, 
 I was glad to concur, has no doubt done much to pro- 
 mote education, and to dispel the darkness of ignorance ; 
 but, as a plan of National Education, it left much to be 
 desired. 
 
124 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 In the first place, it was evident that where education 
 was most wanted, least would be given. Where the 
 land-owners were rich and public-spirited, where the 
 clergy were zealous, and the farmers generous, schools 
 would flourish. But where land-owners and farmei-s 
 would give no encouragement, schools would be alto- 
 gether wanting, or miserably conducted. 
 
 Then, again, where Dissenters existed, but were not 
 numerous enough to keep a school of their own, the 
 clergy would exclude the Baptist, the Independent, and 
 the Unitarian. The British schools, where Christianity 
 is taught pure and simple, are sure to be distasteful to 
 the Church of England, to the Church of Rome, and to 
 sectarian zealots of all denominations. 
 
 It was not easy to supply these deficiencies ; and 
 indeed I never considered the plan otherwise than as a 
 step in the education of the people, till the tide of 
 public opinion should set more strongly in favor of 
 National Education. 
 
 The Duke of Newcastle's commission has done much 
 to open the way to a National plan. Their scheme, if 
 adopted on the basis that every county should be divided 
 into separate districts, that every district should be bound 
 to furnish an adequate number of schools, on a scale to 
 be fixed by Parliament ; that if supported by rates, the 
 ratepayers should decide on the religious instruction to 
 be given, or, if they preferred it, give a secular character 
 to the school ; and, lastly, that when any religious 
 instruction is given, it should be either in the first or 
 the last hour of school attendance, and that during the 
 hour of religious instruction every parent should be at 
 liberty to withdraw his children, by a strictly defined 
 conscience clause, — might form the outline of a plan of 
 National Education. 
 
With a compulsory provision for the building of 
 schools, I should not be disposed to insist on the com- 
 pulsory attendance of children. It will probably be 
 expedient to impose a fine upon employers who have 
 in their service boys or girls between twelve and eigh- 
 teen years of age, who cannot read and write ; but this 
 power must be used with great moderation. English 
 farmers are gradually becoming enlightened, but have 
 still a long way to go before they are on a level with 
 the farmers of Scotland, or the artisans of our great 
 towns. 
 
 It is, in fact, from the great towns that light must 
 proceed. From them was spread the knowledge -of 
 Christianity, from them proceeded the revival of letters, 
 from them have come reform of Parliament and free 
 trade. 
 
 I have elsewhere given the reasons which induced 
 the Government to abandon, in 1838, what was called 
 the appropriation clause. The public mind of Ireland, 
 guided by O'Connell, wished to go much farther ; the 
 public mind of England and Scotland, having neither 
 knowledge of Ireland nor sympath}^ with its inhabitants, 
 was not prepared to go so far. But, in giving up the 
 appropriation clause, the Government not only main- 
 tained a just administration in Ireland, for which Burke 
 had written in vain, but had passed through Parliament 
 a settlement of the Irish tithes, for which Grattan had 
 so long and so fruitlessly labored. 
 
 I may take this opportunity of considering the state 
 in which Ireland was left by the Government, when the 
 appropriation clause was abandoned. I need say nothing 
 here of the administration ; that subject is treated in the 
 speech of 1839, when I proposed a vote of confidence in 
 the Administration, so far as Ireland was concerned. 
 
126 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The law abolishing tithes and substituting a rent- 
 charge met with so general a concurrence from all 
 parties in Parliament, that, as usually happens in such 
 cases, its importance was very much overlooked. It 
 is extraordinary that Mr. Bright, who has spoken with 
 so much force and eloquence on the Irish Church, and 
 who has devoted so much study to Irish affairs, has not 
 even enumerated, among the measures of importance to 
 the welfare of Ireland, which have been passed duiing 
 the last fifty years, the Act of 1838. Yet if he will look 
 to Grattan's speeches made before the Union, and to the 
 speeches made in 1832-33, on the subject of tithes, he 
 will see how deeply the people of Ireland were tormented, 
 and the whole course of peaceable government disturbed, 
 by the collection of tithe in kind.^ Any one who will 
 read this part of the history of Ireland will see that a 
 measure which changed the collection of tithes from a 
 question between tithe-proctor and peasant, into a ques- 
 tion between landlord and tenant, with a percentage of 
 twenty-five per cent to the landlord for tlie cost and 
 trouble of collection, and thereby put an end to all the 
 oppression, all the ill-will, and all the bloodshed of for- 
 mer contests, was one of immense value to the whole 
 body of small occupiers in Ireland. No measure has 
 tended more to the peaceful progress of Ireland than the 
 Tithe Act of 1838. 
 
 The legislation of that year, taken together with the 
 Catholic Relief Act of 1829, the abolition of the Church 
 cess by the Church Temporalities Act, and the Poor- 
 
 1 See especially Mr. Grattan's * Speeches,' vol. ii. MarchMS, 1787 ; Feb- 
 ruary 14, 1788; April 14, 1788; May 8, 1789. Sec also tbe debates on 
 the outrages that took place, and on the blood tliat was abed in Ireland 
 on the subject of tithes from 1832 to 1885. 
 
IRELAND. 127 
 
 law of 1838, left, however, three subjects of immense 
 importance for future consideration. 
 
 The first of these was the Established Church of 
 Ireland. Every author who has written on the subject 
 of Church Establishments has taken for granted that 
 where a Church has to be established by the State, it 
 should be the Church of the people, and the Irish Estab- 
 lished Church never was, never had been, and never 
 could be, the Church of the people. 
 
 It has been said, blinking the question in dispute, 
 that the clergy of the Established Church of Ireland 
 taught religious truth, that they were a respectable 
 body of men, that they were well educated, and that 
 they were kind and charitable to their neighbors, 
 whether Catholic or Protestant. 
 
 These arguments put me in mind of a story told at 
 some length, in verse, by Dr. Herbert, afterwards Dean 
 of Manchester. He relates how a traveller, hospitably 
 received by a friend, in course of conversation, lays 
 down as an incontrovertible maxim that that which is 
 excellent per se can never be misplaced. His host does 
 not dispute the maxim, but at supper places upon the 
 table a plate of salted cherries. " When his friend makes 
 a wry face at the nauseous mixture, the host tells him 
 that his maxim is thus refuted. 
 
 So it was with the Established Church in Ireland. 
 The English fruit was wholesome, the Irish salt was 
 pungent, but the fruit and the salt together make a 
 most unpalatable dessert. 
 
 Happily this whole mischief has been abated by the 
 Act of 1869. Although many supplementary provisions 
 may be required, the main principle of that Act wiU 
 remain a permanent benefit to the people of Ireland. 
 
 The Minister who brought forward and carried a 
 
128 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 bill to disestablish and disendow the Protestant Church 
 of Ireland had to put forth all his strength in bearing 
 so heavy a weight upon his shoulders. lie had to unite 
 in one phalanx the old Liberal party, who wished to 
 maintain the Church of England ; the Voluntaries, who 
 wished to abolish all Church Establishments ; the nom- 
 inees of the Irish priests, who wished to compensate the 
 Church of Rome in Ireland for what she has lost in Italy 
 and in Spain ; and the representatives of the stern Pres- 
 byterians of Scotland, who, in the words of aij anony- 
 mous letter which I received from Glasgow, thought 
 that the Church of Scotland was God's truth, and the 
 Church of Rome was the devil's lie. 
 
 To combine these parties, so as to gain and to keep 
 a majority of one hundred and twenty-six in favor of the 
 measure, and at the same time not to depart from jus- 
 tice, was a task of unparalleled difficulty ; those who 
 have long been convinced of the iniquity of maintain- 
 ing a Church Establishment for a minority must be 
 grateful to the able Minister who achieved a success 
 so speedy and so complete. 
 
 But we must not be surprised if the wants of Ireland 
 have been in a great degree overlooked ; if tlie hatred 
 entertained by a large proportion of the Low Church, 
 of the Protestant Dissenters of England, and of the 
 Presbyterians of Scotland, whether endowed or seced- 
 ing, against the Pope and the Church of Rome, should 
 have been allowed to prevail over policy, rather than 
 incur any risk of seeing the majority divided and dis- 
 banded. 
 
 Moderate men ought to rejoice that the words of the 
 preamble, upon which the Liberation Society appeared 
 at one time disposed to insist, have been expunged at 
 the desire of a majority of seventy-eight in the House 
 
IRELAND. 129 
 
 of Lords, and that the disposition of the surplus in all 
 future times, instead of being employed in the degrada- 
 tion of the Irish people, has been reserved at the sug- 
 gestion of Lord Cairns. It is a valuable treasure rescued 
 from the wreck. It is said by desponding Protestants/ 
 that the free Protestant Church of Ireland cannot flour- 
 ish ; that the Roman Catholic priest has in his armory 
 weapons more potent than any which his Protestant 
 adversary can wield ; that by absolution he can relieve 
 from thousands of years of flames and torture those 
 among the departed whom his penitent most loved in 
 life, whom he fondly cherishes beyond the tomb. 
 
 But this is entirely to mistake the strength, and forego 
 the true arms, of Protestantism. 
 
 If, indeed, the Protestant clergy rely on a faint copy 
 of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic real presence, — 
 if they rely on candles and incense, fine music and 
 gaudy vestments, then, indeed, their Protestantism is, 
 what Mr. Shell called it. Popery with a bar sinister. 
 Such an imitation can never compete successfully with 
 the legitimate Roman Church. The Queen of England 
 might as well order her army to fight the Chinese with 
 gingals and tomtoms, or President Grant send his troops 
 against the Indians armed with bows and arrows. 
 
 The strength of the Reformation lies in a totally dif- 
 ferent direction. Shakespeare has pointed out the true 
 source of Protestant power : — 
 
 Sure he that made us of such large discourse, 
 Looking before and after, gave us not 
 Such capability and god-like reason 
 To fust in us unused. 
 
 It is because men feel that their ' capability and god- 
 like reason ' is not given to fust in them * unused,' that 
 they endeavor to find out what they ought to think and 
 
 9 
 
130 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 to believe on the most deeply interesting of all subjects. 
 Hence the right of private judgment, hence the Bible 
 of Wicliffe, and the Bible of Luther, and the Bible of 
 Great Britain. Hence, men throw aside the pseudo- 
 popery of Oxford, with the time- hallowed popery of 
 Rome ; hence they reject the allurements of splendid 
 churches, gilded vestments, soft music, and all that can 
 entrance the senses ; hence they seek, in the words of 
 Christ, of St. Peter, and St. Paul, and St. John, the true 
 spiritual food for their souls, and leave below them the 
 mists of theology and the stars of earthly splendor. 
 
 It is in such a spirit that the Protestant Church of 
 Ireland must act ; it is with such weapons that she will 
 prevail. 
 
 Archbishop Murray said, ' Let the children of Ire- 
 land read the Bible, and then I am sure they will be 
 Catholics.' Archbishop Whately said, * Let the chil- 
 dren of Ireland read the Bible, and then I am sure they 
 will be Protestants.' I admire the bold and confident 
 spirit in which these two prelates proved the sincerity 
 of their faith. 
 
 The Roman Catholic Chiirch of Ireland has unfor- 
 tunately sadly fallen off from the confidence of Arch- 
 bishop Murray. It is now considered dangerous that a 
 Roman Catholic child should be made aware that there 
 are Protestant children in the land, that he should play 
 with them, talk with them, learn arithmetic with them, 
 be on friendly terms with them, or consider them other- 
 wise than as outcasts from heaven. 
 
 A better prescription for sowing hatred and ill-will 
 between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland cannot 
 well bo imagined. Let us reflect a moment. 
 
 Before the Church of Ireland was disestablished, it 
 was usual, natural, and even right, for Liberals to look 
 
IRELAND. 131 
 
 upon the claims of Roman Catholics with some degree 
 of partiality, and to make concessions, both as to men 
 and measures, with a view to redress the balance which 
 Protestant ascendency so greatly disturbed. 
 
 But Liberal Protestants have now a right to be 
 strictly just, and to grant to the Roman Church no more 
 than that Church can fairly claim. 
 
 The two principal questions which remain for con- 
 sideration are, that of National Education and that of 
 Land. 
 
 In considering Irish education, a very large question 
 arises, which must not be permitted to slip through Par- 
 liament without being handled, weighed, and examined. 
 
 For two centuries after the death of Julius Caesar, 
 writers of great ability and eloquence endeavored to 
 teach morality to the senate and people of Rome. The 
 old gods, who had never, either by precept or example, 
 encouraged a strict observance of morals, had lost their 
 authority. The god of Epicurus was 
 
 A jolly god, who left mankind alone ; 
 Who unconcerned could at rebellion sit, 
 And wink at crimes he did himself commit. 
 
 In place of divine rulers, Cicero, Seneca, and Marcus 
 Aurelius endeavored, by elegant exhortations and pun- 
 gent sentences, to inculcate morality. Their influence 
 in reforming morals was scarcely perceptible.^ A more 
 dissolute society than that of Rome could not well be. 
 The philosophers had entirely failed to improve the 
 morals of the Roman Empire. 
 
 After the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross, a new 
 society arose. 
 
 i See Lecky's admirable * History of European Morals/ from Augus- 
 tus to Charlemagne, vol. i. 
 
132 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Pliny, the Proconsul of Trajan in Bithynia, informs 
 the Emperor of the existence of a sect called Christians, 
 and asks for his instructions. He states that this sect 
 having been denounced to him, he had taken pains to 
 ascertain their doctrines and their conduct. They ad- 
 mitted that they sung early in the morning a hymn to 
 Christ as to God, but they affirmed that their teaching 
 was innocent and irreproachable. They taught the 
 members of their society to refrain from theft, from rob- 
 bery, and from adultery ; to act with punctual good 
 faith to their neighbors, and to ]-estore scrupulously to 
 its owner any property confided to their care. 
 
 Two maid-servants who belonged to the society, and 
 who, like Rhoda in the Acts of the Apostles, waited 
 upon them, were put to the torture by Plin}', but noth- 
 ing further was extracted from these noble-hearted 
 damsels. Pliny thereupon desired the Christian cul- 
 prits to worship the Emperor and to curse Chiist. 
 Those who did so were dismissed ; those who refused 
 he ordered to be led to execution. 
 
 The Emperor Trajan approved of what had been 
 done, but desired that no search for Christians should 
 be made, and that they should only be punished when 
 duly convicted of worshipping Christ, and of refusing to 
 adore the divinity of the Emperor. 
 
 Since the time that Christ began to teach, morality 
 has been connected with religion. Christianity has 
 been persecuted, and persecutor; has been perverted 
 and corrupted. Alva put to death his thousands ; Cran- 
 mcr consigned to the flames a maiden guilty of some 
 error in theology ; Calyin burnt Servetus, and defended 
 the thesis that erroi*s in belief ought to be punished by 
 the civil magistrate ; Presbyterians have been oppressed 
 in the Old World, and have been oppressor in the New ; 
 
GRATTAN — NATIONAL EDUCATION. 133 
 
 but in spite of all alterations of fortune, in spite of 
 wickedness in high places, amid the affliction of the 
 good and the triumph of the bad, the divorce of religion 
 and morality has never taken place. 
 
 In Ireland, religious teaching cannot be given by a 
 Protestant Established Church. The church of a minor- 
 ity cannot teach the mass of the people. Mr. Grattan 
 said, ' I love the Protestants ; I love the Catholics ; I 
 love the Presbyterians : and my affection only abates 
 when the members of those communions hate each 
 other.' Mr. Grattan might have added, with St. Paul, 
 ' and I will very gladly spend and be spent for you ; 
 though the more abundantly I love you the less I be 
 loved.' 1 
 
 Grattan also said, more than seventy years ago, that 
 as the Roman Catholic priests must be the teachers of 
 the people, he wished them to be well-informed; and, 
 as the classes from which the priesthood were drawn 
 were not usually able to afford a good education for 
 their sons, he thought it would be wise to found a 
 college for their instruction. Hence the College of 
 Maynooth. 
 
 Some men think we have grown wiser since those 
 dark ages — of Grattan and of Burke, of Fox and Pitt. 
 
 Yet I confess I stiU cling to their notions, and those 
 of their predecessors. I cannot admit that in a country 
 where, in the case of a murder, the sympathy of the 
 people is with the murderer, and not with the sorrowing 
 family and friends of the murdered man, there is no 
 need -that the State should assist and promote the 
 ' teaching of religion.' 
 
 Yielding, however, to the sense of Parliament, that 
 
 1 1 Corinthians, ch. xii. 
 
134 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 there can be no endowment of the Roman Catholic 
 Church, t^nd that even concurrent endowment is hope- 
 less and impracticable, it may be permitted me to in- 
 quire whether the doctrines of Christianity cannot be 
 imparted to the young by a school establishment, 
 founded on the system at present in force. 
 
 The object and fundamental principle of the system 
 of National Education in Ireland is thus officially 
 stated : — 
 
 1. The object of the system of National Education 
 is to afford combined literary and moral, and separate 
 religious instruction, to children of all persuasions, as 
 far as possible, in the same school, upon the fundamental 
 principle, that no attempt shall be made to interfere 
 with the peculiar religious tenets of, any description of 
 Christian pupils. 
 
 Next, as to the description of schools. 
 
 2. The schools to which the Commissioners grant 
 aid are divided into two classes, viz. : — 1st, Vested 
 Schools, of which there are two sorts ; namely, those 
 vested in the Commissioners, and those vested in trus- 
 tees, for the purpose of being maintained as National 
 Schools. 2d, Non-vested Schools, the property of pri- 
 vate individuals. Both these classes of schools are 
 under the control of local patrons or managers. 
 
 The rules for religious and secular instruction are 
 thus stated : — 
 
 1. Opportunities are to be afforded (as hereinafter 
 provided for) to the children of all National Schools 
 for receiving such religious instruction as their parents 
 or guardians approve. 
 
 2. Religious instruction must be so arranged, that 
 each school shall bo open to children of all commun- 
 ions; that due regard be had to parental right and 
 
IRELAND — NATIONAL EDUCATION. 135 
 
 authority; that, accordingly, no child be compelled to 
 receive, or to be present at any religious instruction, of 
 which his parents or guardians disapprove ; and that 
 the time for giving it be so fixed, that no child shall be 
 thereby, in effect, excluded, directly or indirectly, from 
 the other advantages which the school affords. 
 
 3. A public notification of the times for religious in- 
 struction must be inserted in large letters in the ' Time 
 Table ' supplied by the Commissioners, who recommend 
 that, as far as may be practicable, the general nature 
 of such religious instruction be also stated therein. 
 
 The reading of the Scriptures, either in the Protes- 
 tant Authorized, or Douay Version — the teaching of 
 catechisms, — public prayer, — and all other religious 
 exercises, come within the rules as to religious instruc- 
 tion. 
 
 Religious instruction, prayer, and all other religious 
 exercises, may take place at any time, before and after 
 the ordinary school business (during which all children, 
 of whatever denomination they may be, are required to 
 attend), but must not take place at more than one in- 
 termediate time, between the commencement and the 
 close of the ordinary school business. The Commis- 
 sioners, however, will not sanction any arrangement for 
 religious instruction, prayer, or other religious exercises 
 at an intermediate time, in cases where it shall appear 
 to them that such arrangement will interfere with the 
 usefulness of the school, by preventing children of any 
 religious denomination from availing themselves of its 
 advantages, or by subjecting those in attendance to any 
 practical inconvenience. 
 
 The following note to the 13th rule is of great im- 
 portance : — 
 
136 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Note. — The Commissioners earnestly recommend 
 that religious instruction shall take place either immedi- 
 ately before the commencement, or immediately after 
 the close, of the ordinary school business ; and they 
 further recommend that, whenever the patron or man- 
 ager thinks fit to have religious instruction at an 
 intermediate time, a separate apartment shall (when 
 practicable) be provided for the reception of those chil- 
 dren whose parents or guardians may disapprove of 
 their being present thereat. 
 
 It may be here observed that these rules are far more 
 full and more complete than the Conscience Clause of 
 the Committee of Privy Council in England. 
 
 The managers or teachers of a National School in 
 England might so arrange and intermingle the secular 
 and religious instruction as to give the parents no 
 choice but either to leave their children in school dur- 
 ing the hours of religious instruction, or to lose their 
 lessons of secular instruction. This, it will be said, is 
 not a probable occurrence ; but, as such cases do happen, 
 it is well to guard against it. 
 
 With regard to management, the rules of the Irish 
 National Board direct that — 
 
 1. The local government of the National Schools is 
 vested in the local patrons ^hereof. 
 
 The rides go on to declare that the person who fii-st 
 aj)plies to place the school in connection with the Board 
 becomes, unless otherwise specified in the application, 
 the local patron ; that the patron has the right to nomi- 
 nate any fit person to act in his place as the ' local man- 
 ager ; ' that when a school is vested in trustees, they 
 have the right to nominate the local manager. 
 
 The 12th clause, in regard to management, is of great 
 importance. It provides as follows : — 
 
IRELAND— NATIONAL EDUCATION. 137 
 
 ' The local patrons (or managers) of schools have 
 the right of appointing the teachers, subject to the 
 approval of the Board as to character and general 
 qualifications ; the local patron (or managers) have 
 also the power of removing the teachers of their own 
 authority.' 
 
 This rule gives a vast power to the local patrons or 
 managers — the landlord or clergyman of the Episcopal 
 Church, the Presbyterian minister, or, more frequently, 
 the parish priest. 
 
 Observe, that the salaries of the teachers of the ordi- 
 nary National Schools are miserably small. In 1865, 
 the principal teachers of the 2d division of the 8d 
 class received, men, ISl. ; women, 161. ; or, in other 
 words, the men little more than seven, and the women 
 little over six, shillings a week. Men and women thus 
 rewarded for the devotion of their whole time to teach- 
 ing are, of course, entirely dependent on the local 
 manager, who can dismiss them at pleasure. If the 
 parish priest happen to be that local manager, and, if 
 he find the teacher deviating into broad Christian prin- 
 ciple or rising to the higher regions of science, he may 
 dismiss the teacher or school-mistress at once to poverty 
 and destitution. 
 
 But Cardinal Cullen and his colleagues are not satis- 
 fied with this degree of denominational exclusiveness. 
 
 There are mixed schools, which are attended by 
 24,000 Protestant children in various proportions ; in 
 some ten, in some five, in some one or two. 
 
 In many of these schools, images of the Virgin Mary 
 and of saints are enclosed in cases, or closets, and only 
 exhibited at the hours of religious instruction. The 
 Roman Catholic bishops require that these images should 
 be exhibited at all hours, with a view, no doubt, to 
 
138 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 induce the Protestant children to pay their reverence 
 and devotion to Roman Catholic saints. They require, 
 also, that Protestant teachers should not be permitted 
 to teach reading and writing, arithmetic and geography, 
 in schools where the pupils are altogether or mainly 
 Roman Catholic. And this in schools where, according 
 to the report of 18G5, of 303,723?. Us. dd., received 
 by the teaching staff of the schools, only 16-95 per 
 cent was locally provided, while 83*05 per cent was 
 provided by the State. Is not tliis too much for the 
 priesthood to ask? 
 
 Parliament may consistently give large sums for 
 National Schools in England, where a religion defined 
 by the Church in Convocation, adopted by the State, 
 and confined within bounds, approved by Parliament, 
 and interpreted by judges named by the Crown, is 
 taught at the expense, partly of the State, and partly 
 of local subscribers. But the Roman Catholic prel- 
 ates require that the State should furnish eighty three 
 per cent of the salaries of teachers, the majority of 
 whom will be constrained by the priests to stigmatize 
 Protestants as rebels to Divine authority and objects 
 of Divine wrath; perhaps to teach that William III. 
 had no right to the throne, and that his successor is a 
 usurper. Surely the House of Commons of the United 
 Kingdom can never sanction such a scheme I 
 
 The system of National Education in Ireland, intro- 
 duced by the Government in 1831, under the sanction 
 of Lord Grey, by the instrumentality of Mr. Stanley, 
 and with the co-operation of Archbishop Wliately, was 
 no branch ^ of the poisonous tree of Protestant as- 
 cendency. Its object and intention was to unite the 
 Protestant Episcopalian, the Roman Catholic, and the 
 Presbyterian in one scheme of secular and religious in- 
 
IRELAND — NATIONAL EDUCATION. 139 
 
 struction ; to leave religious teaching free ; to respect 
 the rights of conscience, and to persuade all commun- 
 ions to live in harmony and peace. 
 
 The principle of the National School system of Ire- 
 land is, we may conclude, one befitting the State, which 
 is bound to provide instruction, not for the children of 
 one church, or one sect only, but for all. But it is 
 open to the following objections : — 
 
 1. In the non-vested schools, the Roman Catholic 
 parish priest is frequently the patron, and holds the 
 school-master in very servile subjection. A very effi- 
 cient school-master, popular with the scholars, may be 
 dismissed at will, if he does not follow the directions 
 of the priest. 
 
 2. The school-masters and school-mistresses are di- 
 vided into three classes. 
 
 The payment of the third class, as already stated, 
 is very inadequate. 
 
 Having no dwelling-house, and often a very wretched 
 school-house, their teaching is much disturbed and re- 
 strained by physical discomfort and inadequate means. 
 
 The remedies for these deficiencies are not far to 
 seek. 
 
 The school-masters and school-mistresses should be 
 more liberally paid. They should have comfortable 
 dwelling-houses, and adequate school-houses, built and 
 repaired by the Board. They should be independent 
 of the caprice of the patron, and not liable to be re- 
 moved without the consent of the Board. 
 
 With these changes, and 400,000/. provided by Par- 
 liament, for twenty years to come, a well-educated 
 generation would form the majority of the Irish people. 
 
 I am almost afraid to avow that I prefer the simple 
 words of Christ to any dogmatic interpretation of them, 
 
140 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 whether taught by the Pope, by Luther, or by Calvin. 
 If I am in error in this respect, I am in eiTor with Dr. 
 Arnold, with Dean Milman, and with still higher author- 
 ities. 
 
 The Pope, who was called upon to judge between 
 F(3nelon and Bossuet, said, F^nelon has erred by having 
 too much of the love of God ; Bossuet, by having too 
 little of the love of his neighbor. I prefer the error of 
 Fdnelon to that of Bossuet. Nay, more, I think that 
 the spirit of the Christian religion is to be found, not in 
 dogma, but in reverence to God, and love of our neigh- 
 bor. In my opinion, F^nelon and Tillotson were better 
 Christians than Bossuet and Laud.' Men have endeav- 
 ored to ascertain, by metaphysical research, whether 
 the Son is of the same substance as the Father, whether 
 the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father onlj^, or 
 from the Father and the Son. These are subjects upon 
 which men may differ, and yet respect one another. 
 
 But there are matters of infinite importance, upon 
 which the words of Christ are plain to all understand- 
 ings. 
 
 He taught his disciples to love one another. He 
 taught them to pray to God to forgive us our trespasses, 
 as we forgive them that trespass against us.^ He 
 taught that when the traveller was robbed and wounded, 
 it was not the priest, nor the Levite, but the heterodox 
 Samaritan who relieved him. He pointed out that tlie 
 Samaritan was the neighbor of the wounded man. He 
 said, * Let those who love me obey my commandments.* 
 
 Those commandments were not dogmatical definitions 
 
 1 Singularly enough, our Church Catechism, in its paraplirase of the 
 Lord's l*ruycr, omits tliis great lesson, and inserts a passage which has 
 no counterpart iu that divine prayer. 
 
IRELAND — CHURCH PROPERTY. 141 
 
 of the nature of God, but practical and clear expositions 
 of great truths. 
 
 Let us teach these great truths to the people of 
 Ireland, and we may hope that they will cease to 
 applaud murder. 
 
 In wishing to see Christianity thus taught, whether 
 by Protestant or Roman Catholic teachers, I may be 
 accused of wishing to promote ' indiscriminate endow- 
 ment.' 
 
 Be it so ; I know that tares must be mingled with 
 the wheat, and I am willing, like our Great Master, to 
 see them both grow together till the harvest. God, 
 who has neither our imperfect vision, nor our limited 
 charity, will punish the obstinate reprobate and forgive 
 the repentant sinner. 
 
 Let us now take stock, and compute what means will 
 remain to Parliament, if they should hereafter deter- 
 mine to consider, in an impartial spirit, the welfare of 
 Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. 
 
 1. A surplus which we may fairly take at six millions, 
 remaining from church property, after discharging all 
 the life-interests and commutations charged upon it by 
 the Act of 1869. 
 
 2. A yearly grant, which has of late amounted to 
 from 300,000Z. to 360,000/. on an average, voted by 
 Parliament for National Education in Ireland. 
 
 The surplus of the late Established Church has been 
 increased, we are told on authority, by a sum of 
 4,000,000/., derived from the credit of the Exchequer. 
 This sum is, according to the Irish Church Act, to be 
 applied ' mainly ' to the relief of ' unavoidable calam- 
 ity.'i 
 
 1 Act of Parliament, 1869. 
 
142 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Never were 4,000,000/. so recklessly thrown away. 
 
 The application of public or local taxes to the relief 
 of absolute destitution, whether of the old and infirm, 
 the sick or the lame, the blind or the insane, may well 
 be defended against Dr. Chalmers and other writers of 
 great authority. 
 
 But when the State gives relief for physical or 
 mental disease to those who are able to paj^ for their 
 medical care, or who have relations and friends of suffi- 
 cient means to help them, the State does a great mis- 
 chief. Imposture is promoted to a large extent ; the 
 charitable zeal of relations and neighbors is dried up ; 
 a great rush is made on the public funds, and the over- 
 whelmed tax-payer, scarcely able to meet the demands 
 of the collector by unremitting industry, sinks under 
 the weight of the fraudulent mendicant and insane 
 drunkard. 
 
 Yet such is the character of many of those objects 
 of charity who are sufferers from what is called in the 
 late Act of Parliament * unavoidable calamity.' 
 
 Let us, at all events, take care to substitute the term 
 * partly' for the term * mainly.' Otherwise Roman 
 Catholic charities will absorb and misapply the whole 
 of the funds which the wisdom of Lord Cairns has 
 saved from dilapidation. 
 
 In the * Report of the Commissioners of National 
 Education in Ireland for 1865,' called the Thirty-second 
 Report, we have an account of the number of children 
 on the rolls for the year ending December 31, 1865. 
 They amounted to 922,084. The total number of 
 schools in operation was 6,372. The calculation made 
 by estimate of the number of children of various 
 denominations for the entire year, gives the following 
 results : — 
 
IRELAND — NATIONAL EDUCATION. 
 
 143 
 
 Established Church 61,492 
 
 Roman Catholics 752,328 . ,j,^^^j ^22 084 
 
 Presbyterians 101,616 | ' ' • 
 
 Other Persuasions 6,648 J 
 
 The following list contains the names of the Com- 
 missioners of National Education in Ireland : — 
 
 Rt. Hon. Lord Bellew. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Henry, President, Queen's 
 College, Belfast. 
 
 Rt, Hon. Alexander Macdonnell. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Derry and 
 Raphoe. 
 
 Hon. Judge Longfield. 
 
 Rt. Hon. Mr. Justice O'Hagan. 
 
 Rt. Hon. the Earl of Dunraven. 
 
 Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Justice Com- 
 mon Pleas (Monahan). 
 
 Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Baron 
 (Pigot). 
 
 The Marquess of Kildare. 
 
 Rt. Hon. the Lord Chancellor 
 
 (Brady). 
 James Gibson, Esq. 
 Rt. Hon. the Attorney- General 
 
 (Lawson). 
 Rev. John Hall, D.D. 
 Laurence Waldron, Esq. 
 John Lentaigne, Esq. 
 John O'Hagan, Esq., Q.C. 
 Hon. Thomas Preston, D.L. 
 Rt. Hon. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. 
 James William Murland, Esq. 
 
 The then Lord Chancellor (Brady) has since that 
 time ceased to be so; and that office is now held by- 
 Mr. Justice O'Hagan. But both these learned persons 
 remain Commissioners of National Education. It is 
 said that the Board have relied on returns often inaccu- 
 rate. But these errors will not affect the general result. 
 
 The funds for education are so fairly applied in Ulster, 
 that the proportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants 
 in the population returns, and the proportion of Roman 
 Catholics to Protestants in the National Schools, are 
 nearly identical. 
 
 Let us, then, supply the want of a National Church 
 Establishment by a more complete National School 
 Establishment, Of the benefits of which all communions, 
 Protestant and Catholic, may partake. 
 
 The 360,000Z. of tithe rent-charge, instead of being 
 given up to the landlords, after fifty-two years, might 
 
144 KECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 well be maintained as a provision for National Educa- 
 tion. Thus a great question will be solved, and a largo 
 sum appropriated for Irish purposes. 
 
 I now approach the important and critical question 
 of the Land Tenure of Ireland. The evils of the present 
 law of landlord and tenant are much complained of, and 
 great oppression is in some cases exercised. Two kinds of 
 remedies have been proposed. The first kind consists 
 of proposals to abolish practical abuses, to favor tenures 
 of thirty-one years, to oblige the landlord to compensate 
 the tenant for all the practical improvements he has 
 made, and to pay for the value of the house he has 
 erected. The other is far different ; it takes for gi-anted 
 that all which has been done for the last seven hundred 
 years is usurpation and tyranny ; that, consequently, the 
 Acts of Elizabeth, of James I., of Charles II., and of 
 George I. are null and void, and it would therefore give 
 the land to the occupier, and restore that state of jDOSses- 
 sion by the strongest which prevailed before the Norman 
 Conquest. The object, how<3ver disguised, is, in fact, to 
 drive out all Protestant owners, and to put an end to 
 British rule in Ireland. I need not say that, in my opin- 
 ion, the first class of remedies, when properly defined 
 and justly applied, ought to be cordially adopted, and 
 the latter class peremptorily rejected. Every indication 
 favors the conclusion tliat Government will act with 
 temper and wisdom. 
 
 Lord Hartington says : — 
 
 ' It is not only the property of Irish landlords which 
 is at stake, it is not only the property of English land- 
 lords, but it is property of all kinds which will be at 
 stake.' Lord Clarendon has spoken firmly and judi- 
 ciously, both as to the wrongs of the tenants and the 
 rights of the landlords. In fine, unless the Government 
 
TENANT-RIGHT. 145 
 
 and the House of Commons should adopt some of the rev- 
 olutionary plans of the Irish newspapers, property of all 
 kinds will not be at stake. I quite admit that if Irish 
 landlords are robbed of their property, no other kind 
 of property will be safe ; but no man of sense imagines 
 that the Government will be wild enough to propose 
 such a robbery, or the House of Commons unprincipled 
 enough to sanction it. 
 
 Supposing, however, the Government to confine itself, 
 as Lord Spencer intimated, to what is practicable, the 
 task is still difficult, though far from impossible. 
 
 Guicciardini, an experienced politician and an accu- 
 rate historian, says that statesmen commit no greater 
 mistakes than when they apply a successful precedent 
 to circumstances of a different nature. 
 
 There is much danger of such a mistake in Ireland. 
 In the north of Ireland, tenant-right is the established 
 custom. Lord Granard and others say, ' Let us transfer 
 the custom of the north to the south of Ireland. It is 
 successful in the north, therefore it will be successful in 
 the south.' 
 
 But stop a moment. Ulster was colonized by the 
 Scotch. We are told, on good authority, that the Irish 
 were not sufficiently industrious, and the English not 
 sufficiently used to hard fare and poor dwellings to 
 make good colonists. The Scotch were accustomed to 
 work hard and to fare hard; they improved the soil, 
 they built fit dwellings ; one Scotch tenant succeeding 
 another, came into the occupation of land well culti- 
 vated, and farm-buildings stored with corn and imple- 
 ments. He could, therefore, afford to pay the outgoing 
 tenant for the good-will as well as*a shopkeeper coming 
 to succeed a successful tradesman in Bond Street or in 
 
 Regent Street. 
 
 10 
 
146 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 But shall we transfer this pustom of Ulster to Mini- 
 ster and Connaught ? In the first place, although it 
 may be equitable to sanction bylaw a custom established 
 for generations, it is by no means equitable to introduce 
 compulsory copyhold where tenancy from year to year 
 has been the general custom. 
 
 In the next place, tenant-right may be practically a 
 custom quite unfitted for Kerry or Cork. A tenant may 
 have left his marshy land undrained ; his fences full of 
 gaps, by which his cattle, tired of the sour grass of the 
 meadow, may break into the field of oats ; his farm- 
 buildings may be ruinous ; his implements broken and 
 antiquated. Still a farmer, eager to hold land, may pay 
 a few pounds for the occupation, and he may go on, 
 leaving the marshes undrained, the ploughs broken, the 
 fences full of gaps. Is the landlord to be bound to 
 respect the tenant-right of the thriftless, lazy occupier ? 
 Is such a man to be compared to the active, industrious 
 tenant of Ulster ? Because a custom succeeds with the 
 landlords and tenants in Ulster, is it to be made compul- 
 sory in Cork and Kerry ? This were to adopt the prac- 
 tice of workmen upon strike, when they insist that the 
 man whose labor is worth to the master 9s. a week, 
 should have the same wages as a man whose work is 
 worth 308. a week. Yet such is, if I understand it, the 
 principle adopted by Mr. Butt as the Hag of a great 
 national movement. 
 
 An illustration occurs to me. Some persons wonder 
 how it is that since the Italians have obtained indepen- 
 dence and freedom, the crime of assassination is still so 
 common. 
 
 The answer is, that habits and usages transmitted 
 from father to son are not changed by the best written 
 constitution. Lord Holland, when he was asked by 
 
CUSTOM OF ULSTER. 147 
 
 Murat, then King of Naples, to furnisli him with a con- 
 stitution, replied in effect, ' You might as well ask me 
 to build a tree.' 
 
 It is well known that the Papal government pun- 
 ished severely men who ate a chicken on a Friday, but 
 were very lenient to robbers, brigands, and assassins. 
 A gentleman who acted as Procurator-General at Rome 
 when the First Napoleon assumed the government, in- 
 formed me that in one year there were reported to him 
 two thousand cases of assassination ! that term compre- 
 hending, in Italian phrase, cases of killing, maiming, 
 cutting, and wounding with intent, &c. 
 
 Does any one expect such habits to be changed in a 
 year, or in twenty years ? The saying that ' Rome was 
 not built in a day ' and other similar proverbs show that 
 the popular mind is not so unreasonable as political 
 speculation. 
 
 Another illustration occurs. In the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, the Spaniards brought from Peru heaps of gold and 
 silver. Spain declined. Men of grave authority said 
 ' See how the importation of gold and silver ruins a 
 country.' In the nineteenth century, the United States 
 discovered in California, and Great Britain in Austraha, 
 immense quantities of gold. The United States flour- 
 ished. Great Britain flourished ; California and Aus- 
 tralia rose to unheard-of prosperity. How ^ould this 
 be? Historians had forgotten to mention that Spain 
 imported in the sixteenth century not only gold and 
 silver, but political and religious despotism. Spaniards, 
 no longer free, became, as Homer says, only half men. 
 Thus it appears, as our grandsires tell us, that ' one 
 man's meat is another man's poison.' Thus it may hap- 
 pen that what makes Ulster rich may make Munster 
 poorer than before. 
 
148 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The difference in the price of land in the county of 
 Down, where it fetches thirty years' purchase, and in 
 the county of Kerry, where it scarcely reaches twenty- 
 five, shows the effect, not of tenant-right, but of habits 
 of order and industry on the one side, laziness and im- 
 providence on the other. 
 
 The ' Times ' newspaper has a very intelligent corre- 
 spondent in Ireland, who is charged especially to report 
 on the land question. His letters remind me of the 
 saying of a witty diplomatist who, in the last century, 
 returned from time to time to England, his native 
 country. 
 
 ' When I arrive in England,' he said, ' if I open my 
 eyes and shut my ears, I think the country very flour- 
 ishing. But if I shut my eyes and open my ears, I find 
 that England is the most wretched country on the face 
 of the earth.' 
 
 The ' Times ' correspondent very properly opens his 
 eyes. He sees much improvement — farmers selling 
 their cattle and their crops to great advantage, laborers 
 well clothed, earning 8s, or 9s. a week where their 
 fathers earned with difficulty 58. 
 
 He then opens his ears, and forthwith imbibes a storm 
 of complaints. ' Our landlord is very kind, and never 
 raises his rents. But what if he should suddenly turn 
 tyrant ? and what if, when we ask for a lease, he should 
 choose to have the land valued, and demand a higher 
 rent than we now pay?' Then, as to the laborers, 
 •they are tolerably well off, much better housed, and 
 much better clothed than they used to be ; but they 
 think that eight centuries ago their ancestors possessed 
 the land, and that, as they are the people of Ireland, 
 they ought to possess it now.' 
 
 To grumble is the prescriptive right of Englishmen, 
 
TENANTS AND LANDLORDS. 149 
 
 and on principles of equality, cannot be refused to Irish- 
 men. But to legislate on such vague notions would be 
 most unsafe. 
 
 Lord Portsmouth says, with just pride and satisfac- 
 tion, ' Since 1822, the experiment of thirty-one years' 
 leases, with free liberty to sell them, and practically 
 vesting all buildings in the tenant, has been tried on 
 my estates in the county of Wexford, with the follow- 
 ing results : — Badly cultivated patches of land, with 
 wretched hovels on them, have been changed into well- 
 cultivated farms, with first-rate homesteads. The rental 
 has more than doubled, is punctually paid, instead of 
 irregularly paid. Discontent and misery existed in 
 1822 : prosperity and contentment exist in 1869. 
 Vinegar Hill was the head-quarters of the Rebellion in 
 1798 ; now no more loyal and contented population 
 exists than that which surrounds it.' ^ 
 
 This, however, is not ' fixity of tenure.' In fact, 
 ' fixity of tenure ' is but another term for property in 
 land, which the agitators propose to take from the 
 owner and give to the occupier. 
 
 A writer in the ' Daily News ' very sensibly remarks, 
 that fixity of tenure would ' diminish progress,' and 
 ' stereotype desolation.' ' The Spectator ' seems to have 
 no objection to ' desolation,' and saj^s that ' the more 
 wealth Ireland has accumulated, the more loudly and 
 bitterly she has protested against our rule.' But surely 
 it is not the business of Parliament to ' stereotype deso- 
 lation,' to stop the ' accumulation of wealth,' and to 
 foster the agrarian murders which, instead of being 
 stopped, would be promoted by such legislation. 
 
 In the midst of the conflicting evidence of his eyes, 
 
 1 Letter to the ' Times,' September 11, 1869. 
 
150 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 and of his ears, the ' Times ' commissioner arrives at a 
 very rational conclusion. After stating the case of Mr. 
 Pollok, who, as a landlord, has greatly improved his 
 land at his own expense, the commissioner continues 
 thus : — ' Yet, on the other hand, in the case of these 
 village communities, how idle it is to say, that it is con- 
 sonant to justice to abandon them to the rules of the 
 common law, to ignore the existence of the property 
 they have created, to subject them to eviction without 
 full compensation, or without an equivalent prolonga- 
 tion of tenure. He evidently will be the true states- 
 man, and will be entitled to claim the merit of solving 
 this complicated problem justly, who, recognizing the 
 coexistence of these modes of tenure, and the variety 
 and conflicts of rights under them, shall devise a law 
 that shall be applicable to each, and, as far as human 
 legislation can go, shall protect the interests arising 
 under both, and shall then give them complete freedom. 
 Without venturing to dogmatize, I am, not without hope 
 that a reform of this kind is quite feasible, without 
 endangering, in any rational sense, the rights of prop- 
 erty.' 
 
 This is the result arrived at by an intelligent observer 
 acted upon by all he sees, and all he hears, but reserv- 
 ing his powers of reasoning and sense of justice. 
 
 To sum up shortly the whole matter, we may say, 
 ' Property has its duties as well as its rights ; * let those 
 duties be enforce^ by law. 
 
 But ' Property has its rights as well as its duties ; * let 
 those rights be preserved by law. 
 
 In point of fact, the attempts made to overthrow the 
 barriers of law and prescription, by pure reasoning, are 
 flimsy and shallow enough. Fii-st, it is said that great 
 oppression is exercised by the landlords. But as every 
 
RELIGION OF LANDLORDS. 151 
 
 impartial inquirer finds that this charge of oppression, 
 true and revolting as it is, does not practically apply to 
 more than one in fifty of the landlords, it is absurd to 
 say that fifty shall be deprived of their property be- 
 cause one of them has been guilty of oppression. Then 
 it is said that the proprietors are Protestants, while the 
 majority of the occupiers and laborers are Roman Catho- 
 lics. This is in effect to propose a new religious dis- 
 ability ; to make an odious inquisition into religious 
 faith ; to introduce a new element of discord into Ire- 
 land, when, for forty years, harmony, good-will, and 
 religious equality have been the objects of all wise 
 statesmen. Nor could the rule be restricted in opera- 
 tion. For, if the Duke of Devonshire and the Duke of 
 Leinster are not to hold property in Ireland, because 
 they profess a faith differing from that of the majority, 
 how can the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Arundel be 
 permitted to own land in England? 
 
 It is not even pretended that Protestant land-owners 
 in Ireland are worse landlords than Roman Catholics. 
 
 But lastly, it is urged, that the titles of the Irish 
 land-owners are derived from the confiscation of prop- 
 erty held by ancient Irish chiefs, and forfeited by re- 
 bellion. 
 
 No one, however, who has the slightest regard for 
 the peace of the country, will go back seven centuries, 
 to inquire what lands were declared forfeit by Henry 
 II., by Henry VIII., by Elizabeth, by James I., by 
 Charles II., and by William III. Still less will any one 
 pretend to point out the heirs of the expelled rebels. 
 
 Upon this question there can be no compromise. 
 Either British rule in Ireland must be renounced, and 
 all that has been done to improve and civilize, for the 
 last forty years, must be exchanged for anarchy, blood- 
 
v-^ 
 
 152 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 shed, and desolation, or the law must be quietly 
 amended, and steadily maintained under the authoiity 
 of the Queen. 
 
 Ireland must be governed by the British Parliament, 
 which cannot abdicate its supremacy ; which must pro- 
 tect life and property ; must reject frantic theories and 
 treasonable projects ; must punish the wrong-doer, and 
 throw its shield over the peaceable subject. 
 
 Yet, rejecting all these theories as impracticable, in- 
 finite care must be taken to protect the real rights of 
 the Irish tenant. 
 
 Upon this difficult land question, I suggested, in my 
 third letter to Mr. Chichester Fortescue, that every 
 tenancy less than a yearl}- tenanc}'' should hereafter 
 be by law a yearly tenancy. 
 
 That any contract between landlord and tenant, by 
 which the tenant agrees to give up his holding on any 
 other terms than those in force in the case of a lease, or 
 of a yearly tenancy, shall be utterly illegal, and ipso 
 facto void. 
 
 That upon a notice to quit, the case of the tenant 
 shall be heard, as usual, and that he shall be empowered 
 to bring forward evidence* to show the improvements 
 he had made on his farm, and the buildings which he 
 had erected at his own expense. 
 
 That the chairman of quarter sessions should be au- 
 thorized by law to accompany his decree by an award 
 compelling the payment of compensation for the value 
 of the improvements made, and the buildings erected, 
 or granting the tenant power, equivalent to what is 
 called tenant-right, of selling the good-will of his farm 
 to any other person. 
 
 I added — * The chairman might also, I think, be 
 empowered to quash the ejectment, and to direct the 
 
TENANCY OF LAND. 153 
 
 grant of a lease of twenty-one years by the landlord, 
 in terms to be settled by the judge.' 
 
 I have only to add to these suggestions, that I think 
 a special court should be created at Dublin, similar to 
 the court erected by the Encumbered Estates Act, and 
 that erected by the Irish Church Act. 
 
 This letter was published early in 1869. Later in 
 the year, a pamphlet has appeared, written by Mr. 
 Gerald Fitzgibbon, a Master in Chancery, a man of 
 great ability, well acquainted with the law, and sin- 
 cerely desirous to find a solution which may prove 
 beneficial as well to landlord as to tenant, and be pro- 
 ductive of peace to Ireland. 
 
 His suggestions are very remarkable ; his experience 
 and his suggestions may be summed up as follows ; — 
 
 He states that the Court of Chancery often takes 
 into its charge an estate in land. He has himself had 
 to deal with about four hundred estates, occupied by 
 nearly twenty thousand tenants. When one of these 
 tenants applies to the Court of Chancery to allow the 
 receiver to supply slates and timber for roofing a farm- 
 house or a cow-house, upon an undertaking to build the 
 walls and complete the structure at the tenant's own 
 expense, Mr. Fitzgibbon, as representing the Court of 
 Chancer}^, uniformly complies with it. I may remark 
 that I believe every just and liberal landlord does the 
 same. Mr. Fitzgibbon likewise complies with applica- 
 tions from the tenant for assistance to drain or other- 
 wise improve the farm. 
 
 I believe that most landlords would comply with 
 similar applications. 
 
 But as the distrust of the tenants is so wide-spread 
 as to be almost universal, Mr. Fitzgibbon would enforce . 
 the duties of landlords in the following manner : — 
 
154 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Pass an Act by which every tenant in the country, 
 great and small, having a term of less than seven years 
 in his land, shall be entitled to transmit to some public 
 functionary a written notice that he desires to improve 
 his farm, and undertakes, within three years, to add 
 some substantial and specific amount to the present 
 yearly value. If his proposal is approved, and he ful- 
 fils what he has undertaken, let him have a grant at 
 the old rent, in proportion to the addition he has made 
 to the permanent value of his farm. ' Let an addition 
 of twenty-five per cent entitle him to thirty years. 
 Give him sixty years if he adds fifty per cent, ninety 
 years if he adds seventy-five per cent, and so on.' 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon deserves great credit for this pro- 
 posal, intended to reconcile equity with popular de- 
 mands, and encourage industry by conferring property 
 upon honest exertion. Yet I cannot but think there is 
 some danger in the process by which the tenant is to be 
 enabled to oust the proprietor, and become the owner 
 of the fee. Lord Portsmouth speaks of his grants of 
 leases for thirty-one years, but not at the same rent as 
 the leases of his progenitors. Neither would it be easy 
 to prove the exact twenty-five or fifty per cent which, 
 with lawyer-like precision, Mr. Fitzgibbon requires as 
 a pre-existent condition. It seems to me, therefore, 
 that if my scheme is somewhat too vague and too 
 rough, Mr. Fitzgibbon's plan is too positive and too 
 minutely guarded ; that it holds out hopes which would 
 not be realized, and would hardly stand the test which 
 he himself proposes of being fit for adoption in Eng- 
 land and in Scotland. 
 
 Still I cannot doubt that in this direction lies the solu- 
 tion of the land difficulty of Ireland, and that we want 
 only the combination of a great lawyer with a great 
 
IMPROVEMENT OF IRELAND. 155 
 
 statesman to arrive at a peaceable and liappy termina- 
 tion of this perilous and impassioned controversy. 
 
 To sum up this question of Irish grievances, let us 
 reflect that, in 1829, the Roman Catholics of Ireland, as 
 of England, were made competent to hold offices in the 
 political government of the country and in courts of 
 law, excepting onl}- the offices of Lord Lieutenant and 
 Lord Chancellor of Ireland. This last exception has 
 since been repealed. 
 
 That, in 1833, the Church of Ireland was freed from 
 many abuses, and that church cess (the church-rate of 
 England) was totally abolished. 
 
 That about the same time ' Schools for all ' were 
 established by Lord Derby, then Mr. Stanley, for the 
 purpose of improving and extending National Educa- 
 tion. 
 
 That, in 1869, the Protestant Church of Ireland was 
 disestablished and disendowed. 
 
 That, by Acts passed in 1839 and subsequent years, 
 the paupers of Ireland obtained relief, furnished from 
 rates. 
 
 That, by Acts relating to the Poor-law of England, 
 a short industrial residence in England enables an Irish 
 workman to obtain all the advantages in the labor mar- 
 ket of English manufacturing towns which an English 
 workman enjoys. 
 
 That, in 1838, the chief evil of the tithe system was 
 remedied by converting tithe into rent-charge, payable 
 by the landlord. 
 
 Tlie consequences of these and various other Acts 
 have been — 
 
 That there is now complete civil, political, and re- 
 ligious equality in Ireland between Protestants and 
 Catholics. 
 
156 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 That the rent of the landlord, the capital of the 
 farmer, and the wages of the agricultural laborer, have 
 all, since 1829, greatly increased. 
 
 That the commerce of Ireland and the revenue from 
 the custom-house have been considerably augmented. 
 
 That, between 1832 and 1868, agrarian crimes were 
 much diminished. 
 
 That the disorders which prevailed from 1792 to 
 1838, arising from the collection of tithe, have totally 
 ceased. 
 
 That the evils arising from the deeply mortgaged con- 
 dition of many landed estates have been, by the operation 
 of the Encumbered Estates Act, greatly diminished, and 
 landed property to the amount of thirty millions has 
 been sold to solvent purchasers. 
 
 That the appointment of judges without reference t6 
 religious creed, and the selection of* juries fairly chosen 
 from Protestant and Roman Catholic qualified persons, 
 has removed all just cause of complaint against the ad- 
 ministration of justice. 
 
 Speaking in the House of Commons, in 1839, I said 
 that it would still require forty years to remove the evils 
 of long standing which afflicted Ireland. 
 
 Thirty years have since passed, and great progress 
 has been made. 
 
 The question is now, — shall we continue that prog- 
 ress on the principles of justice and equality, or shall we 
 adopt the scheme of Irish independence recommended 
 by the Fenian partisans ? 
 
 It is as clear that Dublin and Cork must belong to 
 the United Kingdom of England and Ireland, as that 
 Lyons and Toulon must belong to France, and Rich- 
 mond and New Orleans to the United States. 
 
 The plain question, then, is, — are the Irish agitators 
 
LAND TENURE IN IRELAND. 157 
 
 prepared for civil war, "with all its horrors and all its 
 results ? 
 
 Supposing the wishes of Ireland to be represented 
 fairly by the monster meetings on tenant-right and on 
 the grant of an amnesty for the convicted Fenians, the 
 wishes and the wants of Ireland must be carefully sepa- 
 rated. . 
 
 It is the right of a people to represent its grievances. 
 It is the business of a statesman to devise remedies. 
 
 The wants of Ireland are real, and must be supplied. 
 Her wishes are transitory and intemperate ; they must 
 be filtered till all impure and noxious matter is cleared 
 away, and nothing left but what is pure and wholesome. 
 Then, indeed, we shall have, not only Hibernia Pacata^ 
 hut Hibernia Felix, 
 
 Some of the most fruitful causes of the misery of 
 small and poor tenants in Ireland have disappeared. 
 When the elective franchise was conferred upon Roman 
 Catholics, landlords gave forty-shilling freeholds to mul- 
 titudes of miserable cottiers, and drove them by thou- 
 sands to the poll, in exchange for the titles and offices 
 they obtained for themselves at the Castle. The Act 
 of 1829, abolishing the forty-shilling freehold franchise, 
 took away the temptation to create these fictitious ten- 
 ures. Forty years have elapsed since the abolition of 
 the forty-shilling freeholds. But it is not time only 
 which has been at work. The great potato famine, the 
 immense emigration which ensued, and the Encumbered 
 Estates Act, have cleared many estates of the pauper 
 tenantry. 
 
 The Government -can have no difficulty in obtain- 
 ing valuable suggestions from official and independent 
 sources. The large and liberal mind of the Lord Chan- 
 cellor of Ireland, the legal knowledge of the law-officers 
 
168 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 of the Crown, the long experience and enlightened sug- 
 gestions of Dr. Hancock, who dispelled the fictions of 
 those who maintained that Ireland was declining, may all 
 be drawn upon by the Cabinet in framing a measure upon 
 Irish land. If rightly framed, it would be a still greater 
 blessing than the abolition of the Irish Church ; but the 
 course proposed by the 'Spectator' would produce, 
 instead of fertility, desolation ; instead of hatred, con- 
 tempt. Here would be a fine result of statesmanship 
 applied to Ireland I 
 
 But worse might be apprehended, if the Ribbon 
 societies and their hired assassins are to dictate our 
 future policy. 
 
 In what !Mr. Trench calls the Ribbon conspiracy 
 against his life, the chairman is reported to have 
 said : — 
 
 •Down with the Church, down with the landlords, 
 down with the agents, down with every thing, say I, 
 that stands in the way of our own green land coming 
 back to us again.' 
 
 * What wonderful grand fun we'll have fighting 
 among ourselves, when it does come I ' said a thick-set, 
 herculean fellow at the lower end of the table. 
 
 'Well, now, I often thought of that,' replied his 
 neighbor in a whisper; 'it'll be bloody work then in 
 airnesi:, as sure as you and I live to see it ; any thing 
 that has happen'd up to this will be only a joke to what 
 will happen then.' 
 
 ' And what matter ? ' cried the advocate for fighting ; 
 ♦sure wouldn't it be better any day to be fighting 
 among friends than have no fighting at all, and be 
 slaves to our enemies I ' ^ 
 
 ^ 'Realities of Iri«h Life/ p. 194. 
 
ENCUMBERED ESTATES ACT. 159 
 
 The Scotch Highland Celts used to say among them- 
 selves, in their own cabins, and in their own language, 
 ' Turn out the Saxon and take in the dog.' But the 
 Highlands have been pacified without expelling the 
 descendants of Gillespie Campbell, of Anglo-Norman 
 origin, ancestor of the Duke of Argyll, or of John of 
 Moravia, ancestor of the Duke of Atholl. So it will 
 be with Ireland, if we use patience and moderation. 
 
 I cannot omit here some details upon the Encumbered 
 Estates Act. 
 
 The proceeding was commenced in 1848 ; it was 
 completed in the following year. Sir Robert Peel had 
 proposed in the House of Commons a scheme for a 
 new settlement of land in Ireland, framed apparently 
 upon the settlement of Ulster by James I. The plan 
 appeared to the Government and to members of Parlia- 
 ment generally to be too large and vague to be practi- 
 cable, and it was consequently laid aside. A bill was 
 introduced into the House of Lords by the Lord Chan- 
 cellor, Lord Cottenham. Sir John Romilly, who had 
 been recently appointed Solicitor-General, framed, in 
 conjunction with Mr. Walter Coulson, a series of clauses 
 which completely altered the character of the bill, and 
 tended to make it far more effective. But when the 
 bill went back to the House of Lords, Lord Cottenham 
 so modified the clauses as to preserve to the first encum- 
 brancer a power to nullify the whole bill. This Act 
 passed in August, 1848 ;, it is the 11th and 12th of 
 Victoria, cap. 48, and is entitled ' An Act to facilitate 
 the sale of Encumbered Estates in Ireland.' When the 
 session was over, being very anxious on this subject, I 
 went over to Ireland chiefly for the purpose of inquir- 
 ing into the probable operation of this Act. Lord 
 Clarendon, who was then Lord Lieutenant, requested 
 
160 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 the Chancellor of Ireland to come to the Vice-regal 
 Lodge to confer with me. He told me that the Act 
 would probably be evaded, and I gathered from him 
 that, in his opinion, it would be a dead letter. When I 
 returned to England I sent for Sir John Romilly, and 
 instructed him to prepare a new Encumbered Estates 
 Bill for Ireland. I gave him full liberty to prepare it 
 as he thought desirable, both as to the scheme to be 
 adopted, and as to the provisions to be introduced for 
 working it, permitting, at his request, that the working 
 of the Act should be confided to a new court, to be 
 constituted for that purpose. When Sir John Romilly 
 introduced the bill in the House of Commons, he was 
 complimented very highh^ by Sir Robert Peel, who said 
 he was not one of those lawyers who took away the 
 key of knowledge, and prevented others from entering 
 in. Lord Cottenham waived his scruples; the Act 
 framed by Sir John Romilly and Mr. Coulson was con- 
 fided to a court composed of very able men ; and its 
 operation, extending over vast masses of property, and 
 changing the ownership of many estates, the owners of 
 which had been hopelessly encumbered, and the tenants 
 without means of improvement, proved, by the consent 
 of all parties, eminently beneficial. 
 
 The authorship of so large and useful a measure has 
 been attributed by many to Sir Robert Peel, and by 
 Lord St. Leonards to himself. But to the decision of 
 the Government overruling the technical views of their 
 own Lord Chancellor, and to the constructive skill of 
 Lord Romilly and Mr. Coulson, this enactment must 
 finally be attributed.^ Pauperized owners of Castle 
 Rackrents have given place to prosperous tradesmen. 
 
 1 See Letter of Lord Romilly in the ' Times ' of March 18, 
 
CRIME IN IRELAND. 161 
 
 But there is some doubt whether the new owners, 
 though generally more faithful sons of the Church of 
 Rome, are kinder landlords than the heroes of Miss 
 Edgeworth's tale. 
 
 I have only further to say on this head, that agrarian 
 crimes must be put down by a vigorous hand. Sir 
 George Grey, when Home Secretary, was fully alive to 
 his duty in this respect. He acknowledged that Gov- 
 ernment was bound to protect the life of the subjec^, 
 and he as explicitly discouraged all the wild notions 
 regarding property which then, as now, were afloat. 
 The measure which he introduced in 1847 was salutary, 
 though severe. 
 
 Its effects may be estimated by taking, from official 
 returns, the number of agrarian crimes committed re- 
 spectively in the years 1844, 1845, 1861, 1865, 1866 : — 
 
 Agrarian Outrages. 
 
 '1844 889 
 
 1845 799 
 
 1861 198 
 
 1865 162 
 
 :1866 83 
 
 I only hope that in 1870, the Home Secretary may 
 take as high a tone as Sir George Grey, and introduce 
 a measure as efficient in repressing agrarian crime and 
 outrage as Sir George Grey introduced in 1847. 
 
 The present Government, soon after their entrance 
 into office, seeing that the Fenian treason had been 
 defeated by the promptitude and vigor of Lord Kimber- 
 ley and the Duke of Abercorn, very naturally supposed 
 that the least guilty of the offenders might be pardoned. 
 But, however natural and however merciful this conduct 
 on the part of the Government, it has clearly appeared 
 that the measure was a mistaken one. The liberated 
 
 11 
 
162 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 criminals have taken for granted that they were par- 
 doned, not in the hope of their penitence, but as an 
 indemnity for past offences, and an encouragement to 
 fresh treasons. 
 
 The motives of the Executive Government were 
 laudable, but I am glad to hear that this mistake will 
 not be repeated. 
 
 In 1839, in order to comply with a wish of Lord Nor- 
 manby, whose experience in Ireland made him conversant 
 with inteinal government, I gave up the Home Depart- 
 ment to him, and accepted the Colonial Office. 
 
 I soon became interested in Colonial affairs. It seemed 
 to me that the Imperial Government was bound, both in 
 honor and from the soundest views of national policy, 
 to protect, foster, and defend our Colonies. It may be 
 a matter of doubt whether or no to build up a Colonial 
 Empire. But it is evident that if Great Britain gives up 
 her supremacy from a niggardly spirit of parsimony, or 
 from a craven feeling of helplessness, other powers will 
 soon look upon the Empire, not with the regard due to 
 an equal, as she once was, but with jealousy of the height 
 she once held, without the fear she once inspired. To 
 build up an Empire extending over every sea, swaying 
 many diverse races, and combining many forms of relig- 
 ion, requires courage and capacity; to allow such an 
 Empire to fall to pieces is a task which may be per- 
 formed by the poor in intellect, the pusillanimous in 
 conduct. 
 
 When I came into the Colonial Office, there was a 
 question regarding certain parties who were desirous of 
 founding in New Zealand a government having coercive 
 criminal jurisdiction. But I pointed out to them that 
 such conduct would be a violation of their duty as Brit- 
 ish subjects. The peraons alluded to consulted Serjeant 
 
COLONIAL POLICY. 163 
 
 Wilde, afterwards Lord Truro, and finding that I was 
 right in point of law, desisted from their project. I 
 told them, however, that they might be assured of the 
 protection of the Crown, and, by the treaty of Waitangi, 
 the Queen assumed the sovereignty of New Zealand. It 
 was not, therefore, by chance, or without incurring obli- 
 gations on the part of the Crown, that New Zealand was 
 added to the British dominions. 
 
 I gave still stronger assurances to the British Prov- 
 inces of North America, pledging to them the word of 
 the Queen, that so long as they desired to remain her 
 subjects they should receive the support of the Crown, 
 and be defended as a part of the British dominions. 
 
 A faint-hearted Government in Great Britain may 
 break these pledges, and depart from this policy. But 
 from the day when they do so, the Decline and Fall of 
 the British Empire may be dated. 
 
 At the same time, I do not think the relations of the 
 Colonies to the mother country can be kept up precisely 
 in their present form. 
 
 There is uneasiness growing up on both sides ; the 
 Colonies doubting as to the protection they may receive, 
 and Great Britain complaining of the cost of the naval 
 and military expenses incurred in defence of Colonial 
 interests whenever they are in danger. 
 
 I am disposed to believe, that if a congress, or assem- 
 bly representing Great Britain and her dependencies, 
 could be convoked from time to time, to sit for some 
 months in the autumn, arrangements reciprocally bene- 
 ficial might be made. 
 
 I mean, that, on the one hand, the metropolitan State 
 might promise protection to the Colonies, by her army 
 and navy, against any foreign or barbarous enemy ; and, 
 on the other hand, a contribution of three or four mil- 
 
164 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 lions towards our army and navy estimates might be 
 granted by the Colonial Parliaments, and an engagement 
 taken not to charge more than a certain percentage, say 
 ten per cent ad valorem^ on British produce and manu- 
 factures ; or they might propose, as New Zealand has 
 lately done, to ask for Imperial j^id when absolutely 
 required, and propose to defray the expense of the aid 
 afforded, and not to interfere with the discretion of the 
 British commanders by sea and land. In such case, as 
 we have a Governor-General in India, and a Governor- 
 General of British North America, so we might have a 
 Governor-General of Australia and New Zealand, and a 
 Governor-General of Jamaica and of the West Indian 
 Islands. 
 
 This scheme may seem impracticable to many. But 
 so did the Reform Act of 1832 ; so did the total repeal 
 of the Corn-laws ; so did the abolition of the Irish 
 Church. Great changes have been made ; great changes 
 are impending ; amid these changes, there is no greater 
 benefit to mankind, that a statesman can propose to 
 himself, than the consolidation of the British Empire. 
 
 In my eyes it would be a sad spectacle, it would be 
 a spectacle for gods and men to weep at, to see this 
 brilliant Empire, the guiding-star of Freedom, broken 
 up, — to behold Nova Scotia, the Cape of Good Hope, 
 Jamaica, and New Zealand, try each its little spasm of 
 independence, while France, the United States, and 
 Russia would be looking on, each and all willing to 
 annex one or more of the fragments to the nearest por- 
 tion of their own dominions. 
 
 The difficulties, in detail, of such an arrangement 
 might be great. 
 
 Some further references to past occurrences may 
 serve to explain my meaning. 
 
COLONIAL POLICY. 165 
 
 Mr. Baldwin, who had taken a prominent part in 
 Canadian politics, came to England while Lord Glenelg 
 was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and by his 
 desire discussed with me the question of responsible 
 government. I raised the objection that a responsible 
 ministry in Canada might object to take part wdth Eng- 
 land in a foreign war, in which she might be engaged. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin, who was a man of sense and ability, 
 assured me that the Canadians had no such pretensions. 
 They wished to manage their own local affairs, but had 
 no desire to diminish the authority, or dim the lustre of 
 the Crown of England in her external affairs. 
 
 With this assurance I Avas satisfied ; and when I held 
 the seals I practically acted upon it, though I did not 
 concur in the theory. In 1854, I proposed to the . 
 House of Commons, on the part of the Government of 
 Lord Aberdeen, to give free scope to the legislature 
 of Canada in ecclesiastical affairs, and I have seen no 
 reason to regret this polic3^ 
 
 It is the fashion to say that those Colonies which 
 have adopted British institutions, whose ministers re- 
 sign on a vote of want of confidence, and whose laws 
 are framed on a British type, are virtually independent, 
 and have no right to look for British protection. In 
 my opinion nothing can be meaner in spirit, nothing 
 less wise in policy, than such assertions. 
 
 There was a time when we might have stood alone 
 as the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and 
 Ireland. That time has passed. We conquered and 
 peopled Canada, we took possession of the whole of 
 Australia, Van Diemen's Land, and New Zealand. We 
 have annexed India to the Crown. There is no going 
 back. 
 
 »Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento. 
 
106 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 For my part, I delight in observing the adoption of 
 our free institutions, and even of our habits and man- 
 ners, in Colonies at a distance of 3,000 or 4,000 miles 
 from the Palace of Westminster. 
 
 During my tenure of the Colonial Office, a gentle- 
 man attached to the French Government called upon 
 me. He asked me how much of Australia was claimed 
 as the dominion of Great Britain. I answered, * the 
 whole,' and with that answer he went away. A French 
 traveller of great quickness and power of observation 
 has lately given to the vrorld his impression of the 
 friendly feeling of our Austrahan fellow-subjects to- 
 wards the mother country.^ 
 
 It is hardly necessary to say, that when the majority 
 in any of our dependencies declare by their representa- 
 tives that they wish to separate from us, no attempt 
 should be made to detain them. The faults committed 
 by George Grenville, Charles Townshend, and Lord 
 North can never be repeated. 
 
 Of course, this remark does not apply to fortified 
 places, like Gibraltar and Malta. It has, however, 
 been too much the fashion for writers in the press, and 
 some members of the House of Commons, to overlook 
 the force of tradition, and the obligations of treaties, 
 and to assume that because France is bigger than 
 Belgium, Russia bigger than Sweden, therefore Belgium 
 nmst be annexed to France, Sweden to Russia. The 
 story of Brasidas might teach them better. 
 
 The Minister who tries to weaken the attachment of 
 our North American Provinces to Great Britain will 
 
 * See * Australie, Voyage autour du Monde,* par le comte de Beau> 
 voir: Paris, 1869 — a very interesting and amusing work. 'Greater 
 Britain,' by Sir Charles W. Dilke, is a very able work ou a similar 
 subject. 
 
DEFEAT ON FREE TRADE. 167 
 
 be sure to rouse the generous indignation of the people 
 of England, and will be punished, if not by impeach- 
 ment, at all events by eternal infamy. 
 
 I pass on to other events. 
 
 In 1840, the Turkish Empire was threatened with 
 dissolution. The treaty of Unkiar Skelessi erected a 
 protectorate of Turkey on the part of Russia ; a long 
 course of intrigue, and the boldness of Mehemet Ali, a 
 man of great genius and daring, had nearly separated 
 Egypt and Syria from the Sultan's sovereignty. It 
 became a question whether England should permit 
 Russia and France to divide the Turkish Empire be- 
 tween them. The wise inaction of Lord Palmerston 
 gave time to prepare the solution of a great crisis, his 
 vigor shone forth at the decisive moment, and after the 
 thunderbolt had fallen at Djune and at Acre, the air 
 was cleared, and the sky was again serene. 
 
 The questions relating to political and municipal 
 franchises were of so much difficulty, and excited so 
 much political heat, that the Ministry of Lord Mel- 
 bourne abstained for some years from attempting to 
 promote those principles of free trade which had given 
 rise to the honorable exertions of Huskisson and Can- 
 ning. The attempt of Lord Althorp to lower the 
 differential duties on timber, one of the grossest cases 
 of Colonial protection, was received so coldly, and was 
 so effectually thwarted by Sir Robert Peel, that the 
 Government could not hope for any support from those 
 Liberal Tories who had followed Mr. Huskisson during 
 the Administration of Lord Liverpool. This was rather 
 extraordinary, for Sir Robert Peel, although it was not 
 generally known, had been, in Lord Liverpool's Cabinet, 
 a warm advocate for free trade. Indeed, his liberal 
 opinions upon this subject probably gave rise to Mr^ 
 
108 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Canning's remark, that the Cabinet were divided, not 
 by a straight, but by a serpentine line. 
 
 However, in 1840, the questions of franchise having 
 been nearly all decided, a committee on the duties of 
 imports, presided over by Joseph Hume, and informed 
 • l)y the accurate knowledge and sound judgment of Mr. 
 Deacon Hume, revived the interest upon this subject. 
 The question for the Cabinet to decide was, in reality, 
 whether they would lower duties of a protective char- 
 acter on a great number of small articles, or whether 
 they would attack the giant monopolies of sugar, of 
 timber, and of corn. The latter course, the most gal- 
 lant, though perhaps not the most prudent, was pre- 
 ferred; but, at the same time, the measures proposed 
 were of the character of those brought forward by 
 Mr. Huskisson, viz., that of a gradual approach to free 
 trade rather than a complete repeal of protective duties. 
 In this spirit, therefore, the Government proposed a 
 reduction of the differential duties on sugar to 128. ; 
 of the protective duties on timber to lOs. ; and with 
 respect to corn, a fixed duty of 88. ; to be relaxed from 
 time to time by Order in Council, instead of the sliding- 
 scale, which had been the favorite scheme of Lord 
 Liverpool. 
 
 These proposals, however, excited quite as much ani- 
 mosity among the protected interests as if the Govern- 
 ment had proposed the abolition of all differential duties 
 on sugar and timber, and a total repeal of the Corn- 
 laws. The landed gentry and the farmers were espe- 
 cially indignant, and they fondly looked to Sir Robert 
 Peel and Sir James Graham to j)rotect them from 
 changes which the former had in public always strongly 
 opposed, and which the latter had denounced as de- 
 .Btructive to the position, and even to the existence of 
 
DEFEAT OF THE WHIG MINISTRY. 169 
 
 the land-owners of England. In spite of the symptoms 
 of approaching defeat, I brought forward the question 
 of the reduction of the duties on sugar. After a long 
 debate, my motion was defeated by a majority of thirty- 
 six. 
 
 This decision made it necessary for the Cabinet to 
 consider their whole position, not only with reference 
 to the measures they had announced, but also to their 
 continuance as an Administration. It was obvious that 
 there would be no public advantage in bringing for- 
 ward the motion for a fixed duty on corn, of which 
 notice had been given. There was no chance of ob- 
 taining a majority for such a motion ; but if the whole 
 budget of the year was to be thus defeated, it was plain 
 that the only alternative which remained to the Cabi- 
 net was to dissolve or to resign. This question was 
 anxiousl}^ considered, and it was deemed necessary to 
 obtain some insight into the probable effect df a dissolu- 
 tion before resorting to such a measure. Among the 
 letters which were received in the course of the next 
 few days by members of the Government, was one from 
 a very intelligent gentleman at the head of a great 
 banking establishment in Lancashire, to the effect that 
 in order to impress the country with a due sense of the 
 importance of a change from protection to free trade, 
 it was the duty of the Government to submit the ques- 
 tion to the test of a general election. It was urged 
 that, whatever might be the verdict as to majority or 
 minority in the future House of Commons, the great 
 question of freedom of trade could not fail to be thor- 
 oughly discussed, and especially the evils of incon- 
 venient and vexatious restrictions on the supply of food 
 to the people might be strongly denounced. Lord 
 Grenville had said of the Corn-laws, in a memorable 
 
170 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 protest, that monopoly is the parent of uncertainty, of 
 dearness, and of scarcity. This great truth, and the in- 
 justice of such a monopoly in its bearing on a nation 
 increasing in the extent of its manufactures, the ex- 
 pansion of its commerce, and the general diffusion of 
 its wealth, could not escape a searching criticism and an 
 ultimate condemnation. 
 
 These reasons prevailed, and the Cabinet, after sev- 
 eral discussions, decided on dissolution in preference 
 to immediate resignation. It was thought best, how- 
 ever, for the sake of the convenient dispatch of busi- 
 ness, and of a constitutional regard on the part of the 
 Crown towards the House of Commons, to defer the 
 announcement of this resolution. Sir Robert Peel took 
 advantage of the delay, as he had a perfect right to do, 
 to bring forward a direct motion declaring a want of 
 confidence, and this motion, after a long debate, was 
 carried in a full House by a majority of one. When, 
 however, the Ministry announced, as they on their side 
 were entitled to do, that in so divided a state of opinion 
 the Crown would appeal to the people for a decision, 
 Sir Robert Peel intimated that he would not interpose 
 any obstacle to a dissolution ; but he made it a condi- 
 tion that, the elections over, the new House of Com- 
 mons should be at once assembled. With this condition 
 I readily complied. 
 
 The dissolution took place. The Ministry laid be- 
 fore the country for decision the question of Protection 
 or Free Trade. In the month of August the House 
 of Commons met, and decided by a majority of ninety- 
 one that the existing Ministers had not their confidence. 
 Protection had been the bone of contention during the 
 elections, and after the division of the Tory party looked 
 forward, with sanguine hope, to the perpetuity of the 
 
MINISTRY OF SIR ROBERT PEEL. ITl 
 
 Corn-laws, and the eternal institution of a sliding-scale 
 on tlie admission of foreign corn. Sir Robert Peel, 
 however, skilfully avoided this issue ; and while he 
 pledged his supporters to an entire want of confidence 
 in the Liberal Ministry, he left himself full latitude as 
 to the measures which a future Ministry might think 
 fit to adopt. 
 
 After the vote and the address, the Ministers at once 
 resigned, and on September 3 a new Ministry, under 
 Sir Kobert Peel, was inaugurated. 
 
 Little was said, and less was done, in the remainder 
 of the session of 1841. 
 
 In 1842, a new policy, both financial and commercial, 
 was inaugurated. Much was done in the direction of 
 free trade, but the dangerous topics of corn, sugar, and 
 timber were tenderly touched or skilfully evaded. 
 
 Before the Parliament expired the Corn-laws were 
 totally repealed, and the differential duties on sugar en- 
 tirely abolished. But the Income-tax remained, and 
 still remains, as the positive result of the Tory triumph 
 in 1841. 
 
 In reviewing these proceedings, it may be thought 
 that Lord Melbourne's Government showed great rash- 
 ness when they proposed to touch the great monopolies 
 of sugar, of timber, and of corn. Each of these monop- 
 olies was intrenched behind fortifications which were at 
 that time impregnable. The West India interest was 
 wealthy and commercial, possessing great influence at 
 Liverpool and Glasgow, and ramified, through many 
 branches, among members of the aristocracy and great 
 mercantile firms, strongly represented in both Houses of 
 Parliament. The timber monopoly, though eminently 
 absurd, and defended by reasons obviously futile and 
 unsound, was identified with a powerful Colonial inter- 
 
172 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 est, and had been covere'd by the shield of the Opposi- 
 tion leader when Lord Althorp had ventured to assail 
 it. Bat, above all, the great monopoly of bread was 
 identified, in the opinion of a great portion of the Lords 
 and Commons, with the station, the dignity, and even 
 the very existence of what is called ' the landed inter- 
 est' of England. It had been said by Lord Boling- 
 broke, more than a century before, that while the 
 Whigs might have occasional tenure of power, the 
 Tories, resting upon the solid foundations of Church 
 and land, were destined to hold the permanent govern- 
 ment of the country. Burke, with the same opinion, 
 though not with the same inclinations, had affirmed, in 
 a letter to Fox, that the Whigs had never attained 
 power but by a skilful use of opportunities. This doc- 
 trine, as to the solidity and the permanence of Tory 
 power, was held by a numerous body of peers and 
 country gentlemen, who cared nothing for the writings 
 of Bolingbroke or Burke. Sir Robert Peel, therefore, 
 showed much caution when, making a slight change in 
 the Corn-laws, he left the great monopolies of sugar, 
 timber, and corn practically untouched. He probably 
 thought that to others, and not to him, would be left 
 the enterprise of destroying the dragon whose ravages 
 had spread famine among the people. 
 
 1 have no need, and no inclination, to follow in detail 
 the Administration of Sir Robert Peel. It was power- 
 ful, popular, and successful. Yet he did not hesitate, 
 when he thouglit it essential for the public good, to risk 
 the fate of his Ministry on behalf of an unpopular meas- 
 ure. He felt deeply that Ireland was his difficulty ; he 
 had abandoned, in 1829, those doctrines of Protestant 
 ascendency and those exclusive laws which maintain a 
 Protestant garrison in Ireland — doctrines and laws to 
 
/ OF THE 
 
 I UN/ 
 
 or 
 
 y 
 
 MINISTRY OF SIR ROBERT PEEL. 173 
 
 which he had clung with so much tenacity in the earlier 
 part of his political career. But he had not gained the 
 confidence of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and they 
 obstinately refused favors at his hands which they would 
 have been willing to accept from a Liberal Administra- 
 tion. To a man of the large mind of Sir Robert Peel, 
 tlie alienation of Irish opinion and affection must have 
 appeared a serious evil in the presence of domestic 
 embarrassments and foreign complications. In this 
 perplexity, he brought forward, as Prime Minister, a 
 measure for a generous and sufficient endowment of 
 the College of Maynooth. Much public discontent was 
 excited among the fanatical parts of the Protestant 
 population of England. I received several letters, as- 
 suring me that the confidence of my constituents of the 
 city of London would be withdrawn from me if I con- 
 tinued to give my support to the measure of the Min- 
 istry. Yet I was persuaded then, as I am still persuaded, 
 that the measure was one of broad and wise policy, 
 tending to conciliate the Catholics of Ireland, and to 
 prove to that portion of the Queen's subjects that th^ir 
 interests and their welfare were not indifferent to the 
 statesmen and the people of England. It was thus con- 
 sidered by the Catholic body in general ; and at the last 
 reading of the bill in the House of Commons it was thus 
 hailed by Lord Arundel, as the organ of his communion, 
 and of the large numbers associated with him by faith, 
 though not by race. 
 
 It was supposed at the time, openly stated by me, and 
 as openly accepted by Sir Robert Inglis, that this measure 
 was preparatory to one for the general endowment of 
 the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. Sir Robert 
 Peel, in a private conversation at Nuneham a few years 
 afterwards, suggested such a measure as fit to be 
 
174 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 adopted ; but when Mr. Sheil, who was present, urged 
 that Sir Robert himself ought to be the Minister to pro- 
 pose it, he declined any such responsibility. Nor is it 
 likely that, had he returned to office, he would have 
 ventured upon a course so repugnant to the predilec- 
 tions of his party, so distasteful to the Low Church and 
 Nonconformists in England, and to the Presbyterians 
 of Scotland. Be that as it may, the Maynooth Act was 
 a work of wisdom and liberality, and must always be 
 remembered to the honor of the Minister who proposed 
 and carried it. 
 
 T now pause awhile in this sketch of my recollections, 
 hoping to continue it at a later day. 
 
 In the mean time, I add some observations on topics 
 which appear to me of public interest. 
 
 Belonging to the Whig party, the aim of that party 
 has always been my aim — ' The cause of civil and 
 religious liberty all over the world.* I have endeav- 
 ored, in the words of Lord Grey, to promote that cause 
 without endangering the prerogatives of the Crown, the 
 privileges of the two Houses of Parliament, or the rights 
 and liberties of the people. 
 
 According to my view, the Tory party cared little for 
 the cause of civil and religious liberty, and the Radical 
 party were not solicitous to preserve those parts of the 
 Constitution which did not suit their speculative and 
 theoretical opinions. 
 
 To hold a middle way, to observe the precept of 
 Daedalus and to avoid the fate of Icarus, is at all times 
 difficult, and, in certain conjunctures, perilous. 
 
 Happily, from 1830 to 1866, the Whigs and the 
 Liberal Tories, who, like Lord Palmerston and Mr. 
 Charles Grant, followed Mr. Canning, or who, like the 
 Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Mr. Glad- 
 
EEPEAL OF NAVIGATION ACT. 175 
 
 •stone,. followed Sir Robert Peel, have been able to ac- 
 complish great changes ; to enlarge the limits of religious 
 liberty ; to promote the cause of freedom in Italy and 
 Spain, in Belgium and Greece ; to break the fetters of 
 monopoly and restriction which bound our commerce ; 
 and to emancipate our Colonies from the ignorance and 
 errors of the Home Government, without endangering 
 any part of our Constitution. 
 
 The effects of this enlarged and liberal policy upon 
 our finances and our trade have been very remarkable. 
 
 Thus to take only a few of the later changes. 
 
 In 1857, the receipts into the Exchequer amounted to 
 72,334,000?. 
 
 Since that time the amount of taxes repealed, com- 
 pared with taxes imposed, gives a balance in favor of 
 diminished taxation of 21,880,000?. The amount of 
 revenue in March last was 72,592,000?., thus showing 
 an actual increase after the reduction. 
 
 The amount of the exports and imports, about 1853, 
 was 268,000,000?. 
 
 In the year 1868, the two sums reached 568,000,000?. 
 
 In the year 1848, the Navigation Law was repealed, 
 and Lord Derby and others predicted the total ruin of 
 our commercial marine as the consequence. Mr. Lind- 
 say, who believed in these prophecies, and has avowed 
 his conversion, shall tell the result : — 
 
 Vessels registered. Tonnage. 
 1841 .... 23,461 .... 2,935,399 . . 
 1867 .... 40,942 .... 7,277,098 . . 
 
 Men employed. 
 . . 172,341 
 . . 346,606 
 
 Of British and Foreign tonnage in 1867 : — 
 
 
 British. 
 
 Entered inwards 11,197,685 .... 
 
 Cleared outwards .... 11,172,205 .... 
 
 Foreign. 
 . 5,140,952 
 . 5,245,090 i 
 
 A ' Log of my Leisure Hours,' by an Old Sailor, vol. iii. p. 204. 
 
176 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 These figures have been taken from the Customs 
 Returns. 
 
 Not only have these changes taken place without 
 convulsion, but when, in 1848, all Europe was shaken 
 by revolutions, the people of London rose on the 10th 
 of April, not to overthrow, but to maintain our laws 
 and institutions. 
 
 Among the most interesting speculations upon which 
 an Englishman can enter, is the question whether the 
 political Constitution under which we live is likely to 
 endure. Montesquieu said that our Constitution would 
 perish whenever the legislative power should become 
 more corrupt than the executive. He was thinking, 
 probably, of the danger arising from bribes, in the shape 
 of offices, or lottery-tickets, or even in the grosser form 
 of money, given by an incorruptible Minister to a cor- 
 rupt majority of the House of Commons. But this 
 kind of corruption had already diminished in the days 
 of Walpole, had farther abated in the days of Pitt, and 
 in our time has almost totally disappeared. Public 
 opinion has stamped it out. 
 
 Let us see, then, what are the positive advantages 
 of the British form of government, and what are the 
 apparent dangers to which it is exposed. 
 
 1. There is complete personal liberty. A man may 
 think what he pleases, write what he thinks, publish 
 what he writes. Unless he commit some flagnint offence 
 against the laws, and be convicted of that offence, he 
 cannot be punished. 
 
 2. In case of reasonable suspicion of crime, he is 
 entitled to have his case examined by a judge of integ- 
 rity and learning, whose opinion of his guilt must be 
 confirmed by a jury taken from among tke householders 
 of his county. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF GREAT BRITAIN. 177 
 
 3. If a majority of the nation are dissatisfied with 
 the administration of public affairs, their' representatives 
 can at once obtain a change of men and measures by a 
 simple declaration of want of confidence. 
 
 This last advantage is one not enjoyed by the United 
 States of America. When a President has lost the con- 
 fidence of his countrymen, and of Congress, he can 
 only be removed by an impeachment, for which there 
 may be no sufficient grounds, or by the expiry of his 
 term of office, which may be in three months, or may 
 not occur for more than three years. 
 
 The defects of the English Constitution affect chiefly 
 the electoral constituents as a body which chooses the 
 House of Commons, and the Parliament as a body 
 empowered to make laws. The electors require to be 
 restrained from bribery and excessive expenses, which 
 affect our reputation, and poison representation at its 
 source. The House of Commons must be compelled by 
 public opinion to secure purity of election. 
 
 The United States, having Federal Legislatures in- 
 trusted with the business of making laws, are not sub- 
 ject to our defects. 
 
 In the House of Commons bills are postponed, year 
 after year, for want of time. The financial periods 
 are so arranged that measures of general legislation 
 are, except in rare cases, begun in that House early in 
 February, and finished late in July. This is owing 
 partly to the necessity of arranging expenditure and 
 taxes before the end of March, and partly to the habit, 
 which has increased, is increasing, and ought to be 
 diminished, of making very long speeches. An old 
 woman might now make to the House of Commons 
 the prediction which an old woman once made to 
 Horace : — 
 
 12 
 
1T8 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Hunc neque dira venena, nee hosticus auferet ensis, 
 Nee laterum dolor, aut tusBis, nee tarda podagra ; 
 Garrulus hunc quando consumet cunque.^ 
 
 But, supposing the House of Commons obstinately 
 persists in calling for the budget in March, instead of 
 postponing it till June, and members obstinately persist 
 in talking through April, May, and June, then, not 
 indeed the measures on which the fate of the country 
 or of the Ministry depend, but measures of ordinary 
 improvement relating to courts of justice, to the univer- 
 sities, to the public health, to education, to the Church, 
 &c., &c., will continue to be sent to the House of Lords 
 in the last half of July. 
 
 A body eager for plans of reform might, at that 
 season, consider rapidly the wishes of the House of 
 Commons. But the demand is hardly reasonable, and 
 by an ancient and conservative Senate the task will 
 probably be postponed till the next year. 
 
 There is, however, a defect in the personal composi- 
 tion of the House of Lords, which does not belong to 
 its original constitution. 
 
 Since 1784, as we have seen, Pitt and his successors 
 have so filled the House of Lords with Tory country 
 gentlemen, that it has become a party body. Happily 
 the good sense of the sons has supplied the deficiency 
 of the fathers, and there can be little doubt that, while 
 a Liberal Minister has the power of redressing the 
 balance which Pitt so greatly disturbed, the House of 
 Lords will be afraid of bringing down upon their heads 
 a weight which might crush them altogether. If, 
 therefore, a measure like the University Tests Bill is 
 carried through the House of Commons by the Gov- 
 
 1 Hor. *Sat/Lix. 81. 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 179 
 
 ernment, the Lords will not repeat their foolish vote of 
 last session.! On the other hand, the House of Com- 
 mons must not repeat the course which induced the 
 House of Lords, in their just resentment, to throw out 
 the Scotch Education Bill. 
 
 Some persons have endeavored to bring on at once 
 such a collision as would either destroy the House of 
 Lords, or induce the nation to rally round them as an 
 integral part of the Constitution. 
 
 I beg to submit to such persons the two following 
 remarks : — 
 
 The first is that, if the hereditary privileges of the 
 peers are overthrown, the hereditary prerogative of the 
 Sovereign will also be sacrificed. ' Do not,' said an 
 accomplished orator in the House of Commons, many 
 years ago, ' hang the Crown on the peg of an excep- 
 tion.' The particular application was mistaken, but 
 the observation has truth to recommend it. The Sover- 
 eign does not inherit wisdom any more than the Duke 
 of Norfolk. 
 
 The best Government consists in the union of liberty 
 and order: we are at present in full possession of 
 liberty, but order is sometimes in danger. Now, for 
 the purpose of order, it is material that there should 
 exist in the great bodies of the State the power which 
 is called authority. Nothing more excites reverence 
 than ancient prescriptive privilege ; nothing more moves 
 the imagination than ancient lineage combined with 
 recent achievement. Thus, to see in one assembly the 
 descendants of the Talbots who fought for their country 
 in the fourteenth century, with the Napier who so 
 lately triumphed in Abyssinia, the heir of Marlborough, 
 
 1 They did not do so. 
 
180 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 who won the battle of Blenheim, and of Wellmgton, 
 the victor at Waterloo, and of Nelson, who fell at Traf- 
 algar, of Cecil, the wise counsellor of Elizabeth, and of 
 Grey, the upright Minister of William IV., with the 
 representatives of Mansfield, and of Camden, of Hard- 
 wicke, and of Somers, gives dignity and weight to the 
 House of Peers. 
 
 It is true that every editor of a magazine can furnish 
 at a few days' notice a better Senate than the British 
 House of Lords. 
 
 Happily the people of England give little attention 
 to those fanciful schemes. The nobility of England 
 are not, like the French nobility before the Revolution, 
 slavish sycophants of a court. They are known in 
 their country houses as the free landlords of a free 
 tenantry, promoting social good-will by a becoming 
 hospitality. They are known in courts of justice as 
 foremen of grand juries and magistrates at quarter- 
 sessions. They share in national sports, and their wives 
 and daughters visit the widows and the fatherless in 
 their affliction. 
 
 Lastly, when a great question arises, which requires 
 a display of more than ordinary knowledge of history, 
 more accurate learning, more constitutional lore, and 
 more practical wisdom than is to be found in the usual 
 debates of Parliament, I know not where 
 
 The general debate, 
 The popular harangue, the tart reply, 
 The logic, and the wisdom, and the wit 
 
 are to be found in greater perfection than among the 
 prelates on the Episcopal bench, the peers of three 
 centuries of nobility, t^d the recent occupants of the 
 Woolsack. 
 
DANGER OF REVOLUTION. 181 
 
 Let me add what is, perhaps, the most important 
 security of all — the prospect of any great democratic 
 changes would shake public credit, and bring the nation 
 to its senses — so that I cannot say I feel any alarm 
 lest events should lead to the abolition of the House of 
 Lords — involving, as no doubt it would, the fall of the 
 Monarchy. 
 
 Lastly, to speak of my own work, I can only rejoice 
 that I have been allowed to have my share in the task 
 accomplished in the half-century which has elapsed 
 from 1819 to 1869. My capacity, I always felt, was 
 very inferior to that of the men who have attained in 
 past times the foremost place in our Parliament, and in 
 the councils of our Sovereign. I have committed many 
 errors, some of them very gross blunders. But the gen- 
 erous people of England are always forbearing and for- 
 giving to those statesmen who have the good of their 
 country at heart ; like my betters, I have been misrep- 
 resented and slandered by those who know nothing of 
 me ; but I have been more than compensated by the 
 confidence and the friendship of the best men of my 
 own political connection, and by the regard and favor- 
 able interpretation of my motives, which I have heard 
 expressed by my generous opponents, from the days of 
 Lord Castlereagh to these of Mr. Disraeli. 
 
 In political, as in other pursuits, men engage from 
 various motives ; and as in the Church and at the Bar, 
 in the Army and in the Navy, some are to be found who 
 do no credit to the gown or to the uniform, so in the 
 State. But, so far as I have been able to observe, I can 
 sincerely say that I believe the public men of Great 
 Britain, whatever diversity there may be in their views, 
 have sincerely and honestly at heart the welfare of that 
 great and free nation to which they belong. R. 
 
 September 23, 1869. 
 
182 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Postscript. — While these sheets have been going 
 through the press, the news of the death of Lord Derby 
 has afflicted his country, which saw in him a man, noble 
 by character as well as by rank, always ready to sacri- 
 fice office for the sake of maintaining his opinions, and 
 forming those opinions, if with the fallibility of human 
 judgment, yet with an integrity which must in all 
 future times command respect. R. 
 
 November 23. 1869. 
 
LORD PALMERSTON'S POLICY. 183 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 POLICY OF LORD PALMERSTON IN THE EAST. 
 
 I WILL now refer to some occurrences which took place 
 previously to 1841, when the Whig Government were 
 defeated by the results of the general election. 
 
 The year 1840 saw the climax of Lord Palmerston's 
 diplomatic ability and success as a statesman. For a 
 long time he had observed a total silence with respect 
 to his views on the complications of the East. At 
 length he brought before the Cabinet a proposal, con- 
 ceived with great foresight, and fully justified by the 
 position of England. He asked from the Cabinet that 
 he should be intrusted with power to conclude a treaty 
 with Austria, Prussia, and Russia for the protection of 
 the Turkish Empire, and resistance to the aggressive 
 attempts of the Pacha of Egypt, supported by France, 
 to destroy the integrity of the Turkish territory, by 
 depriving the Sultan of his sovereignty over Egypt. 
 
 I concurred entirely in his plan, which seemed to me 
 to afford the only alternative to abandonment of the 
 Turkish Empire as a spoil to be scrambled for between 
 Russia and France. On the one side was the treaty of 
 Unkier-Skelessi, throwing its shield over Constantinople 
 and the Dardanelles ; on the other side were the in- 
 trigues of France and her Minister, M. Thiers, skilfully 
 directed to the old French object, pursued by the first 
 Napoleon before the Peace of Amiens, and carried on 
 
184 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 during the existence of that peace, of giving to France 
 the dominion of Egypt. 
 
 But, although I fully concurred in the policy of Lord 
 Palmerston, I saw that there was danger in forcing the 
 Cabinet to an immediate decision. The Eastern ques- 
 tion had been a topic of conversation for months among 
 political parties. M. Guizot was the able and intelligent 
 Ambassador of France in England. By his dispatches 
 it was known to the French Government that Lord 
 Holland and Lord Clarendon were strong advocates for 
 the French Alliance, which they wished to be continued 
 and strengthened. It was doubtful how many members 
 of the Cabinet might espouse these views. I therefore 
 urged delay, and obtained the consent of Lord Palmer- 
 ston to a postponement of the decision of this mighty 
 question to the Tuesday following. After the Cabinet, 
 I went down to Buckhurst, a country house which I 
 had hired, on the borders of Windsor Park. There, on 
 the following morning, I received a messenger from 
 Lord Palmerston, with a box containing a long letter in 
 support of his views. I at once answered his letter, 
 telling him that I was fully convinced of the soundness 
 of the policy he had explained to the Cabinet, but add- 
 ing that I thought a short time was required to rally 
 and to reconcile the opinions of our colleagues. 
 
 On the Monday morning I went to London, and had 
 no sooner reached my office than Lord Melbourne came 
 to me and consulted me on the impending decision. I 
 told him that I completely embraced the opinions of 
 Lord Palmerston, but that I thought it required an 
 effort on his part to secure unanimity in the Cabinet. I 
 told him that I thought he ought to tell Lord Holland 
 that he was looked upon by Whig politicians as the rep- 
 resentative of Mr. Fox, and that his resignation might 
 
LORD PALMERSTON'S POLICY. 185 
 
 break up the Ministry or even dissolve the party. Lord 
 Melbourne consented. He had some doubts about the 
 policy, but said he thought Lord Palmerston would 
 resign if it were not adopted. The result of the meeting 
 on Tuesday was an entire agreement in the Cabinet, and 
 the signature of the Quadruple Treaty a few days after- 
 wards. 
 
 There were, however, still some difficulties to be over- 
 come, both Parliamentary and naval. Lord Minto, as 
 head of the Admiralty, informed me that he should 
 require an additional number of seamen, and asked me 
 whether a vote of credit would not be necessary. I 
 said I thought not : that an additional force of seamen 
 might be levied ; and if the policy of the Government 
 was successful the defect of form would be condoned. 
 A little later, during the recess. Lord Palmerston repre- 
 sented to Lord Melbourne that instructions ought at 
 once to be sent to the Mediterranean, directing Admiral 
 Stopford to attack Acre. Lord Melbourne wrote to me 
 asking my opinion. I answered that I thought Admiral 
 Stopford would attack Acre without special instructions, 
 but that to make things sure instructions such as Lord 
 Palmerston advised ought to be sent. This opinion was 
 sent to Lord Minto, who warmly concurred. Acre was 
 taken. A powder-magazine, which an Austrian Arch- 
 duke had pointed out as likely to explode, exploded. 
 Concurrently with this event the famous army of Ibra- 
 him Pacha, supposed to be about to make an easy con- 
 quest of Constantinople, was defeated by the Turks. 
 The Turkish army passed over into Egypt ; Mehemet 
 Ali renounced his ambitious plans; Louis Philippe, 
 at that time King of the French, renounced those of 
 Napoleon the First, and the peace of Europe was 
 assured. 
 
186 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 When Parliament met I had no difficulty in obtaining 
 their pardon for our victorious career. 
 
 In the course of these transactions I had occasion to 
 do what I was in the habit of frequently doing, — I con- 
 sulted the Duke of Wellington upon the state of our 
 affairs. I asked him whether he thought there was any 
 danger of an attack by the French fleet upon Malta or 
 Gibraltar. He told me he thought our position was a 
 very good one ; that he only regretted that we had not 
 asked the French to be parties with us to the Quadruple 
 Treaty. He did not apprehend any attack by a hostile 
 fleet upon Malta or Gibraltar ; he thought the French 
 would not like to touch a British garrison. 
 
 Thus the policy of Lord Falmerston, adopted by the 
 Whig Cabinet, maintained the honor of the British name, 
 kept Egypt out of the hands of France, and secured the 
 peace of Europe. 
 
 Before I close this chapter I must allude, as briefly 
 as I can, to the great event which occurred in the year 
 1837 ; namely, the death of King William the Fourth, 
 and the accession of Queen Victoria. William the 
 Fourth had made a memorable concession to the advice 
 of his Ministers and the wishes of his people, when, upon 
 hearing the views and explanations of Earl Grey, he 
 gave his consent and approbation to the Reform Bill. 
 He took an unusual and ill-considered step, when, upon 
 the demise of Lord Spencer, he declared bluntly to Lord 
 Melbourne that he had no further occasion for his ser- 
 vices. It has since been explained that the King's mind 
 was alarmed by some letters of Lord Duncannon on the 
 subject of the Irish Church, and that lie dreaded the 
 proposals which his Ministei's might submit to him on 
 the subject of that Church. But, allowing that the 
 alarm was natural, the King would have acted more in 
 
ACCESSION OF QUEEN VICTOEIA. 187 
 
 conformity with prudence, precedent, and constitutional 
 usage, and with greater chance of success, if he had 
 allowed his Ministers to bring forward their proposals, 
 and had founded his opposition on the objections which 
 he and the country might entertain to their boldness and 
 subversive tendency. 
 
 The Queen who succeeded to the throne was a young 
 Princess only eighteen years of age, and therefore only 
 just entitled to wear the crown without a regency. Yet 
 Queen Victoria, conscious of her own love of truth and 
 justice, told her mother, the Duchess of Kent, that she 
 ascended the throne with'6ut alarm. She relied, in the 
 first place, on the loyal disposition and excellent char- 
 acter of the nation she was about to govern. She had 
 in her uncle. King Leopold of Belgium, and his organ, 
 Baron Stockmar, whose memoirs have lately been pub- 
 lished, access to the wisest and most prudent advice. 
 Her Minister, Lord Melbourne, whom she maintained in 
 office, submitted to her decision counsels the most con- 
 stitutional, free from any taint of self-interest or party 
 prejudice. As I held the position of Secretary of State 
 for the Home Department and leader of the Ministerial 
 party in the House of Commons, it was incumbent on 
 me to consider what was my duty to the Crown and to 
 the country. We all know the prayer for the High 
 Court of Parliament, to be read during their session, 
 that ' Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all 
 their consultations to the advancement of thy glory, the 
 good of thy Church, the safety, honor, and welfare of 
 our Sovereign and her dominions ; that all things may 
 be so ordered and settled by their endeavors, upon the 
 best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, 
 truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established 
 among us for all generations.' This is not a prayer 
 
188 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 * that all things may be so ordered and settled by their 
 endeavors, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, 
 religion and piety,* may endure for a quarter of a cen- 
 tury, or half a century, or even for a century, but ' that 
 they may be established among us for all generations.' 
 
 I had felt the value and efficacy of this prayer, and 
 had endeavored to observe its purport in the measures 
 I proposed and the language I held, as conductor of 
 the business of the Government for the Crown in the 
 House of Commons. But I could not disguise from 
 myself or from Parliament the knowledge that there 
 were in the House of Commons men who departed very 
 widely from those principles which, under the lead of 
 the Whig party, had maintained the House of Hanover 
 upon the throne, had promoted civil and religious 
 liberty, had allowed every man to woi-ship according 
 to the dictates of his own conscience, and which had 
 preserved among all changes loyalty to the Crown and 
 to the Constitution. 
 
 I could neither hear in silence nor abet the progress 
 of measures intended to destroy the aristocracy and up- 
 root the Church of England : my resistance was crowned 
 with success, and before the Ministry was changed, Mr. 
 Grote, Sir W. Moleswoi-th, and Mr. Charles Duller were 
 entirely discomfited. But Mr. Grote and Mr. Henry 
 "Warburton did not desert the principles of government 
 which they had embraced after reflection and inquiry. 
 The Poor Law Amendment Act, brought forward in 
 spite of popular dislike and the powerful opposition of 
 the * Times ' newspaper, which was neither scrupulous 
 nor temperate, was warmly supported by Mr. Grote. 
 It is thus noticed in the work entitled ' Personal Life 
 of George Grote ' : — 
 
 * The most important measure, however, brought for- 
 
PHILOSOPHICAL RADICALS. 189 
 
 ward during the session of 1834 was the Poor Law 
 Amendment Act ; perhaps the most creditable achieve- 
 ment of the Whig party. It was carried, after active 
 discussions and considerable opposition, by a large ma- 
 jority. I doubt whether, at any period since 1834, so 
 thorough and sound a change in our domestic machinery 
 could have been brought about. That it should at the 
 present time have become partially ineffective, is owing 
 to the altered tone of public opinion, on the character 
 of which, however, it is beside my province here to 
 enter.' ^ 
 
 The policy of the Philosophical Radicals at this time 
 is well defined in a letter of Mr. Henry Warburton's : — 
 
 ' Expression is to be given to public opinion, and the 
 Whigs are to be made to feel the force of it, in constit- 
 uencies, by keeping them constantly in a state of alarm 
 of being ousted by Radical competitors — in Parliament, 
 by occasional threats of being voted against by their 
 Radical allies. In a certain state of disquietude it is 
 our business always to keep them ; the pressure is to be 
 heightened or moderated according to circumstances, 
 and the magnitude and proximity of the objects we 
 hope to carry. But so long as there exists any material 
 difference in the weight of liberal measures which the 
 Whigs and Tories severally are willing to offer to us, 
 the highest bidder, if in possession, is not to be ousted 
 from the Government.' ^ 
 
 Mr. Warburton, usually called ' Philosopher Warbur- 
 ton,' acted loyally in support of the opinions here set 
 forth. I often saw him, and he did not grudge his 
 advice to the Government. In 1839, I think it was, he 
 
 1 'Personal Life of George Grote/ by Mrs. Grote, pp. 90-9 L 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 110. 
 
190 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 urged upon me the adoption by the Government of the 
 plan of penny-postage which had been made known to 
 the public by Mr. Rowland Ilill. I said I thought the 
 plan very ingenious, and likely to confer great benefits 
 upon the public, but that it would make a temporary 
 deficit in the revenue, which would probably require to 
 be filled up by new taxation. Mr. Warburton said that 
 a new tax was a great evil, and he hoped it would be 
 avoided. No further conversation passed at that time. 
 
 Unfortunately, the Government adopted both parts 
 of Mr. Warburton's advice. The Cabinet was unani- 
 mous in favor of the ingenious and popular plan of a 
 penny-postage ; but they ought to have enacted at the 
 same time such measures as would have secured a 
 revenue sufficient to defray the national expenditure. 
 Failing to do this, there was for three years together a 
 deficit, which exposed the Government to the powerful 
 reproaches and unanswerable objections of Sir Robert 
 Peel. Public opinion echoed those reproaches and those 
 objections, and produced such a degree of discontent 
 as was in itself a sufficient ground for a change of Ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 There was, however, another ground of party hos- 
 tility, which the Government were willing to provoke 
 and eager to encounter. The Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer had pointed out to the Cabinet that a large 
 revenue might be derived from the admission of foreign 
 sugar, giving, at the same time, the advantage of a pro- 
 tecting duty to the British Colonies. He likewise pro- 
 posed the admission of foreign timber on terms more 
 favorable than had hitherto been accorded. By one of 
 the clums}^ contrivances of the system of protection, the 
 timber of Norway was sent to Canada and brought back 
 to England, with a view to evade the high duty on 
 foreign timber. 
 
PROTECTION. 191 
 
 But there was another article which, since the year 
 1-815, had been a favorite object of protection — this 
 was corn. By the ingenious machinery of a sliding- 
 scale, corn was only admitted at a low duty when 
 British corn was at a high price, and was charged with 
 an enormous duty when British corn was cheap, or at 
 a moderate price in the market. 
 
 I pointed out to the Cabinet that, of all the griev- 
 ances inflicted upon the British consumer by the system 
 of monopoly and protection, that which arose from the 
 corn duties was the most grievous and oppressive. 
 Lord Grenville, in a memorable protest, had declared 
 that monopoly was the parent of dearness and of scarc- 
 ity. The best writers on political economy, several of 
 the highest statesmen and members of the House of 
 Commons, had argued powerfully for the repeal, or at 
 least modification, of the corn duties. 
 
 I proposed, not a total repeal, but, in accordance 
 with some of the best authorities, a moderate fixed 
 duty on the admission of foreign corn. 
 
 The whole project, however, raised a clamorous 
 uproar from West Indian planters. Colonial growers 
 of timber, and, above all, from the land-owners, farmers, 
 and agricultural laborers of England. 
 
 The Ministry were defeated by a majority of thirty- 
 six on their proposal with regard to sugar duties. The 
 Government resolved to dissolve Parliament. Sir 
 Robert Peel, who was not aware of the intention of 
 the Cabinet, then brought forward a vote of want of 
 confidence, which he carried, after a long debate, by a 
 majority of one. The general election, decided by the 
 constituent bodies of freeholders in the counties, and 
 10^. householders in boroughs, gave to Sir Robert Peel 
 a majority of ninety-one over the existing Ministry. 
 
192 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The Whig Ministers, however, thought it due to them- 
 selves and fair to the country to place on record their 
 intention, had they been successful in the general elec- 
 tion, to pursue the path of free trade, with regard to 
 corn, sugar, and timber, by making some immediate 
 reductions, thus opening the way to further changes 
 which would save the people at a future peiiod from 
 monopoly prices on behalf of the West Indian planters, 
 the Canadian producers of timber, and the land-owners 
 and farmers of England, who insisted upon prices of 
 sugar, timber, and corn sufiQcient to protect their own 
 interests. 
 
 It was thus that, as the patrons and favorers of pro- 
 tection, in reference to sugar, timber, and corn, the 
 Tory Ministry accepted office in September, 1841. 
 
FREE TRADE. 193 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 1846. 
 
 HIS RESIG- 
 NATION IN 1846. — TRIUMPH OF FREE TRADE. 
 
 The faults which led to the fall of the Whig Ministry 
 in 1841, and the causes which led to the election of a 
 great majority ready to support Sir Robert Peel as a 
 Minister — a majority of not less than ninety-one — are 
 sufficiently known. Lord Melbourne's Government 
 had committed the error of conferring a benefit on the 
 people by lowering the duty on letters to one penny, 
 without at the same time making adequate provision 
 to supply the temporary deficiency in the public income. 
 Sir Robert Peel was not slow to perceive and to take 
 advantage of this error, but in laying down the princi- 
 ples by which his Government was to be guided he 
 neglected the demands which were sure to be made 
 upon him for a repeal or reduction of the duties on 
 corn, sugar, and timber. When, iii the course of the 
 following session, a great number of manufacturers and 
 tradesmen came to me to complain of the abolition of 
 protection, I remember that, among others, a bootmaker 
 said, ' I work very hard all the week, but only on one 
 day of the week can I afford for my wife and myself a 
 dish of meat for dinner. It is very hard that I should 
 be deprived of protection for my trade, while the great 
 owners of land have the fullest protection for the corn 
 
 13 
 
194 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 which their tenants produce.' I could only say that I 
 could not give him hope of immediate relief, but that 
 the protection given to corn was a grievance so palpable 
 and so enormous that the House of Commons could not 
 long leave him without a remedy. 
 
 This defect made, in fact, the weakness of Sir Robert 
 Peel's position — a defect of which one of his colleagues, 
 Lord Aberdeen, was fully sensible. 
 
 On the part of the Whigs, I had declared my inten- 
 tion of proposing a fixed duty on corn. This was 
 likewise an error. Cobden and Bright proposed the 
 only natural course, that of a total repeal of the duties 
 on corn. But the Whig country gentlemen were not 
 prepared for so bold a measure. 
 
 I have already remarked that the Tory party made 
 a great mistake, when, in 1815, the war being over, and 
 the power of Napoleon, for a time at least, extinguished, 
 they did not entirely change their policy, and, instead 
 of keeping up the defence and promotion of measures 
 which war alone could justify, and which the influence 
 of Pitt caused to prevail in the House of Commons, 
 they did not consider wisely, liberally, and maturely 
 what was the policy which in days of peace might be 
 expected to prevail in Parliament and in the nation. 
 
 Pitt himself, from 1784 to 1792, had espoused large 
 and popular principles ; he had, in 1782, and even so 
 late as 1786, proposed parliamentary reform. In 1786 
 he gave his sanction, by a treaty of commerce with 
 France, to those principles of free trade which he had 
 imbibed from Adam Smith. Even during the war, by 
 combining the admission of Roman Catholics to oflBee 
 and to Parliament with the measures rendered neces- 
 sary for the Union, he gave his solemn and deliberate 
 sanction to the principle of religious liberty. 
 
POLICY OF PEACE. 195 
 
 A statesman who could approve of parliariientary re- 
 form, however mitigated, of free trade, however modi- 
 fied, and of religious liberty, howevei^- guarded, cannot 
 be esteemed other than a Liberal politician. But, as 
 Canning truly said, the gpe^t' bulk of the Tory party, 
 professing to worship Pitt, adored him as the Pagans of 
 the East adore the sun — only in his eclipse. 
 
 In 1817, Lord Castlereagh advised Parliament to sus- 
 pend the Habeas Corpus Act. But, as Sir Samuel 
 Romilly well remarked, the measure that was well 
 fitted to defeat a few secret conspirators was entirely 
 out of place as a weapon with which to contend against 
 the discontented mass of a nation. 
 
 The Tory policy from 1819 to 1829 was in conform- 
 ity with inspirations of Tory prejudice. In 1829, the 
 Roman Catholic claims were conceded, but they were 
 conceded rather to avert the danger of civil war than 
 as a homage to the great principle of religious liberty. 
 The Tory party still clung to the maintenance of the 
 exclusive and intolerant Protestant Church of Ireland ; 
 to the exclusion, by heavy duties, of foreign corn ; to 
 the refusal of parliamentary reform ; to the refusal of 
 admission of even the highest of the working-classes to 
 the privilege of giving votes for the choice of repre- 
 sentatives in Parliament. 
 
 It is true that by fits and starts, when public opinion 
 has been too strong for them, the Tory party, in the 
 disguise of Conservatives, have made large concessions. 
 In 1829, Sir Robert Peel, after a long and fruitless 
 battle, in the course of which he contended that those 
 who held the doctrine of transubstantiation were unfit 
 to sit in Parliament, admitted the Roman Catholics to 
 legislative and ministerial power. In 1846, the same 
 Sir Robert Peel ceased to defend the Corn-laws, which 
 
1§6_ RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 he had upi^eld from the time of his entrance into Par- 
 liament. In 1865, Mr. Disraeli, who had succeeded to 
 the lead of the Tory party, and had applauded the 
 House of Commons for having refused to degrade the 
 suffrage, seemed prepared still to defend the entrench- 
 ments of 1831. But in the folio wiog year he gave up 
 the whole question, and lowered the franchise, not, as 
 his predecessors had proposed, by a gradual widening 
 of the gate of admission, but by a jump — which was 
 called by his chief and master a leap in the dark — to 
 all the householders in the towns. It remained to be 
 considered whether a great party which shared, with 
 the Whigs and Radicals, the representation of England, 
 which has for many years asked for and enjoyed the 
 confidence of hundreds of thousands of its people, is 
 entitled to retain that confidence, on the ground that it 
 has violated all its pledges, renounced its most cherished 
 principles, and exposed the country to dangers at which 
 it affected to be seriously alarmed, and whether, on the 
 plea of its ability and dexterity, it shall govern the 
 country on principles for the profession of which it held 
 up its adversaries to odium at each recurring session, 
 and shall obtain followers on the ground that there are 
 still some principles to which it is sincerely attached, 
 and which neither the clamor of a mob nor the prospect 
 of power and office will induce it to abandon. 
 
 Experience, so far as it has gone, shows that public 
 opinion is unfavorable to these sudden turns of policy, 
 and to the relinquishment of doctrines wliich had been 
 professed for years, enforced by all the cogency of argu- 
 ment, and illustrated by all the splendor of eloquence. 
 It is to be noted that these great concessions of prin- 
 ciple, hitherto a mark of Tory policy, have not beeu 
 approved by the nation. 
 
CHANGES OF TORY POLICY. 197 
 
 In 1829, Sir Robert Peel yielded the Roman Catholic 
 claims. In 1830, the House of Commons changed the 
 Ministry. In 1846, Sir Robert Peel gave up the Corn- 
 laws. In the same year the House of Commons refused 
 him their confidence, and the Ministry was changed. 
 In 1867, Mr. Disraeli gave up his opposition to further 
 reform, and, to use his own phrase, ' degraded the suf- 
 frage ' to household voters. But, in 1868, upon a dis- 
 solution of Parliament, his Ministry was so thoroughly 
 discomfited that he retired from office without waiting 
 for a Parliamentary defeat. 
 
 Thus, it appears that either the House of Commons 
 or the nation at large have used their power of rejection 
 to condemn Ministers who, after long resistance, have 
 conceded measures which for many years they had 
 represented in their speeches as treason to their country, 
 as outrage to all principle, and as destruction to the 
 party of which they were the leaders. On what ground 
 has this Parliamentary and popular withdrawal of con- 
 fidence been pronounced? Lord Cottenham, a direct 
 man and a straightforward statesman, expressed to me 
 his opinion on Sir Robert Peel's assent to the repeal of 
 the Corn-laws. 'Either,' he said, 'Sir Robert Peel 
 foresaw the necessity of giving up his opposition to the 
 repeal of the Corn-laws, or he did not. If he foresaw 
 it, he was wanting in honesty when he persevered in 
 his opposition. If he did not foresee it, he was want- 
 ing in wisdom, and is not fit to be intrusted with the 
 supreme direction of this great Empire.' 
 
 The House of Commons in two instances, and the 
 electors of the House of Commons in a third instance, 
 have confirmed the logical conclusion of Lord Cotten- 
 ham, and have withdrawn their confidence from Minis- 
 ters who had made themselves remarkable by reprobation 
 
198 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 of all the doctrines on the maintenance of which they 
 paraded their claims to confidence. It must be admit- 
 ted, however, that a time of condonation comes, and I 
 could not refuse assistance to Sir Robert Peel in 1846 
 on the sole ground of his change of opinion. 
 
 I did not, therefore, act on this ground alone, in 
 voting against the Protection of Life Bill, introduced 
 by Sir Robert Peel's Government in 1846 ; but I ob- 
 jected to the bill on Irish grounds. I then thought, 
 and I still think, that it is wrong to arrest men and 
 to put them in prison on the ground that they may be 
 murderers and house-breakers. They may be, on the 
 other hand, honest laborers going home from their work. 
 I think every means should be adopted for discovering 
 the perpetrators of crime and bringing them to justice. 
 I think that for this purpose it is right to give the 
 majority of a jury power to convict, upon sufficient 
 evidence, a man accused of murder. But I do not 
 think that it is right to send a man to prison upon 
 evidence that he has been out at night without any 
 further offence. The Ministry of Sir Robert Peel 
 were defeated in 1846 by a majority of more than 
 seventy on the second reading of the Bill for the Pro- 
 tection of Life in Ireland. Her Majesty was pleased 
 to intrust to me the task of foiming a new Ministry. 
 I endeavored to obtain the assistance of Lord Dal- 
 housie, Lord Lincoln, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Fail- 
 ing in that attempt, I had to consider whether I could 
 propose a junction with the party which hud deserted 
 Sir Robert Peel on account of his repeal of the Corn- 
 laws, but neither principle nor prudence would allow 
 me to do so. It was on account of our adherence to 
 the policy of free trade that we had been driven out 
 of office in 1841, and the only course which I could 
 
NEW MINISTRY. 199 
 
 honestly pursue was to go forward with measures ex- 
 tending the principles of commercial policy to which 
 Sir Robert Peel had now given his assent. But I 
 could have no hope of the assistance of the protection- 
 ists in such a policy. I therefore, after a long and 
 friendly conference with the Duke of Beaufort, declined 
 to ask for the assistance of his friends in the formation 
 of a new Ministry. In the Administration which I 
 then formed, I assumed the ofSce of First Lord of the 
 Treasury, Lord Cottenham became Lord Chancellor, 
 Lord Lansdowne, President of the Council, and Sir 
 George Grey, Home Secretary ; Lord Palmerston, For- 
 eign Secretary ; Earl Grey, Colonial Secretary ; Mr. 
 Charles Wood, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Lord 
 Clarendon, President of the Board of Trade ; and Mr. 
 Macaulay, who did not like to accept any office which 
 would divert him from his literary work. Paymaster 
 of the Forces. Mr. Shell was Master of the Mint ; Sir 
 John Jervis, Attorney-General ; Mr. Dundas, Solicitor- 
 General ; the Earl of Bessborough, Lord Lieutenant of 
 Ireland ; and Mr. Labouchere, Chief Secretarj'^ to the 
 Lord Lieutenant. 
 
 One of the first questions I undertook to settle was 
 that of the admission of foreign sugar, on which I had 
 been so signally defeated in 1841. But on July 28, 
 1846, when Lord George Bentinck proposed not to go 
 into Committee of Ways and Means on the sugar duty, 
 the ayes, who, with Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Goulburn, 
 Lord Lincoln, and Mr. Sidney Herbert, voted in our 
 support, were 265 ; while the noes, led by Lord George 
 Bentinck and Mr. Disraeli, were only 130. The bill 
 I then introduced was far more favorable to the admis- 
 sion of foreign sugar than that which had been rejected 
 in 1841. 
 
200 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The monopoly which had been enjoyed in favor of 
 Colonial sugar having thus failed, it was obvious that 
 the progress of free trade would have the active sup- 
 port of Sir Robert Peel and his friends. Sir Robert, 
 after the fall of his Ministry, behaved to me and to 
 my Administration in the most fair and honorable man- 
 ner. Sir James Graham likewise gave his important 
 and valuable support to the cause of free trade when- 
 ever its principles were in question. In 1848, on the 
 proposal to repeal the Navigation Laws, which Adam 
 Smith held ought to be an exception to his theory, the 
 speech of Sir James Graham was the best that was 
 made for the repeal. In fact, Sir Robert Peel and his 
 friends devoted all their energies to the promotion of 
 free trade, and gave their handsome support to the 
 Ministers who had now become the leaders and chiefs 
 in that great cause. 
 
 I may take this opportunity of adverting to the 
 progress of free trade, to the caution with which it 
 was first proposed as a principle to guide our policy, 
 the bitterness with which it was assailed, the triumphs 
 it has won, the benefits it has conferred upon the coun- 
 try, the refutation experience has given to all the 
 arguments by which it was opposed, the prosperity it 
 has introduced into our finance, and the prospect it 
 gives that trade will spread over the world its powerful 
 and beneficent influence. 
 
 It is bare justice to acknowledge that Mr. Huskisson 
 and Mr. Canning were the first to make a breach in 
 the wall of prohibition and protection, which was de- 
 fended with so much obstinacy by the old Tory party, 
 and by many prejudiced Whigs. The proposal of Mr. 
 Huskisson in regard to silk goods was apparently modest 
 and timid : he proposed that after three yeai*s' interval 
 
FREE TRADE. 201 
 
 the prohibition of foreign silk goods should be ex- 
 changed for a duty of thirty per cent ad valorem, 
 Mr. Huskisson was attacked, not only with argument, 
 but with invective, as a man whose proposal of ad- 
 mission of foreign silks, on any terms, proved him to 
 have a bad heart. It was in vain that Mr. Canning 
 declared that those who opposed improvement because 
 it was innovation would have to submit to innovation 
 which was no improvement. I had the satisfaction, 
 with Mr. Brougham and many others, of assisting in 
 the triumph of Mr. Huskisson over prejudice and igno- 
 rance. Mr. Huskisson came to the Commons one day, 
 with a small octavo volume in his hand, which he was 
 proud to declare contained the whole tariff of customs' 
 duty left existing on the statute-book. The Reform 
 Act of 1832 was favorable to enlightened views of 
 commercial policy, and opened the way to further re- 
 forms. Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright obtained seats in 
 the House of Commons, the former for Yorkshire, the 
 latter for the city of Durham. My Whig friends, who 
 represented counties, alarmed at the proposal of sub- 
 jecting corn to a fixed duty of no more than eight 
 shillings, contributed to the defeat of the Ministry, by 
 a vote of want of confidence, in 1841. The leaders of 
 the Whigs advised me, in 1845, not to vote for a total 
 repeal of the Corn-laws ; but domestic affairs having 
 taken me to Edinburgh, I there wrote a letter to my 
 constituents, declaring myself in favor of total repeal, 
 which produced a great effect. Mr. Cobden and Mr. 
 Bright, sacrificing their health for the public good, 
 obtained in that year, for the first time, the adherence 
 of the working-classes. The ' Times ' newspaper pro- 
 claimed that the Anti-Corn-Law League was a great 
 fact. 
 
202 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel proposed that the duty on corn 
 should be reduced to one shilling per quarter, which 
 amounted to about two per cent on the current price 
 of wheat. I considered myself bound to carry on the 
 march of the free trade army against monopolies in 
 favor of Colonial sugar, of Canadian timber, and of 
 English ships. Lord Derby predicted that this last 
 concession to free trade would utterly ruin the mer- 
 chant-shipping of England. An English ship-builder, 
 who had defended with perseverance the monopoly of 
 England, showed his spirit by immediately ordering 
 the building of twelve new ships for the mercantile 
 marine. 
 
 The progress of free trade has been constant, vic- 
 torious, and irresistible. 
 
 It was supposed, and boldly asserted, that the ex- 
 change of high duties on foreign manufactures would 
 destro}*" the revenue of customs and excise. The re- 
 turns of the revenue for the year ending on December 
 31, 1873, sufficiently prove the fallacy of this expec- 
 tation. It was expected that on the 31st of March, 
 1874, a surplus of upwards of five millions would 
 exhibit the flourishing state of our finances. Men who 
 consult the Parliamentary history of England from 
 1823 to 1873 will rejoice to acknowledge that the most 
 enlightened members of our Parliament, the Liberal 
 Tories of 1846, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Sidney Herbert, 
 Sir James Graham, and Lord Aberdeen, together with 
 the Whigs, who for half a century have held the posi- 
 tion of her Majesty's Ministers and lier Majesty's Oppo- 
 sition, together with Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, and 
 many Radical members of the House of Commons, 
 have labored to destroy the restrictions which fettered 
 British industry and British trade, and have thereby 
 
FREE TRADE. 203 
 
 conferred immense benefits on their country. An old 
 French merchant said to Colbert, when he was impos- 
 ing restrictions on the entry of Dutch manufactures, 
 and thereby cramping the silk manufactures of France, 
 ' Laissez faire et laissez passer ^^ meaning thereby that 
 he should not prescribe the length and breadth of the 
 loom, or impose penalties on workmen who did not 
 adhere to the ministerial measurement ; that he should 
 not forbid the entry of Dutch toys into France, or in- 
 directly discourage the exportation of French wines to 
 Holland. 
 
 These facts, which have been much misunderstood, 
 contain the very simple secret of free trade. In speak- 
 ing to my constituents of the city of London of the 
 repeal of the Corn-laws, I said that it was barbarous to 
 prevent the manufacturer of Lancashire from sending 
 his yard of cotton cloth to Ohio, or to prevent the 
 farmer in Ohio from sending his bushel of corn to Lan- 
 cashire. 
 
 Nor can I foresee a time when the British manufact- 
 urer will no longer find a market for his goods in other 
 parts of the world. The population of Great Britain is 
 so cabined, cribbed, confined to the land of the British 
 Isles, that our manufacturing towns will always be very 
 populous, and there will exist for a long time vast ter- 
 ritories in North and South America, in the plains of 
 Buenos Ayres, in the hills and dales of Australia and 
 New Zealand, where herds of cattle may find plentiful , 
 pasture, and the grower of corn receive an ample re- 
 muneration for his labor. The evil genius of protection 
 may prevail in the Senate and the Congress of the United 
 States, may animate selfish parties in the Legislatures of 
 the British Colonies, but these obstacles must be over- 
 come. Poets have sung the advantages of trade. Vir- 
 
204 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 gil has said, that on one soil the growth of com may 
 flourish, and that on another the grape will find its 
 proper nutriment: 'Hie segetes, illic veniunt felicius 
 uvae.' Waller has said, speaking of English com- 
 merce : — 
 
 The taste of hot Arabia's spice we know, 
 Free from the scorching sun that makes it grow ; 
 Without the worm, in Persian silks we shine ; 
 And, without planting, drink of every wine.^ 
 
 Pope, in a later age, has said : — 
 
 The time shall come when, free as seas or wind, 
 Unbounded Thames shall flow for all mankind ; 
 Whole nations enter with each swelling tide, 
 And seas but join the nations they divide. 
 
 Man has contrived, not only by sanguinary wars, but 
 by the poison of commercial duties and vexatious pro- 
 hibitions in time of peace, to bar the intercourse between 
 nations. It belongs to benevolent humanity and friendly 
 policy to find a remedy for these evils, to make the com- 
 mandment, ' to fill the world,' the source of new bless- 
 ings, and forge a chain of love which shall unite all the 
 races of mankind. 
 
 1 * Panegyric to my Lord Protector.* 
 
PHILOSOPHICAL RADICALS. 205 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 DEFEAT OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL RADICALS. — SUP- 
 PRESSION OF THE CHARTIST RIOTS, 1848. 
 
 Questions still more urgent, if not more important, 
 than those debated in 1846 were agitated in 1848. 
 A strong attack was made hj the Economists, headed 
 by Mr. Hume, and by the Philosophers, led by Sir 
 William Molesworth, upon the expenditure of the 
 State. The motion made by Mr. Hume on the 25th 
 of February was exceedingly vague ; it was to this 
 effect : — 
 
 ' That it is expedient that the expenditure of the 
 country should be reduced, not only to render an increase 
 of taxation in this session unnecessary, but that the 
 expenditure should be further reduced as speedily as 
 possible, to admit of a reduction of the present large 
 amount of taxation.' 
 
 The circumstances in which this motion was brought 
 forward were somewhat critical for me. During the 
 winter I had been afflicted with an illness which, 
 although not alarming, was a warning to me to be cau- 
 tious in regard to my health. My medical adviser in-' 
 sisted on my having rest and change of air. I went to 
 St. Leonards, and after a few days' repose there returned, 
 much restored, to London with Charles Buller. 
 
 I spoke in the debate on Hume's motion, and said 
 'that among the opponents of the Government were 
 
206 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 some who wished to see the prevalence of low establish- 
 ments, low estimates, and low views.' On a division 
 the majority who supported the Government were one 
 hundred and fifty-seven, the noes in the minority, fifty- 
 nine ; giving a majority of ninety-eight in favor of the 
 Government. In the majority were Mr. Gladstone, Sir 
 James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel ; in the minority 
 were Sir William Molesworth, Mr. Bright, and Mr. 
 Cobden. Most people felt that the majority of ninety- 
 eight showed the adherence of the House of Commons 
 to the cause of constitutional freedom, hereditary mon- 
 archy, and national independence. The Opposition 
 received the support of members who were not really 
 their allies, but the undisguised abettors of violence, 
 anarchy, and disorder. This question requires further 
 elucidation. 
 
 The events on the Continent, in the early part of this 
 year, were striking and calamitous. In Paris, King 
 Louis Philippe, who had reigned for eighteen years, was 
 compelled to abdicate, and a Republic was, by popular 
 violence, installed at the Hotel de Ville. At Vienna, 
 the Imperial Government was overthrown, and the 
 leaders of the mob, whom Prince Windischgriitz styled 
 * la canaille,^ were substituted for the regular author- 
 ities. In Prussia, the garrison of Berlin was ordered by 
 the King to withdraw from the capital ; and the King's 
 brother, the present Emperor of Germany, sought in 
 Buckingham Palace a place of refuge. 
 
 In London, threats of disorder and announcements 
 of an impending revolution were not wanting. It was 
 reported that Count Metternich, whose mind was intent 
 upon all the movements of the machine he had so long 
 directed, said, at his whist-table, that of all the revolu- 
 tions threatening Europe, the most violent and destmc- 
 
CHARTISTS. 207 
 
 tive would be that of England, giving as his reason that 
 Jacobinism had already done its worst to a great extent 
 in France, Austria, Prussia, and Italy, but that in Eng- 
 land the Church and the aristocracy had immense rev- 
 enues still untouched, and ready to be the spoil of the 
 ravenous democracy which was working its will over 
 the European monarchies. It was proclaimed that a 
 petition containing three millions of signatures would be 
 presented to the House of Commons, and that a numer- 
 ous assemblage, followed by multitudes of the people of 
 London, would accompany the bearers of this petition 
 to the House of Commons. 
 
 My first notion was, that the bearers of the petition, 
 with their sympathizers, might be allowed to cross 
 Westminster Bridge, and after delivering their petition 
 at the doors of Parliament, might be turned off by the 
 police to Charing Cross and the Stra.nd. But a friend 
 of mine, of great experience and acknowledged sagacity, 
 deemed that there was some danger in this course, and 
 that a better measure of precaution would be to prevent 
 the expected crowd from crossing the bridges. Per- 
 ceiving the wisdom of this advice, I requested the 
 Commissioners of Police, Sir Charles Rowan and Sir 
 Richard Mayne, to prepare a programme of proceedings 
 for the appointed day, the 10th of April, and to attend 
 a Cabinet fixed for a previous day. I requested the 
 Duke of Wellington also to do me the favor to attend 
 the Cabinet. 
 
 When the Cabinet met. Sir George Grey, the Home 
 Secretary, being fully prepared for the duties incumbent 
 upon him, I asked Sir Charles Rowan to read the pro- 
 gramme proposed by the Commissioners of Police. 
 When he had done reading, I asked the Duke of 
 Wellington if the arrangement appeared to him to be 
 
208 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 judicious, and I had the good fortune to obtain the 
 approbation of that great man. It was understood that 
 the troops to be brought to London were to be kept out 
 of sight, and that no military force was to appear unless 
 action on their part should be absolutely necessary. 
 On the evening of April 9 I received two anonjnnous 
 letters, which convinced me that the leaders of the 
 movement, either hopeless of success or awed by our 
 preparations, had renounced any intention of using 
 physical force. 
 
 Accordingly, on the 10th of April, great numbers 
 having gone from every part of the town to Kennington 
 Common, Sir Richard Mayne went on horseback to the 
 scene of action. He told a policeman to go to Fergus 
 O'Connor, who had taken up his position on a magnifi- 
 cent car, and request him to descend from his height 
 and come to his stirrup on foot. The part of the mob 
 which surrounded the car remonstrated with Fergus 
 O'Connor, and desired him not to attend to the message. 
 O'Connor called out to his followers, ' Be silent, you 
 fools ; don't say a word to prevent my going to my best 
 friend. Sir Richard Mayne.' He then descended from 
 his seat and went to Sir Richard Mayne, who told him 
 that he could go no further, but that if he would de- 
 liver the petition to the police, a cab should be furnished 
 to three of the petitioners, who, if unaccompanied by 
 any force, might cross Westminster Bridge in safety 
 and deliver the petition at the door of the House of 
 Commons. After this every thing was quiet. No great 
 numbers followed the cab which contained the petition ; 
 there was no mob at the door of the House of Com- 
 mons, and London escaped the fate of Paris, Berlin, and 
 Vienna. For my own part, I saw in these proceedings 
 a fresh proof that the people of England were satisfied 
 
REPEAL OF THE NAVIGATION LAWS. 209 
 
 with the government under which they had the happi- 
 ness to live, did not wish to be instructed by their 
 neighbors in the principles of freedom, and did not 
 envy them either the liberty they had enjoyed under 
 Robespierre or the order which had been established 
 among them by Napoleon the Great. 
 
 On May 8, 1849, the bill for the repeal of the Naviga- 
 tion Laws was read a second time in the House of Lords 
 by a majority of ten. In the majority were the Duke of 
 Wellington, the Earl of Aberdeen, and the Earl of Ripon. 
 There were likewise three archbishops and eleven bish- 
 ops, while in the minority there were only six bishops, 
 making a majority of eight of the archbishops and bish- 
 0]ps out of the total majority of ten. 
 
 I had on this occasion, as on many others, the advan- 
 tage of the support of the House of Lords, which I 
 should not have received if I had introduced into the 
 House of Commons measures of a more radical com- 
 plexion. If, for instance, I had coupled with the pro- 
 posals of the Government a bill affecting the Irish 
 Protestant Church, I should have encountered the 
 hostility of the whole Tory majority in the House of 
 Lords upon those measures, and should probably have 
 been defeated by the Earl of Derby, who made a vigor- 
 ous and powerful speech against the repeal of the Navi- 
 gation Laws. 
 
 My enemies, of course, pointed with the satisfaction 
 of spite at the absence of measures of a more decided 
 stamp, such as the admission of a larger number of the 
 working-classes to the mass of electors, and the reduc- 
 tion of the revenuea of the Church of Ireland. But 
 there are times when it is prudent for Whigs, moderate 
 Tories, and Radicals to join in measures of reform and 
 progress, upon which they can agree, and to leave for a 
 
 14 
 
210 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 more favorable season measures of progress for which 
 there is only a slender majority in the House of Com- 
 mons, and upon which they are sure to be defeated in 
 the House of Lords. The Tory party is sometimes rep- 
 resented as obstructing every step in political progress. 
 But this is not so. In a speech in the city of London, 
 I described the Liberal party, alluding chiefly to the 
 Whigs, as anxious to reform and to preserve, while I 
 described the Tories as desirous to preserve and to 
 reform. The cause of truth and justice gains nothing 
 by unfair exaggerations. The names of Pitt, Huskis- 
 son. Canning, Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and 
 Mr. Gladstone, must always be inscribed with honor in 
 the annals of free trade. 
 
 I do not think it necessary to enter into any minute 
 explanation of my reasons for introducing a bill for the 
 Prevention of the Assumption of Ecclesiastical Titles by 
 Prelates appointed by the Pope. The object of that 
 bill was merely to assert the supremacy of the Crown. 
 It was never intended to prosecute any Roman Cathohc 
 bishops who did not act in glaring and ostentatious defi- 
 ance of the Queen's title to the Crown. Accordingly, 
 a very clever artist represented me in a caricature as a 
 boy who had chalked up * No Popery * upon a wall and 
 then run away. This was a very fair joke. In fact, I 
 wanted to place the assertion of the Queen's title to 
 appoint bishops on the statute-book, and there leave it. 
 I kept in the hands of the Crown the discretion to pros- 
 ecute or not any offensive denial of the Queen's rights. 
 My purpose was fully answered. Those who wished to 
 give the Pope the right of appointing bishops in England 
 opposed the bill. When my object had been gained, I 
 had no objection to the repeal of the Act. 
 
 During my temporary resignation of office, which took 
 
LORD PALMERSTON. 211 
 
 place in the month of February, 1851, on the question 
 of Mr. Locke King's motion for an alteration of the 
 county franchise, Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham 
 endeavored to persuade me not to persevere with the 
 bill, but to be satisfied with Parliamentary resolutions 
 asserting the rights of the Crown. I did not like to 
 retire from the position I had assumed. But in sub- 
 stance the course suggested by Lord Aberdeen would 
 have been as effectual and less offensive than that which 
 I adopted. 
 
 A more serious question arose with respect to Lord 
 Palmerston's conduct as Secretary for Foreign Affairs. 
 Baron Stockmar, whose memoirs have been published, 
 seems to have acquiesced in the opinion that my conduct 
 on that occasion was dilatory and undecided. My own 
 judgment upon it is that it was hasty and precipitate. I 
 ought to have seen Lord Palmerston, and I think I 
 could, without difficulty, have induced him to make a 
 proper submission to her Majesty's wishes, and agree to 
 act in conformity with conditions to which he had already 
 given his assent. I felt it to be my duty to declare the 
 political connection between Lord Palmerston and my- 
 self to be dissolved. But I felt at the same time that 
 my Government was so much weakened that it was not 
 likely to retain power for any long time. 
 
 Accordingly, I took the first opportunity to resign 
 office. On February 23, 1852, I announced the resig- 
 nation of the Ministry in the House of Commons. Just 
 before the resignation. Lord Naas made a violent attack 
 on Lord Clarendon, which I thought it my duty to rebut 
 in the strongest language. On a division, the ayes 
 were 137, and the noes 229 ; majority, 92. 
 
 Mr. Tierney used to say, as the fruit of his experience, 
 that it was very difficult for a member of the House of 
 
212 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Commons to attain high office, but that it was still 
 more difficult to leave high office with credit on suffi- 
 cient grounds. The latter is, in fact, the more difficult 
 operation of the two. I cannot say that in breaking up 
 my own Administration, or in leaving Lord Aberdeen's 
 Administration, or in leaving office in 1865, 1 have been 
 satisfied with the reasons which determined me to give 
 up the high position in which I had been placed by my 
 Sovereign. 
 
 It may not be any loss to the reader if I give, in the 
 next chapter, some observations on the course of the 
 Executive Government of England since the Great Rev- 
 olution of 1688. 
 
i UNIVERSITY j( 
 LEADERS IN THE ROVSW^^t^f^OjUkoHiS. 213 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. — CHOICE 
 OF LEADERS. 
 
 Lord Macaulay has, in his review of the conduct of 
 William Pitt, made a remark of so much importance, 
 coming from such a man, that, if it be erroneous or 
 overcharged, it ought not to be left without comment. 
 I will give his remarks in full : — 
 
 ' Parliamentary government, like every other contriv- 
 ance of man, has its advantages and its disadvantages. 
 On the advantages there is no need to dilate. The his- 
 tory of England during the one hundred and seventy 
 years which have elapsed since the House of Commons 
 became the most powerful body in the State ; her im- 
 mense and still growing prosperity ; her freedom, her 
 tranquillity, her greatness in arts, in sciences, and in 
 arms ; her maritime ascendency, the marvels of her pub- 
 lic credit, her American, her African, her Australian, 
 her Asiatic Empires, sufficiently prove the excellence of 
 her institutions. But those institutions, though excellent, 
 are assuredly not perfect. Parliamentary government 
 is government by speaking. In such a government, the 
 power of speaking is the most highly prized of all the 
 qualities which a politician can possess ; and that power 
 may exist in the highest degree, without judgment, 
 without fortitude, without skill in reading the charac- 
 ters of men or the signs of the times, without any 
 
214 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 knowledge of the principles of legislation or of political 
 economy, and without any skill in diplomacy or in the 
 administration of war. Nay, it may well happen that 
 those very intellectual qualities which give a peculiar 
 charm to the speeches of a public man may be incom- 
 patible with the qualities which would fit him to meet a 
 pressing emergency with promptitude and firmness. It 
 was thus with Charles Townshend. It was thus with 
 Windham. It was a privilege to listen to those accom- 
 plished and ingenious orators. But in a perilous crisis 
 they would have been found far inferior in all the quali- 
 ties of rulers to such a man as Oliver Cromwell, who 
 talked nonsense, or as William the Silent, who did not 
 talk at all. When Parliamentary government is estab- 
 lished, a Charles Townshend or a Windham will almost 
 always exercise much greater influence than such men 
 as the great Protector of England, or as the Founder 
 of the Batavian Commonwealth.* ^ 
 
 From long experience in the House of Commons, I 
 think I am entitled to say that in these remarks Ma- 
 caulay is greatly mistaken. Charles Townshend and 
 William Windham were listened to in the House of 
 Commons with delight and applause. But there are 
 other qualities which the House of Commons more im- 
 peratively requires. They require that the speaker who 
 assumes to lead them should be himself persuaded that 
 the course he recommends will prove beneficial to the 
 country. Mr. Windham was unstable and irresolute. 
 He said one day to Lord Henry Petty, who was sitting 
 beside him, towards the end of his speech, * Which way 
 did I say I would vote ? * Such a man can never lead 
 the House of Commons. Lord Castlereagh was a very 
 
 1 Macaulay's ' Review of William Pitt.* 
 
PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT. 215 
 
 tiresome, involved, and obscure speaker ; Lord Althorp 
 was without any powers of oratory ; yet I never knew 
 two men who had more influence in the House of Com- 
 mons than Lord Castlereagh and Lord Althorp. There 
 are qualities which govern men, such as sincerity, and 
 a conviction on the part of the hearers that the Minister 
 is a man to be trusted, which have more to do with in- 
 fluence over the House of Commons than the most 
 brilliant flights of fancy and the keenest wit. 
 
 Macaulay goes on to say that 'from the Book of 
 Dignities a curious list might be made out of Chancel- 
 lors ignorant of the principles of equity, and First Lords 
 of the Admiralty ignorant of the principles of naviga- 
 tion.' Yet there are other qualities which Lord Spencer 
 and Lord Melville possessed, such as decision and calm- 
 ness in days of peril, and power to enforce their own 
 persuasion upon others, which, proceeding from men 
 ignorant of the principles of navigation, have done 
 much to augment the British Empire, to promote British 
 prosperity, to avert danger from our shores, to make 
 our wars successful and our treaties honorable. 
 
 My grandfather. Lord Torrington, told me that the 
 first William Pitt sent a message to the Admiralty that 
 the Channel fleet must sail on the Tuesday following. 
 The Board of Admiralty answered, that it was impossi- 
 ble that the fleet could be ready by Tuesday. Mr. Pitt 
 rejoined, that in that case he should recommend to the 
 King to name a new Board of Admiralty. The Channel 
 fleet sailed on the Tuesday, and perhaps this was the 
 occasion when a great victory was gained on the coast 
 of France. 
 
 It would not be difficult, by going over our Parlia- 
 mentary history from the Revolution of 1688 to the 
 present time, to show that the policy pursued has nob 
 
216 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 been a policy recommended merely by flashy or lively 
 orators, but one adopted, from time to time, wisely or 
 unwisely, in accordance with national views, and aimed 
 at some intelligible object. Never did an expedition 
 leave the English shores with more pomp of preparation, 
 with higher expectation of great achievement, than the 
 Walcheren expedition. Never was an expedition worse 
 commanded, or attended with more disastrous failure. 
 Yet, after a long inquiry, the House of Commons re- 
 jected a vote of censure upon the Ministers who directed 
 the expedition. Mr. Elliot, of Wells, told me that, 
 according to his belief, the House of Commons, in re- 
 jecting the censure, rightly interpreted the wishes of 
 the country. The fact I believe to have been, that the 
 country looked upon the contest with France as a con- 
 test of life and death, and was ready to forgive any 
 error, except that of shrinking from the sacrifices re- 
 quired to prevent Napoleon from being as much the 
 conqueror of England as he was the master of Europe. 
 Such, then, is the British House of Commons. In 
 its worst days, when Addington was its Prime Minister, 
 and the country gentlemen were supposed by a satirist 
 to exclaim, — 
 
 They think we're honest, for they know we're dull, . 
 
 the heart of Britain was sound, and Lord llawkesbuiy 
 refused, with becoming pride, to listen to the dictation 
 of the great tyrant. 
 
 The House of Commons likes a man who can be 
 trusted ; that is to say, whose honesty is not questioned, 
 and whose common sense can be expected to guide him 
 at a moment of difficulty. 
 
 A review of political affairs from 1701 to 1800, or 
 to the present day, will confirm what I have said. 
 
PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT. 217 
 
 Lord Macaulay has truly stated that during the 
 reign of William III. that wise and sagacious prince 
 took the management of foreign affairs into his own 
 hands. I cannot think, however, that he did well to 
 ally himself with Louis XIV., for the purpose of regu- 
 lating the succession to the Crown of Spain on the 
 death of the Spanish King. Two consequences were 
 pretty sure to follow any such interference. The Span- 
 iards would be indignant at the interference of any 
 foreign power, and especially of an heretical power, in 
 the disposal of the dominions united under the Spanish 
 Crown. Louis XIV., the most faithless prince of his 
 time, was sure to set at nought his own solemn promises, 
 to renounce the renunciation made upon his marriage, 
 and to look to his own aggrandizement and that of his 
 family as full compensation for any load upon his con- 
 science which he might incur by perjury. Accordingly 
 these two consequences flowed as necessary results from 
 the treaties made by William. With respect to domes- 
 tic affairs, William endeavored to unite in one Council 
 the best and cleverest statesmen of his day. His own 
 preference was given to the Tories ; but when he told 
 one of his confidential servants that he thought the 
 Tories were more friendly to the royal prerogative 
 than the Whigs, that statesman quickly answered, 
 ' Yes, but your Majesty is not King of the Tories.' At 
 the end of his reign, the anger of the British nation 
 against the French King, who, on the death of James 
 II., had presumed to dispose of the Crown of England, 
 united all parties in the King's favor. 
 
 The mind of Queen Anne was for a long time abso- 
 lutely directed by Marlborough and Godolphin ; but 
 when the EXuchess of Marlborough, from partiality to 
 the Whigs and regard for her son-in-law, Sunderland, 
 
218 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 had given a preponderance to the Whigs in the Cabinet, 
 the Tory prejudices of the Queen made her revolt 
 against this predominance, and by skilful intrigues Lord 
 Bolingbroke, Harley, and Mrs. Masham obtained com- 
 plete power over the domestic and foreign policy of 
 Great Britain. Yet this superiority did not rest upon 
 any secure foundation. Harley was a skilful manager 
 of Parliamentary interests, and St. John an eloquent 
 orator, always able to command the cheers of his sup- 
 porters ; but they were bitterly hostile to each other. 
 Harley wished to support the Protestant succession, St. 
 John to pave the way for a Popish Pretender. Harley 
 aspired to an earldom, Bolingbroke could not be content 
 with a less dignity. Queen Anne thought to finish the 
 strife by making Bolingbroke Lord High Treasurer in 
 the place of Harley ; but in the very agony of the con- 
 test. Queen Anne died, and in place of a war of suc- 
 cession England fell into the hands of the Whigs, and 
 welcomed, amid the joy of the Dissenters, a German 
 Elector, as King of Great Britain. The Church recon- 
 ciled itself to a Protestant prince, and the Dissenters 
 readily promised to support the Church, as a barrier 
 against a Jacobite revolution. 
 
 Lord Oxford and Lord Bolingbroke had quarrelled 
 whether one or both should be Earls ; but Robert Wal- 
 pole, a country gentleman of Norfolk, had the sagacity 
 to perceive that the rule of Great Britain was about to 
 pass from the House of Lords to the House of Com- 
 mons. He refused the title of Earl and the white staff 
 of Lord High Treasurer. As First Lord of the Treas- 
 ury in the House of Commons, he ruled England for 
 more than twenty years ; and when at last he retired 
 to the House of Lords he said to Pulteney, who hdd 
 accepted the title of Earl of Bath, * You and I, my 
 
PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT. 219 
 
 Lord, are now two of the most insignificant fellows in 
 England.' 
 
 The next great leader of the House of Commons 
 was William Pitt, like Walpole and like Churchill, 
 a member of a country gentleman's family. William 
 Pitt, unlike Henry Fox, who regarded money more 
 than power, was bold, disinterested, and lofty in his 
 aims. He said of his chief, the Duke of Newcastle, 
 ' The Duke of Newcastle lent me his majority to carry 
 on the Government.' He commanded his expeditions 
 against France by placing a sheet of paper over the 
 orders he gave, and leaving at the bottom of the page 
 on which they were written only room for the signa- 
 tures of the Lords of the Admiralty. In contradiction 
 to his former declamations against Hanover, he gave 
 large subsidies to Frederick of Prussia ; and when he 
 got possession of Canada said, ' I have conquered 
 America in Germany.' 
 
 When Lord Chatham disappeared, the Tories ob- 
 tained a majority in the Cabinet. They lost America ; 
 and, under the guidance of William Pitt the younger, 
 fought against frenzy embodied in the democracy of 
 France. By playing on the fears of England they were 
 enabled to make gigantic efforts, and to raise her debt 
 from one hundred and thirty millions to eight hundred 
 millions. The two athletes who contended on the floor 
 of the House of Commons were Pitt and Fox. Pitt, 
 like his father, had the power of commanding men ; 
 his ruinous policy did not prevent his obtaining in the 
 House of Commons attached friends, unbounded ad- 
 miration, and a majority of two-thirds of the represent- 
 atives of the people. 
 
 Fox was a great speaker, and, in the words of Burke, 
 the greatest debater the world ever saw. Not place or 
 
220 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 power, but reputation as an orator, was the object of 
 his ambition, as he declares in one of his earliest let- 
 ters to an intimate friend and relation. He inspired 
 affection rather than admiration. In his worst days an 
 observer said of his party, ' There are only forty of 
 them, but every one of them is ready to be hanged for 
 Fox.' In his earlier days. Lord Mansfield being asked 
 who that young man was whom he saw in Westminster 
 Hall, answered, ' That is the son of old Harry Fox, 
 with twice his parts and half his sagacity.' 
 
 These two men, Charles Fox and William Pitt, set 
 a proper value upon each other's great abilities. Pitt 
 said of Fox, ' Whenever I have made a better speech 
 than usual, I observe that Fox in his reply surpasses 
 himself.' Of Pitt's great speech on the renewal of the 
 war with France, Fox remarked that he had spoken 
 with an eloquence which Demosthenes would have ad- 
 mired, perhaps have envied. 
 
 The errors of Fox — his coalition with Lord North, 
 and his India Bill — were grave; but the warmth of 
 his feelings and his passionate love of liberty should 
 obtain for his memory indemnity for these or even 
 greater faults. His affectionate temper, combined with 
 his love of liberty, won him the attachment of devoted 
 friends. His memory ought to be consecrated in the 
 heart of every lover of freedom throughout the globe. 
 
 I think I have shown that the faculty of leading the 
 House of Commons does not consist merely in making 
 flashy speeches, but is founded upon qualities which 
 entitle men to obtain as followers a majority in the 
 noblest assembly of fieemen in the world. 
 
ORIGIN OF THE CRIMEAN WAR. 221 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 MINISTRY OF LORD ABERDEEN. — ORIGIN OF THE 
 CRIMEAN WAR. 
 
 I THINK I have said in a former chapter that I com- 
 mitted an error in resigning my office under Lord 
 Aberdeen at the time and in the manner in which I 
 did it. 
 
 But I had, in fact, committed a much greater error 
 in consenting to serve under Lord Aberdeen as Prime 
 Minister. I had served under Lord Grey and Lord 
 Melbourne before I became Prime Minister, and I 
 served under Lord Palmerston after I had been Prime 
 Minister. In no one of these cases did I find any 
 difficulty in allying subordination with due counsel 
 and co-operation. But, as it is proverbially said, 
 ' Where there is a will, there is a way,' so in political 
 affairs the converse is true, ' Where there is no will, 
 there is no way.' 
 
 As an instance of failure, I may mention that Lord 
 Aberdeen earnestly wished to preserve peace between 
 Russia and Turkey. I had pointed out a way in which 
 this might be done. The Austrian Government had 
 framed a note of conciliation, which the Emperor of 
 Russia had accepted as a settlement of all difficulties. 
 I proposed to Lord Clarendon that the Turkish Gov- 
 ernment should be told that, if they would accept this 
 note, totidem verbis, we could arrange a peace between 
 
222 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Turkey and Russia ; but that if Turkey altered the 
 note, we could not befriend her any further. Lord 
 Aberdeen, although he saw very clearly that by this 
 means peace would be insured, declined to use his 
 authority to enforce the condition. Lord Clarendon 
 recommended the Austrian note, but not in such a 
 manner as to oblige Turkey to accept it, totidem verbis. 
 Lord Stratford de Redcliffe failed in persuading the 
 Turkish Ministers to accept the Austrian note. Alter- 
 ations were made with a view to make it more pala- 
 table to the Oriental taste. But the Emperor of Russia, 
 in his turn, was peremptory. In his turn he was un- 
 reasonable. He declared the alterations were made 
 by the Padishah, a name he was wont to apply to Lord 
 Stratford de Redcliffe. He refused the amended note, 
 and war was the consequence. 
 
 Had I been Prime Minister at that time, I should 
 have insisted on the acceptance of the Austrian note. 
 I may add that had war then been averted, the Reform 
 Bill of 1854, to which Sir James Graham had most 
 willingly, and Lord Palmerston most reluctantly, as- 
 sented, would in all probability have passed through 
 Parliament recommended by Lord Aberdeen and his 
 Cabinet. The franchise would have been given to 5/. 
 householders ; several boroughs which now return mem- 
 bers would have been disfranchised. The gang who 
 many years later skulked in the Cave of AduUam would 
 never have existed, and the Reform Act would have 
 been^completed by its original promoters. 
 
 Thus has the course of history been changed by my 
 weakness — 
 
 , Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. 
 
 Lord Aberdeen always told me that, after being Prime 
 
CRIMEAN WAR. 223 
 
 Minister for a short time, he meant to make way for 
 me, and give up the post. But somehow the moment 
 never came for executing his intentions. 
 
 When I had accepted the mission to Vienna, with the 
 hope of making peace, I found that neither my proposal 
 for reducing the Russian fleet to three sail of the line, 
 nor the French and British proposal for neutralizing the 
 Black Sea, would be accepted by Russia. The Emperor 
 of Austria wished to limit the Russian fleet to its for- 
 mer number. When I was about to depart from Vienna, 
 the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affiiirs asked me to 
 recommend the proposals of his Court to the British 
 Ministers. I said I would advise Lord Palmerston and 
 Lord Clarendon to continue the negotiations with Aus- 
 tria, but that neither Lord Palmerston nor Lord Claren- 
 don would accept the proposals which he had mentioned 
 to me. 
 
 I found, accordingly, that those proposals were re- 
 jected at home ; and, as soon as they were rejected, I 
 declared myself ready to continue the war, in conformity 
 with the views of Lord Palmerston and Lord Clarendon. 
 My notion was, that if the British Ministers had listened 
 to the Austrian overtures, they might have replied that 
 they could not agree to such terms ; but that if Russia 
 would make further concessions, Great Britain, with the 
 agreement of France, would make peace on fair terms. 
 
 Had m}^ plans prospered, the treaty of 1856, stipulat- 
 ing a reduction to three sail of the line, instead of a 
 neutralization of the Black Sea, would probably have 
 been accepted by Russia. 
 
 It is always a mistake to impose upon a great power 
 conditions inconsistent with its sense of honor. The 
 title of King of France, assumed by the English kings, 
 was given up at the Peace of Amiens ; and the articles 
 
224 PvECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 relative to the demolition of Dunkirk added nothing to 
 the security of England, however much they may have* 
 offended the pride of France. 
 
 The conduct of Lord Granville, in consenting to re- 
 nounce the article of the treaty of 1856 relating to the 
 Black Sea, has been much blamed ; but it was notorious 
 that none of the Great Powers were inclined to insist 
 upon the retention of that part of the treaty. Had 
 England insisted upon going to war to maintain the 
 neutralization of the Black Sea, she would have gone to 
 war Avithout allies, and even Turkey would have in- 
 sisted upon a large loan from the United Kingdom to 
 enable her to sustain the expenses of war. Lord Palmer- 
 ston himself did not expect that the treaty of 1856 
 would last fourteen years, which was the actual time of 
 its duration. He was anxious to press upon Turkey the 
 reform of her finances, and an honest administration of 
 justice, which I had constantly urged in my dispatches ; 
 and he did not disguise his opinion that Great Britain 
 could not go to war to defend a dead carcase. 
 
 The present state of affairs portends further changes. 
 Servia and Roumania have nearly emancipated them- 
 selves from the Turkish yoke. In European Turkey, 
 the population of the Christians increases far more 
 rapidly than that of the Turkish subjects of the Sultan ; 
 so that, before the end of the century, Constantinoj)le, 
 Adrianople, and Bosnia will probably constitute the 
 whole of the Turkish Empire in Europe; while the 
 King of Greece, the Prince of Servia, with Belgrade 
 for his capital, and the Prince of Roumania, with his 
 relation the Emperor of Germany for his ally, will be 
 the Christian Sovereigns of European Turkey. 
 
 Our only interest in this matter is to see that the 
 , Emperor of Russia observes the remaining articles of 
 
CRIMEAN WAR. 225 
 
 the treaty of 1856, and that the interests of trade are 
 not injured by new treaties of commerce imposing heavy 
 duties on the import of British goods at Constantinople 
 and other parts of the Turkish provinces. 
 
 16 
 
226 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 FOREIGN POLICY FROM 1859 TO THE DEATH OF LORD 
 PAI^MERSTON. 
 
 I HAVE, in the Introduction to my Speeches and De- 
 spatches, marked ' Introduction II.,' in the second 
 volume, given an account of the general course of 
 foreign policy conducted by me, under the auspices of 
 Lord Palmerston, from 1859 till the death of Lord 
 Palraerston, which occurred in October, 1865. I have 
 only a few remarks to add to the summary of foreign 
 affairs there given. 
 
 When we first heard of the seizure of the two Con- 
 federate Commissioners on board the ' Trent,' Lord 
 Palmerston asked me privately what we should do. I 
 answered shortly, quoting what Grattan said, with 
 reference to another power, and on another occasion, 
 * The United States Government are very dangerous 
 people to run away from.' Lord Palmerston immedi- 
 ately proposed to the Cabinet to refer to the Law Offi- 
 cers of the Crown the question of the seizure of the 
 two Commissioners which had taken place on board 
 the ' Trent.' The Law Officers gave their opinion that 
 the seizure was not justified by the law of nations. Lord 
 Palmerston ordered such naval and military preparations 
 as he thought urgent. The result I have stated in 
 Introduction II. in the following terms : ' The British 
 Government were far from pressing hard on the United 
 
FOREIGN POLICY FROM 1860 TO 1866. 227' 
 
 States, and, in spite of remonstrances from Lord Grey, 
 Lord Clanricarde, Mr. Gregory, and others, put no 
 impediment in the way of the capture of British mer- 
 chant-ships, and placed full reliance on the courts of 
 America for redress in cases of wrongful capture by 
 American ships of war. But when British honor was 
 clearly assailed, as in the case of the Commissioners 
 who were passengers in the " Trent," reparation was 
 promptly demanded, and honorably granted. If some 
 delay occurred in giving that reparation, it must be 
 attributed to the anxiety which President Lincoln and 
 Secretary Seward naturally felt to allay American in- 
 dignation before they fulfilled what they felt to be an 
 imperative international obligation.' ^ It. may be said ^^rry, 
 further, that after this reparation had been granted — "^' ' 
 honorably demanded, and honorably granted — the rela- 
 tions of the two nations, the United Kingdom and the 
 United States, were more cordial and more friendly than 
 they had previously been. I state this fact on the 
 authority of Lord Lyons, at that time Minister for Great 
 Britain at Washington. 
 
 I have further to state, that when Mr. Mason, one of 
 the two Confederate Commissioners, came to England, 
 I received him in my own house. He at once declared 
 that the object of his mission was to ask for the recog- 
 nition of the Southern Confederate States as an inde- 
 pendent power. I told him for answer, that if the 
 military operations of the Southern States had been 
 attended with great success ; if their victories had been 
 brilliant and decisive ; and if the powers of Europe were 
 generally disposed to acknowledge that they had fairly 
 acquired the position of an independent power, the 
 
 1 * Speeches and Despatches,' vol. ii. p. 249. 
 
228 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 British Government might fairly be asked for recogni- 
 tion. But none of these facts were proved, and there 
 was no case to justify the British Government in ac- 
 ceding to the proposal he had made. 
 
 Mr. Mason answered me that the Government of 
 England was a wise Government, and that he would 
 not press his proposition any further. I shall later have 
 some comments to make on the subsequent negotiations 
 between the Cabinet of Mr. Gladstone and the Cabinet 
 of President Grant. 
 
 I have stated in the former Introduction that there 
 were two grounds on which I declined to submit the 
 question of the ' Alabama ' to arbitration by a foreign 
 power : ' It appeared to me that we could not, consist- 
 ently with our position as an independent state, allow 
 a foreign power or state to decide either that Great 
 Britain had been wanting in good faith, or that our own 
 Law Officers did not understand so well as a foreign 
 power or state the meaning of a British statute.* ^ If 
 Mr. Adams, in his answer to me, had stated that the 
 American Government neither wished to call in question 
 the good faith of Great Britain, nor to deny that our 
 own Law Officers were the best authorities to decide the 
 meaning of a British statute ; if, I say, Mr. Adams, who 
 is a man of high honor and unblemished character, had 
 given me these assurances, I should at once have agreed 
 to arbitration ; but Mr. Adams knew perfectly well that 
 he could give me no such assurances. In fact, Mr. 
 Fish, who succeeded Mr. Seward as Secretary of State, 
 did not scruple to allege that Lord Palmerston and I, 
 the Prime Minister and Secretary of State, Sir Roun- 
 dell Palmer and the Law Officers of the Crown, Sir 
 
 * ' Speeches and Despatches/ vol. ii. p. 269. 
 
ITALY. 229 
 
 Tliomas Fre mantle, and the Commissioners of Customs, 
 were all guilty of falsehood and h^^pocrisy. But I must 
 reserve this matter for a future chapter. 
 
 In a former volume I related the course which Lord 
 Palmerston's Cabinet had pursued in reference to the 
 contest which was carried on for some years with a view 
 to establish the union, the independence, and the free- 
 dom of Italy. In a dispatch of October 27, 1860, I 
 evinced the sj^mpathy which the British Government 
 felt towards the people of Italy, and confirmed, by the 
 authority of Vattel, the maxim, ' That when a people 
 from good reasons take up arms against an oppressor, 
 it is but an act of justice and generosity to assist brave 
 men in the defence of their liberties.' But I will here 
 give the entire dispatch : — 
 
 Lord J, Russell to Sir J. Hudson. 
 
 'Foreign Office, October 27, 1860. 
 
 * Sir, — It appears that the late proceedings of the 
 King of Sardinia have been strongly disapproved of by 
 several of the principal Courts of Europe. The Em- 
 peror of the French, on hearing of the invasion of the 
 Papal States by the army of General Cialdini, withdrew 
 his Minister from Turin, expressing at the same time 
 the opinion of the Imperial Government in condemna- 
 tion of the invasion of the Roman territory. 
 
 ' The Emperor of Russia has, we are told, declared 
 in strong terms his indignation at the entrance of the 
 army of the King of Sardinia into the Neapolitan terri- 
 tory, and has withdrawn his entire mission from Turin. 
 
 ' The Prince Regent of Prussia has also thought it 
 necessary to convey to Sardinia a sense of his dis- 
 pleasure ; but he has not thought it necessary to remove 
 the Prussian Minister from Turin. 
 
230 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 'After these diplomatic acts, it would scarcely be 
 just to Italy, or respectful to the other Great Powers 
 of Europe, were the Government of Her Majesty any 
 longer to withhold the expression of their opinions. 
 
 * In so doing, however, Her Majesty's Government 
 have no intention to raise a dispute upon the reasons 
 which have been given, in the name of the King of 
 Sardinia, for the invasion of the Roman and Neapolitan 
 States. Whether or no the Pope was justified in de- 
 fending his authority by means of foreign levies; 
 whether the King of the Two Sicilies, while still main- 
 taining his flag at Capua and Gaeta, can be said to 
 have abdicated — are not the arguments upon which 
 Her Majesty's Government propose to dilate. 
 
 ' The large questions which appear to them to be at 
 issue are these : Were the people of Italy justified in 
 asking the assistance of the King of Sardinia to relieve 
 them from governments with which they are discon- 
 tented, and was the King of Sardinia justified in fur- 
 nishing the assistance of his arms to the people of the 
 Roman and Neapolitan States ? 
 
 * There appear to have been two motives which have 
 induced the people of the Roman and Neapolitan States 
 to have joined willingly in the subversion of their gov- 
 ernments. The first of these was, that the govern- 
 ments of the Pope and the King of the Two Sicilies 
 provided so ill for the administration of justice, the 
 protection of personal liberty, and the general welfare 
 of their people, that their subjects looked forward to 
 the overthrow of their rulers as a necessary prelimi- 
 nary to all improvements in their condition. 
 
 ' The second motive was, that a conviction had spread 
 since the year 1849, that the only manner in which 
 Italians could secure their independence of foreign 
 
ITALY. 
 
 231 
 
 control was by forming one strong government for the 
 whole of Italy. 
 
 ' The struggle of Charles Albert in 1848, and the 
 sympathy which the present King of Sardinia has shown 
 for the Italian cause, have naturally caused the associa- 
 tion of the name of Victor Emmanuel with the single 
 authority under which the Italians aspire to live. 
 
 ' Looking at the question in this view, Her Majesty's 
 Government must admit that the Italians themselves 
 are the best judges of their own interests. 
 
 ' That eminent jurist, Vattel, when discussing the 
 lawfulness of the assistance given by the United Prov- 
 inces to the Prince of Orange when he invaded Eng- 
 land, and overturned the throne of James II., says: 
 " The authority of the Prince of Orange had doubtless 
 an influence on the deliberation of the States-General, 
 but it did not lead them to the commission of an act of 
 injustice ; for when a people from good reasons take up 
 arms against an oppressor, it is bat an act of justice and 
 generosity to assist brave men in the defence of their 
 liberties.'* 
 
 ' Therefore, according to Vattel, the question resolves 
 itself into this : Did the people of Naples and of the 
 Roman States take up arms against their governments 
 for good reasons ? 
 
 ' Upon this grave matter Her Majesty's Government 
 hold that the people in question are themselves the best 
 judges of their own affairs. Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment do not feel justified in declaring that the people 
 of Southern Italy had not good reasons for throwing 
 off their allegiance to their former governments ; Her 
 Majesty's Government cannot, therefore, pretend to 
 blame the King of Sardinia for assisting them. There 
 remains, however, a question of fact. It is asserted by 
 
232 KECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 the partisans of the fallen goveraments that the people 
 of the Roman States were attached to the Pope, and 
 the people of the kingdom of Naples to the dynasty 
 of Francis II., but that Sardinian agents and foreign 
 adventurers have by force and intrigue subverted the 
 thrones of those sovereigns. It is difficult, however, 
 to believe, after the astonishing events that have been 
 seen, that the Pope and the King of the Two Sicilies 
 possessed the love of their people. How was it, one 
 must ask, that the Pope found it impossible to levy a 
 Roman army, and that he was forced to rely almost 
 entirely upon foreign mercenaries ? How did it happen, 
 again, that Garibaldi conquered nearly all Sicily with 
 two thousand men, and marched from Reggio to Naples 
 with five thousand ? How but from the universal dis- 
 affection of the people of the Two Sicilies ? 
 
 * Neither can it be said that this testimony of the 
 popular will was capricious or causeless. Forty years 
 ago the Neapolitan people made an attempt regularly 
 and temperately to reform their government under the 
 reigning dynasty. The Powers of Europe, assembled 
 at Laybach, resolved, with the exception of England, to 
 put down this attempt by force. It was put down, and 
 a large foreign army of occupation was left in the Two 
 Sicilies to maintain social order. In 1848, the Neapol- 
 itan people again attempted to secure liberty under the 
 Bourbon dynasty, but their best patriots atoned, by an 
 imprisonment of ten years, for the offence of endeavor- 
 ing to free their country. What wonder, then, that in 
 1860 the Neapolitan mistrust and resentment should 
 throw off the Bourbons, as in 1688 England had thrown 
 off the Stuarts? 
 
 * It must be admitted, undoubtedly, that the severance 
 of the ties which bind together a sovereign and his sub- 
 
ITALY. 233 
 
 jects is in itself a misfortune. Notions of allegiance 
 become confused; the succession to the throne is dis- 
 puted ; adverse parties threaten the peace of society ; 
 rights and pretensions are opposed to each other, and 
 mar the harmony of the state. Yet it must be acknowl- 
 edged, on the other hand, that the Italian revolution 
 has been conducted with singular temper and forbear- 
 ance. The subversion of existing power has not been 
 foUow^ed, as is too often the case, by an outburst of 
 popular vengeance. The extreme views of democrats 
 have nowhere prevailed. Public opinion has checked 
 the excesses of the public triumph. The venerated 
 forms of constitutional monarchy have been associated 
 with the name of a prince who represents an ancient 
 and glorious dynasty. Such have been the causes and 
 concomitant circumstances of the revolution of Italy. 
 Her Majesty's Government can see no sufficient ground 
 for the severe censure with which Austria, France, 
 Prussia, and Russia have visited the acts of the King of 
 Sardinia. Her Majesty's Government will turn their 
 eyes rather to the gratifying prospect of a people build- 
 ing up the edifice of their liberties, and consolidating 
 the work of their independence, amid the sympathies 
 and good wishes of Europe. 
 'I am, &c., 
 
 ' (Signed) J. Russell. 
 
 * P. S. — You are at liberty to give a copy of this dis- 
 patch to Count Cavour.' 
 
 It was in acknowledgment of this dispatch that I w^as 
 presented, by the generous kindness of some Milanese 
 gentlemen, with a gift for which I am proud here to 
 record my gratitude, — a beautiful marble statue by 
 
234 KECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Carlo Romano, representing young Italy ; she holds in 
 her hands a diadem embossed with the arms of the 
 various Italian States, thenceforward to be one. This 
 statue has ever since adorned my study. 
 
 In the same spirit I rejected, with the assent of Lord 
 Palmerston and the Cabinet, and with the sanction of 
 the Queen, a proposal of the French Government that 
 the British navy should concur with that of France in 
 preventing the passage of Garibaldi from Sicily to the 
 mainland of Italy. On March 30, 1861, I wrote the fol- 
 lowing dispatch to the Marquis d'Azeglio : — 
 
 * Foreign Office, March 80, 1861. 
 
 * M. Le MarqiUis, — I have had the honor to receive 
 your letter of the 19th inst., informing me that the 
 National Parliament has voted, and the King, your 
 august Sovereign, has sanctioned, a law by virtue of 
 which His Majesty Victor Emmanuel II. assumes, for 
 himself and for his successors, the title of " King of 
 Italy." 
 
 ' Having laid your communication before Her Majesty 
 the Queen, I am commanded to state to you that Her 
 Majesty, acting on the principle of respecting the inde- 
 pendence of the nations of Europe, will receive you as 
 the Envoy of Victor Emmanuel H., King of Italy. 
 
 * Corresponding instructions will be given to Sir 
 James Hudson, Her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary at 
 the Court of Turin. 
 
 * I request you, M. le Marquis, to accept the assur- 
 ances of my highest consideration. 
 
 * I have, (fee, 
 
 * (Signed) J. Russell.' 
 
 I am happy to say that my dispatch of October 27, 
 
NEUTRALITY IN AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. 235 
 
 1860, was warmly approved by Count Gavour and Gen- 
 eral Garibaldi, who, with the magnanimity of great men, 
 instead of attributing to themselves the whole merit of 
 rescuing Italy from her centuries of servitude and 
 depression, and securing to her the blessings of indepen- 
 dence and freedom, were ever willing to acknowledge 
 with gratitude the efforts made by British statesmen to 
 help on the good work. 
 
 The American Civil War was a calamitous event. 
 Lord Campbell, then Lord Chancellor, was of opinion 
 that the Government could not do otherwise than rec- 
 ognize the belligerent rights of the Southern States, 
 important as they were, both in regard to the number 
 of States, the extent of their commerce, and the popula- 
 tion arrayed against the central Government. 
 
 We, therefore, proclaimed neutrality as the policy wel 
 ought to pursue. In a single instance, that of the escape 
 of the ' Alabama,' we fell into error. I thought it my 
 duty to wait for the report of the Law Officers of the 
 Crown ; but I ought to have been satisfied with the 
 opinion of Sir Kobert Collier, and to have given orders 
 to detain the ' Alabama ' at Birkenhead. 
 
 When another ship was constructed with a view to 
 break the blockade of the American navy, I gave orders 
 to detain it. I should have ordered the prosecution of 
 the owners of the vessel, had not the principal Law Offi- 
 cer of the Crown given me reason to think that it would 
 fail in an English court of justice. I, therefore, obtained 
 the sanction of the Cabinet to purchase the two ' rams,' . 
 as they were called, which were intended for hostile I 
 purposes against the United States. 
 
 With regard to the good faith with which our neutral- 
 ity was observed, I refer to the opinion of Mr. Grote, 
 who was not unduly partial to the English Government, 
 
236 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 and whose testimony I believe to be founded in truth 
 and justice. Writing to Sir George Lewis, December 
 29, 1862, he says : — 
 
 * The perfect neutrality of England in this destruc- 
 tive civil war now raging in America appears to me 
 almost a phenomenon in political history. 
 
 'No such forbearance has been shown during the 
 political history of the last two centuries. It is the 
 single case in which the English Government and 
 public, generally so over-meddlesome, have displayed 
 some prudent and commendable forbearance, in spite 
 of great temptations to the contrary. And the way in 
 which the Northern Americans have requited such 
 forbearance is alike silly and disgusting. I never ex- 
 pected to have lived to think of them so unfavorably 
 as I do at present. Amidst their very difiScult present 
 circumstances, they have manifested little or nothing 
 of those qualities which inspire sympathy and esteem, 
 and very much of all the contrary qualities; and 
 among the worst of all their manifestations is their 
 appetite for throwing the blame of their misfortunes on 
 guiltless England.' ^ 
 
 Upon Lord Palmerston's death, in 1865, the Queen 
 was pleased to confer upon me the office of First Lord 
 of the Treasury. When I had been received by the 
 Cabinet in that capacity, I proposed to them to con- 
 sider whether it was possible with public advantage to 
 confer the right of voting upon the best of the work- 
 ing-classes. This was agreed to ; and it was likewise 
 decided that it would be best to separate the question 
 of the franchise from that of the disfranchisement of 
 
 » * Personal Life of George Grote/ p. 202. 
 
CAVE OF ADULLAM. 237 
 
 borouglis. After much inquiry, we agreed to ^x the 
 suffrages of boroughs at an occupation of 71, value. 
 
 The House of Commons did not agree with us as 
 to the separation of the question of suffrage from that 
 of disfranchisement. We had not quite made up our 
 minds as to the shape in which this disfranchisement 
 should be adopted. 
 
 Our whole course, however, was disturbed by the 
 formation of a party which aimed, not so much at 
 the improvement of a Reform Bill, as the defeat of 
 the Ministry. They owe the name by which they are 
 known to the wit of Mr. Bright, who likened them to 
 the occupiers of the Cave of Adullam. The band 
 may be said to have been divided into three columns 
 or gangs, the first consisting of the selfish, the second 
 of the timid, and the third of those who were both 
 selfish and timid. They had a leader, who, like the 
 Achitophel of Dryden, was 
 
 Sagacious, bold, and turbulent of wit. 
 
 Of him, as of Achitophel — supposing his object was 
 to destroy the Ministry — it might also be said — 
 
 To further this, Achitophel unites 
 The malcontents of all the Israelites ; 
 Whose differing parties he could wisely join, 
 For several ends to serve the same design. 
 
 There were no doubt some honest men in the Cave of 
 Adullam ; but, upon the whole, I have never, in my 
 long political life, known a party so utterly destitute 
 of consistent principle or of patriotic end ; they were 
 indifferent to the state of the suffrage, or the disfran- 
 chisement of boroughs, provided their own selfish ob- 
 jects were attained. 
 
 When these bandits, uniting themselves to the Tories, 
 
238 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 had put the Government in a minority, the Cabinet 
 thought it right to offer their resignation. It was not 
 that they could not bear a defeat on a detail of the 
 Reform Bill, but that it was obvious that the band of 
 Adullam would never be satisfied till, by wiles and 
 stratagems, they had driven the Ministry from office. 
 
 Of the three gangs which issued from the Cave of 
 Adullam, the timid inspire pity, the selfish indigna- 
 tion, the timid and selfish contempt. 
 
REFORM BILL, 1867. 239 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 REFORM BILL OF 1867. — MR. GLADSTONE'S SPEECH ON 
 THE IRISH CHURCH. — GENERAL ELECTION. — CHANGE 
 OF MINISTRY. — RETIREMENT FROM THE LEAD THAT 
 I HAD HELD SINCE 1834. 
 
 When Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli succeeded me and 
 Mr. Gladstone as First Lord of the Treasury and 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1865, they had before 
 them a task of no small difficulty. They had met our 
 proposal to admit the working-men who lived in houses 
 of 11. value with every kind of obstruction, cavil, and 
 quibble. They had maintained strongly that there 
 ought to be no reduction, or, as Mr. Disraeli styled it, 
 no degradation of the franchise. They had raised the 
 objection that there was no disfranchisement of boroughs, 
 and therefore the measure could not be styled a com- 
 plete Reform Bill. They had, lastly, suggested the 
 objection that rated value, not actual value, ought to 
 be taken as the test. 
 
 This question had been fully considered when the 
 original Reform Bill was introduced in 1831. It was 
 then found that rated value furnished a very uncertain 
 criterion, and that while in one borough Ql. rated value 
 meant an actual value of 81. or 9Z., in half a dozen 
 other boroughs it meant 10?. or 121. Lord Derby was 
 a man who might have been deterred by these diffi- 
 culties from proceeding with his task ; Mr. Disraeli 
 
240 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 had no such fears. After a time he resolved to dis- 
 regard what was called a ' hard and fast line,' and to 
 admit every rated householder, though he might be 
 rated at only 11. or 10«., to an equal suffrage with the 
 101. householder. 
 
 Some of the Tory leaders have not only protested as 
 loudly as Mr. Disraeli against any reduction of the 
 suffrage, but have conscientiously felt the truth of the 
 objections which Mr. Disraeli only assumed as a con- 
 venient cloak. Three members of the Cabinet — Lord 
 Cranborne, Lord Carnarvon, and General Peel — left the 
 Cabinet. Relieved from these inconvenient colleagues, 
 who were troubled with a conscience, Mr. Disraeli 
 threw his net over Lord Derby and Lord Stanley, and 
 held out the finality of household suffrage as a reason 
 for its adoption. 
 
 Disregarding, as Mr. Disraeli and Lord Derby disre- 
 garded, all the principles which they had pretended to 
 uphold, it is clear to me that the right of voting for a 
 representative body can only be founded upon one of 
 two principles. One is, the Radical principle that every 
 adult male who is subject to the laws of a country ought 
 to have a share in electing its representatives. The 
 other is, the Whig principle that the persons endowed 
 with the right of voting for the members of the House 
 of Commons, by whom the whole state of the country 
 is guided and directed, ought to be persons qualified by 
 property and education for the discharge of so impor- 
 tant a trust. 
 
 Lord Derby's Reform Bill answered neither of these 
 descriptions. It did not comply with the Radical re- 
 quirement, as hundreds of thousands of adult males 
 were not admitted to the franchise. It did not comply 
 with the Whig test, as many thousands of rated house- 
 
DEFEAT OF MR. DISRAELI'S MINISTRY. 241 
 
 holders were in a state of ignorance and depend- 
 ence. 
 
 In short, the measure was, as Lord Derby truly called 
 it, a leap in the dark. Still, it was brought forward by 
 a Government which had always professed Conservative 
 principles, and it could not safely be resisted. I there- 
 fore advised my friend Mr. Forster, who was then a 
 leading man of the House of Commons, to support the 
 measure, and to persuade all those politically connected 
 with him to do so likewise. My Whig friends, in a 
 small committee, advised me to withhold this opinion 
 from the public. I myself wished to practise no con- 
 cealment on the subject. Mr. Gladstone had, in the 
 same session which saw the introduction of the Reform 
 Bill of 1867, made an admirable, eloquent, and convinc- 
 ing speech on the Irish Church. This speech produced 
 a profound impression on the minds of the new electors. 
 I had myself, for reasons which shall be mentioned 
 hereafter, retired from the leadership of the Whig- 
 Radical party. Mr. Disraeli's recent conversion had 
 won as little favor on his behalf as had been won on be- 
 half of Sir Robert Peel by his conversion on the Roman 
 Catholic question and on the repeal of the Corn-laws. 
 So that, at the general election in the autumn of 1868, 
 the Ministry were defeated by a majority of over one 
 hundred. Mr. Disraeli resigned without meeting Par- 
 liament, and Mr. Gladstone was desired by the Queen 
 to form a Ministry. 
 
 This task was performed with little tact or discrimina- 
 tion. As Mr. Gladstone did not himself assume the 
 office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he ought to have 
 placed in that post a confidential friend on whose judg- 
 ment he could rely. Mr. Cardwell was admirably fitted 
 for the post ; he was sent to the War Office. Mr. Lowe 
 
 16 
 
242 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 was made Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Bruce 
 was well qualified to organize and direct the education 
 of the poorer classes throughout the country ; he was 
 sent to the Home Office, where he soon became un- 
 popular — unjustly, no doubt, for his conduct was 
 prudent and judicious ; but still he was not the man for 
 that office. 
 
 I will go no farther. Lord Clarendon was admirably 
 qualified to be Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ; 
 and some other posts were well filled. 
 
 I cannot think that I was mistaken in giving way to 
 Mr. Gladstone as head of the Whig-Radical party of 
 England. During Lord Palmerston's Ministr}'- I had 
 every reason to admire the boldness and the judgment 
 with which he directed our finances. I had no reason 
 to suppose that he was less attached than I was to 
 national honor ; that he was less proud than I was of 
 the achievements of our nation by sea and land ; that 
 he disliked the extension of our Colonies ; or that his 
 measures would tend to reduce the great and glorious 
 Empire of which he was put in charge to a manufactory 
 of cotton cloth and a market for cheap goods, with an 
 army and navy reduced by paltry savings to a standard 
 of weakness and inefficiency. 
 
 \ 
 
IRELAND. 243 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 JUSTICE TO IRELAND. 
 
 The question of the government of Ireland is a very 
 large one. I think I cannot do better than lay down 
 the propositions which I wish to establish with a view 
 to the better government of that country. 
 
 I. That murders in Ireland are not the insulated 
 crimes of persons excited by covetousness or revenge, 
 but the deliberate acts of a powerful confederacy which, 
 in defiance of the Queen and Parliament, orders the 
 infliction of a criminal law more formidable than the 
 law of the State. This proposition can be demonstrated 
 both by authority and by numerous instances. 
 
 II. That the Roman Catholic clergy, in the capacity 
 of parish priests, have great sway over the minds of 
 the people of Ireland ; but being entirely dependent 
 upon the voluntary offerings of their flocks, are, from 
 sympathy or from fear, unwilling to appear as the pros- 
 ecutors of the confederacy that direx3ts and executes 
 murders. 
 
 III. That the remedy for these evils is to be sought 
 in such a reform of the criminal law as would place 
 convictions for murder in the hands of a majority of 
 the jury ; and, secondly, in making a provision for the 
 Roman Catholic parish priests of Ireland out of the 
 revenues of the Protestant Church, after the expiry of 
 life-interests, with a provisional grant in the interval 
 from the Consolidated Fund. 
 
244 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 IV. That the Secretary of State for the Home 
 Department of Great Britain ought to have in Ireland 
 the same powers of administration which he exercises 
 in England and in Scotland. 
 
 V. That Scotland, before the Union of England and 
 Scotland, suffered from evils not very different from 
 those to which Ireland is now exposed, but by the 
 wisdom of Lord Somers and Lord Chatham, the Low- 
 lands of Scotland have been led to prosperity, and the 
 Highlands of Scotland have been pacified. A similar 
 policy applied to Ireland will probably be attended with 
 similar effects. 
 
 VI. Home Rule must be met with as peremptory a 
 refusal as that which Lord Grey and Lord Althorp gave 
 to repeal of the Union in 1880. 
 
 I. In Mr. Nassau Senior's ' Journals upon Ireland,' 
 there occurs, in the narrative of the year 1852, a very 
 interesting conversation between Lord Rosse and Mr. 
 Senior, in which Lord Rosse is asked what he would do 
 if he were Minister, and had a fair working majority. 
 After stating that he ' would make the Disarming Act 
 general and permanent, and allow very few exceptions,' 
 Lord Rosse goes on to say : * I would then reform the 
 stipendiary magistracy. On this institution the security 
 of the country mainly depends. As soon as an outrage 
 has been committed it is the duty of the stipendiary 
 magistrate to collect into a focus the slight and transi- 
 tory indications, which, if acutely perceived and sedu- 
 lously followed up, will lead to detection. No function 
 requires more zeal, vigor, and intelligence. The men 
 Belccted for it are generally elderly rou/^s^ with broken 
 fortunes and damaged reputations, who are made sti- 
 pendiaries because their patrons do not venture to make 
 them any thing else. I have implored Lord Lieutenant 
 
IRELAND. 245 
 
 after Lord Lieutenant not to allow so important an office 
 to be thus jobbed away. All that I could get from any 
 one of them were promises that the appointments should 
 be as little bad as they could make them. . . . The 
 appointments should be made in England, or, if in Ire- 
 land, two persons should concur, and I would require 
 them to be chosen from the police — that is to say, 
 from the officers of the constabulary. This would se- 
 cure their having some experience in the investigation 
 of crime, and would, besides, raise the character of the 
 police force. ... I would endeavor to extend the 
 field of summary convictions. Juries are fit only for 
 countries in which the people are the friends of the law. 
 In Ireland it is difficult to find a jury that dares, or even 
 wishes, to do its duty. Where juries mast be retained, 
 I would adopt the Scotch plan, and make them decide 
 by a majority, and make it penal to reveal how each 
 juryman voted. Among the mischiefs of requiring a 
 unanimous verdict is its publicity. . . . The prevention 
 and punishment of crime are all that we want. Emi- 
 gration will restore the proportion between population 
 and subsistence. Under the National School system 
 education is rapidly spreading. The physical resources 
 of Ireland are vast and almost untouched. But we are 
 under two different and repugnant systems of law. One 
 is enacted by Parliament and enforced by the courts, 
 the other is concocted in the whiskey-shop and executed 
 by the assassin. And the law of the people is far better 
 enforced than that of the Government. Those who 
 break it are generally sure to be detected, for their 
 offences are generally public ; the punishment is as 
 severe as any that man can inflict or suffer, and the 
 chances of escaping it are few. The popular law, there- 
 fore, is obeyed, the Government law is disregarded. 
 
246 EECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Give US merely security. Let the proprietor be master 
 of his land, the manufacturer of his capital, and the 
 laborer of his strength and skill, and the virtues which 
 we now seem to want — industry, frugality, and provi- 
 dence — will spring up as soon as they can depend on 
 their reward.' ^ 
 
 Three examples may be here given of murders in 
 Ireland. The first is extracted from Mr. Trench's 
 * Realities of Irish Life.' ^ 
 
 Mr. Trench, in his ' Realities of Irish Life,' relates 
 the occurrence of a robbery at the house of a Mr. Hall, 
 in the year 1838. He goes on to say : — 
 
 ' Thenceforth, without any reasonable caijse that I 
 could ascertain, Mr. Hall became exceedingly unpopular 
 and obnoxious to the peasantry.' 
 
 He then pipceeds, with reference to the same year : — 
 
 ' A few months after this occurrence, on the 18th of 
 May, a beautiful bright sunny day, at noon, I was riding 
 with a friend to the sessions at Borrisokane. I heard a 
 faint report at a little distance in the fields as of a gun 
 or pistol, but took no notice of it, when, almost immedi- 
 ately afterwards, a man came running up a lane to meet 
 us, saying, " Oh ! sir, Mr. Hall has just been shot." 
 
 * " Shot! " cried I, pulling up my horee ; "do you 
 mean murdered ? " 
 
 ' " Oh I yes, sir," replied the man, " he is lying there 
 in the field." 
 
 ' " Is he dead ? " I asked. 
 
 ' " Stone dead I " was the man's reply ; and as he said 
 so I never shall forget the strange mixture of horror and 
 of triumph which pervaded his countenance. 
 
 i Nassau Senior's 'Ireland,' vol. ii. pp. 82-84. 
 
 2 'Realities of Irisli Life.' By W. S. Trench. Boston: Roberto 
 Bros. 
 
lEELAND. 247 
 
 * T turned to a gentleman of well-known courage, and 
 a daring rider, and said, "Can we do nothing, Mr. 
 Smith ? The murderer cannot have gone far. Surely 
 we might make a circuit round the place across the 
 country ; and though no one will tell us which way he 
 ran, we may by this means come up with him or see him. 
 We are both well-mounted and armed — let us try." 
 
 ' " Hush ! my dear sir," replied he, " the murderer 
 never ran ; that would at once betray him. He is 
 surely in the field with us at this moment, and is prob- 
 ably one of those now looking at the body and express- 
 ing his wonder at who did it." ' 
 
 Mr. Trench proceeds to describe the murder : — 
 
 ' Mr. Hall was still walking in the fields, enjoying 
 the freshness of this sunny day in May. The young 
 man came up unperceived within twenty yards of him. 
 Mr. Hall heard him, and turned round and faced him. 
 The murderer walked on, still without speaking or 
 showing his pistol, straight up to Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall 
 was amazed ; but seeing him still coming steadily and 
 silently on, he half drew his sword-cane, at last sus- 
 pecting that mischief must be intended. The man still 
 continuing to approach, Mr. Hall sprang back a step or 
 two in order to get his sword-cane free, and in doing so 
 stumbled over a tussock and fell. The young man then 
 went up, and before Mr. Hall could get up or recover 
 himself, he put the pistol down close to his head and 
 shot him dead upon the spot. The moment he had done 
 so he threw the pistol into the adjoining hedge, walked 
 quietly to meet his companion, put his hands into his 
 pockets, never left the ground, and was one of those 
 whom we afterwards saw standing near the body. 
 
 ' Such was the story as told by the man who had 
 been originally hired to murder Mr. Hall, but who had 
 
248 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 now turned informer; and his testimony was corrob- 
 orated by a chain of evidence so clear and conclusive, 
 that not a doubt of its truth was left upon the mind of 
 a single grand juror who heard him. 
 
 ' The trial was rather a peculiar one ; and, contrary 
 to general expectation, the judge's charge was decidedly 
 in favor of the prisoner. The jury were evidently puz- 
 zled, but they threw the benefit of the doubts enter- 
 tained by the majority in favor of the prisoner at the 
 bar, as they were justly bound to do ; and it was after- 
 wards openly announced that eleven were for the acquit- 
 tal, and only one for a conviction. Nothing could turn 
 this man from his unwavering belief that the prisoner 
 had done the deed ; and after the usual time the jury 
 was discharged, and the prisoner remanded to gaol. 
 
 'Such scenes as these could not fail to produce a 
 strong effect upon the gentry resident around, and 
 urgent letters were written by myself and other gen- 
 tlemen to the Government ; and at last a " Special 
 Commission " was ordered at Clonmel for the trial of 
 several Ribbon cases, and of Mr. Hall's murderer in 
 particular, of the guilt of whom the authorities had not 
 a doubt. 
 
 ' The Special Commission was looked upon, and justly 
 80, as a very formidable affair. The judges chosen by 
 the Government to preside were Judges Doherty and 
 Pennefather. They sat together, as is usual in a Spe- 
 cial Commission. Almost all the gentlemen in the 
 county attended, and were prepared to serve asjuroi's; 
 and .Clonmel, where the Commission was hold, was 
 crowded to excess. The opening of the Commission 
 had a very solemn effect. The first trial was that of 
 Mr. IJall's murderer. The prisoner was again brought 
 to the bar and arraigned ; he was paler than when tried 
 
IRELAND. 249 
 
 before at Nenagh, but he still preserved the same impas- 
 sive resolution. The grand jury was duly sworn, the 
 bills were found, and then came the swearing-in of the 
 petty jury who were to try the case, and on whom 
 the cause of justice and the life of the prisoner de- 
 pended. The prisoner was allowed twenty challenges 
 peremptorily, and as many more as he could show cause 
 for. It was an exciting scene, and great quickness and 
 knowledge of character were required on the part of 
 the prisoner's counsel and attorney. Of course their 
 object, so far as their right of challenge would allow 
 them, was to challenge and reject all the firm, fair, and 
 upright men in the county, and to place upon the jury 
 the timid, or those whose sympathies, from political, 
 religious, or other reasons, might be supposed to lean 
 towards the prisoner. 
 
 ' But they had not much time to decide. As the 
 name of each juror resounded through the court, and 
 the person called answered to his name, the crier 
 handed the small Testament to the man now about 
 to be sworn, and said aloud, slowly and solemnly, 
 "Prisoner, look upon the juror, — juror, look upon the 
 prisoner ; " and then he commenced the oath. At this 
 moment, and with no more time to consult or determine 
 than I have stated, the prisoner's attorney cried out in 
 a loud voice, " Challenge ! " if he thought the juror 
 likely to be unfavorable to his cp.use. The effect was 
 very striking. And as gentleman after gentleman were 
 *' challenged," it became a decided compliment to be 
 rejected. At length my name was called. I ansAvered, 
 came forward \to the front, and took the Testament in 
 my hand. I felt that all eyes were upon me. It was 
 well known that the murder had been committed near 
 my residence, and that I had been almost present at the 
 
250 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 scene. "Prisoner, look upon the juror, — juror, look 
 upon the prisoner." We both looked steadily at each 
 other, and just as I thought the oath was about to 
 be administered, " Challenge ! " resounded through the 
 court. I cannot describe my emotion as I felt re- 
 lieved from the onus of such a trial. 
 
 * At length a jury — and by no means a bad one — 
 was sworn. So many good jurors had attended, that 
 the prisoner had no great choice ; his challenges were 
 soon exhausted, and a jury — admitted in general to be 
 a fair one — proceeded now to listen to the intensely 
 interesting statement of the Attorne3'-General, who 
 began to open his case. The trial proceeded with all 
 the grave solemnity which was suited to such an occa- 
 sion. The witnesses gave their evidence clearly, con- 
 sistently, and well ; nor did the cross-examination of 
 the prisoner's counsel, though conducted in the ablest 
 manner, shake their testimony in the least. All who 
 heard the evidence plainly saw that a conviction must 
 ensue. 
 
 ' The disclosures which the informer had necessarily 
 made, when examined on the previous trial, gave the 
 prisoner's counsel a great advantage over him. He 
 now knew the whole of the informer's story, and made 
 the most of his knowledge in his cross-examination ; 
 but still he failed to shake the frightful truthfulness 
 of his evidence. One scene struck me much. After 
 the witness had detailed how he had himself under- 
 taken to be the murderer, and had twice stolen behind 
 Mr. Hall for the purpose of shooting him in the back, 
 and had only given up his design becautye he fancied it 
 was " unlucky," the prisoner's counsel said, "Then it 
 was not your conscience which smote you ? ** 
 
 ' " Not a hit .'" replied the man. 
 
IRELAND. 251 
 
 ' " And you stole up behind the poor old gentleman 
 to shoot him for money? " said the lawyer. 
 
 ' " I suppose you would do any thing for money ? " 
 
 ' " I would^'' replied the man, quite unappalled, and 
 growing desperate. 
 
 ' The lawyer still continued to excite him. 
 
 ' " You would shoot your father for money, I sup- 
 pose?" 
 
 * " Iwould^'' exclaimed the man furiously. 
 
 < u Q^ yQ>^y. riTjfiother f " 
 
 '''I would:' 
 
 ^''^ Or your sinter f " 
 
 '''I would:' 
 
 ' " Or your brother? " 
 
 ' " ^^, or yourself either!'' cried the infuriated ruf- 
 fian. 
 
 ' The prisoner was condemned, and executed a fort- 
 night after his conviction. 
 
 ' Tipperary for a long time after was quiet.' ^ 
 
 I will now give two instances of murder where no 
 conviction took place. 
 
 But before doing this, I will take an instance of a 
 person who just missed falling a victim to a plan for 
 his assassination. 
 
 Mr. Nicholson, being a man of large means, spent 
 40,000?. in endeavors to improve his estate by fencing, 
 draining, restoring the fertility of districts left almost 
 barren by the exhaustion of overcropping, and the 
 removal of cabins left vacant by emigration. 
 
 Casserly the elder occupied a miserable cabin, which 
 was the residence of Casserly himself and his wife, 
 
 1 * Realities of Irish Life,' p. 51. 
 
252 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 a married daughter, with her husband and several 
 children, and of an unmarried son. When this son 
 wished to marry, Casserly proposed to remove him to 
 a wretched hole, which was only fit for an ass, and 
 had been occupied for that purpose. Mr. Nicholson 
 offered 3^oung Casserly twelve guineas to enable him to 
 emigrate, and on his refusal to accept the offer deter- 
 mined to remove him as a tenant. Hence the attempt 
 to hold him up to odium, and then the attempt to 
 murder him. 
 
 But the case which was the immediate cause of a 
 conspiracy to assassinate Mr. Nicholson arose on a 
 notice to quit being given to a man named Lanham, 
 who occupied fourteen acres, at a rent of 18?. 10«., as 
 tenant from year to year. 
 
 After being frequently defeated in courts of law, 
 and finally in the House of Lords, Lanham resolved to 
 obtain, if not victory, at least revenge, and hired men 
 to murder Mr. Nicholson on his return from Dublin. 
 On the necessary particulars being obtained, two men 
 were told off with loaded fire-arms to await the passing 
 of the carriage from the railway station to Mr. Nichol- 
 son's house. 
 
 The following particulars are taken from a pamphlet 
 entitled ' A Chapter of Irish Landlordism ' : — 
 
 ' On the afternoon fixed for the tragedy, Mr. Nichol- 
 son drove in an open carriage from Kells, accompanied 
 by his niece. Miss Staples. In the rear of the carriage 
 a seat was placed, the occupant of which — a well- 
 armed guard, who was an ex-constable of the constabulary 
 — sat with his back to the carriage. On previous oc- 
 casions the guard was in the habit of sitting on the 
 box-seat with the coachman ; the change of position 
 having been made for supposed greater security. As 
 
IRISH MURDERS. 253 
 
 the carriage was driven forward to the place where the 
 intended assassins were in ambush, the change of posi- 
 tion of the guard appears to have induced them to fire 
 as the carriage was approaching, instead of waiting till 
 it came up, when they might be unpleasantly confronted 
 with the guard. This alteration of arrangement proved 
 fatal to the success of the scheme, the guns having 
 been discharged so that their contents completely rid- 
 dled the unfortunate coachman ; only two stray slugs 
 reached Mr. Nicholson and Miss Staples ; the former 
 being struck on the forearm and the latter on the shoul- 
 der, the wound in either case not being of a dangerous 
 character. The guard immediately fired after the as- 
 sassins, whom he saw moving off, but, as it appeared, 
 without effect. The horses, finding themselves liber- 
 ated from control, commenced to plunge, but Mr. Nichol- 
 son soon obtained possession of the reins; and Miss 
 Staples, with great presence of mind, at once went to 
 the assistance of the guard in supporting the dying 
 coachman. In this way the beleaguered party pro- 
 ceeded to their destination. These events occurred in 
 the month of October, 1869.' 
 
 The complicity of the people with the Ribbon con- 
 spiracy seems not to admit of question. ' A thatcher, 
 who had been at work during the day on the roof of 
 one of the cottages, retired inside and shut himself up 
 before the carriage came forward. An old pensioner 
 of the family, whose father was also a dependant on 
 Balrath House, made an observation in the early part 
 of the day in Kells that " if the ould gentleman lived 
 tlirough that day he would live for ever." Another 
 circumstance proving complicity is, that at two o'clock 
 on the day of the attempt, a countryman in the town 
 of Balbriggan, more than thirty miles from Balrath, 
 
254 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 announced that Mr. Nicholson had been shot. Another 
 circumstance worth recalling was, that although the 
 village had the appearance of being deserted up to the 
 time of the outrage, people were seen passing in crowds 
 immediately after the shots had been fired. With re- 
 spect to the punishment of so foul and notorious a 
 crime, several arrests were made of supposed guilty 
 parties ; but as no satisfactory evidence was procured, 
 the prisoners were all eventually discharged.' 
 
 I wish to compare the circumstances already related 
 with any thing that can be supposed to happen in Eng- 
 land upon the perpetration of a similar crime. Could 
 any attempt at assassination occur in the case of a 
 gentleman returning in his carriage to his country house 
 from the railway station ? Would not all the neighbor- 
 hood be alarmed ? and would not the assassins be capt- 
 ured and made subject to the law ? Is it possible that 
 when a land-owner has been murdered, his murderer 
 should gaze quietly on the dead body and mix famil- 
 iarly with all the laborers in the field ? 
 
 What is now the state of affairs at Balrath ? 
 
 In December, 1872, Mr. Nicholson died at a good 
 old age, the establishment was broken up, and Mr. 
 Christopher Nicholson, the present owner, has gone to 
 reside in England. 
 
 I will further remark, that a pair of white gloves 
 have been given to the judge at Kells, but that those 
 gloves would have more properly been given to the 
 chiefs of the Ribbon confederacy in Ireland ; for to 
 them it is owing that Mr. Christopher Nicholson is safe 
 in England, and has not been murdered in the county 
 of Meath. I must, however, ask how it is that, more 
 than seventy years after the Union with England, the 
 supreme force in Ireland is vested, not in the judges 
 
IRISH MURDERS. 255 
 
 and ministers of the law, but in the Ribbon confeder- 
 acy ? Remedies are not far to seek. If giving to the 
 majority of a jury, as in Scotland, the power of con- 
 viction should prove inadequate, let tribunals be created 
 of men sufficiently intelligent to weigh the value of 
 evidence, and sufficiently independent not to be swa3^ed 
 by relationship with the criminal, or fear of the Ribbon 
 confederacy. 
 
 Another instance of a crime perpetrated with impu- 
 nity by the members of the Ribbon confederacy oc- 
 curred the year before last. Mrs. Neill, who lived in 
 her own house, at 5 Sydenham Terrace, Rathmines, a 
 suburb of Dublin, had interfered in a dispute between 
 two of her tenants. The dispute arose about a right 
 of way. The cattle of one tenant having trespassed on 
 the land of another, Mrs. Neill sanctioned a proposal 
 to put a gate to prevent the trespass ; and as the other 
 tenant refused to submit she served on him herself a 
 process of ejectment. It was ascertained at the office 
 of Mrs. Neill's solicitor that an affidavit of the service 
 of ejectment would be made on a certain day. On the 
 day previous to that arranged for making the affidavit, 
 which was on May 27, 1872, tAvo men knocked at her 
 door at Rathmines. Mrs. Neill hearing the knock 
 went herself to open the door ; upon her doing so one 
 of the men fired a pistol at her breast, causing her im- 
 mediate death. No legal evidence could be procured 
 of this murder. The coroner's verdict of ' Wilful mur- 
 der against some person or persons unknown ' was 
 returned, and no one was made amenable for the 
 crime. 
 
 It might be supposed that so horrible a crime, com- 
 mitted in open day, in a suburb of the great city of 
 Dublin, would have spread terror and alarm, and that 
 
256 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 the Government, by large offers of reward and by 
 extraordinary means, would have sought to punish so 
 horrible an outrage. But the crime seems to have 
 been passed over as an ordinary occurrence, and the 
 criminal law of the Ribbon society seems to have had 
 its sentence of death executed without difficulty, and 
 the crime was allowed to pass without special inquiry. 
 If the late Government of Ireland earned approbation 
 by the abolition of a Church Establishment which had 
 no root in the affections of the people, and by giving a 
 remedy to tenants who are evicted from their homes 
 without any justifiable cause, so much the more is it 
 necessary to carry into effect, with strictness and impar- 
 tiality, that protection of life and property which is the 
 first duty of a Government. No hospitality, however 
 I)rincoly, no magnificence of banquets and of balls, no 
 urbanity of manners, no observance of state ceremonials, 
 can excuse a Government for allowing murder to be com- 
 mitted with impunity at the will of a lawless confederacy, 
 whose agents are unpunished, and whose orders seem 
 to be implicitly obeyed. At the end of the seventeenth 
 century, Scotland was infested by troops and bands of 
 men to whom murder, incest, and robbery were familiar. 
 The Government of Great Britain knew its duties and 
 performed tliem with resolution. Before many 3'ears 
 liad expired the farmers and manufacturei"s of Scotland 
 could pursue their occupations in peace, and assert the 
 rights of property with advantage to the owner of 
 land and his tenants. In 1780, law and order were 
 observed in Scotland. In 1872, law and order could not 
 run their course in Ireland. 
 
 We shall be told, no doubt, by a powerful portion of 
 the press of London, that the people of Ireland are 
 incurable barbarians, and that the spirit of anarchy 
 
IRELAND. 257 
 
 cannot be exorcised by any magic which human wit can 
 devise. But there is no truth in this allegation. An 
 admirable body of constabulary, devised by Sir Robert 
 Peel, performs its duties with fidelity and discipline ; 
 the administration of the Poor-law, opposed by the 
 great demagogue of Ireland, works its way with regu- 
 larity and directs its machinery more efficiently than a 
 similar administration in England. The judges perform 
 their functions without disturbance ; and although they 
 6iay be hooted or burned in effigy, if they perform their 
 duties as the judges of Queen Victoria, and not in 
 compliance with the dictates of a seditious press, their 
 judgments are carried into effect without resistance. 
 
 I now proceed to my second proposition : that the 
 Roman Catholic clergy, in the capacity of parish priests, 
 have great sway over the minds of the people of Ire- 
 land, but, being entirely dependent upon the voluntary 
 offerings of their flocks, are, from sympathy or from 
 fear, unwilling to appear as the prosecutors of the con- 
 federacy that directs and executes murders. 
 
 It should be the study of wise rulers to govern the 
 states over which they are supreme according to the 
 disposition of the nations they have to govern, but 
 always in such a manner as to foster their virtues and 
 to repress their vices. 
 
 Mr. Froude, in the able work upon Ireland which he 
 has published, has observed that after the conquest of 
 Ireland by the Normans, the difficulty of Ireland from 
 first to last has been ' because the effort of the conquer- 
 ors was to govern the Irish, not as a vassal province, 
 but as a free nation ; to extend the forms of English 
 liberty — her trials by jury, her local courts, her Parlia- 
 ments — to a people essentially unfit for them; and, 
 
 17 
 
258 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 while governing Ireland, to teach her at the same time 
 the harder lesson — how to govenj herself.*^ 
 
 In considering the Irish character, I have to observe 
 that the Irish have two remarkable virtues and two 
 prominent defects. The two virtues are, a sincere love 
 of religion and a strong sense of justice; the two 
 defects are, vanity and pugnacity. It has been the 
 mistake of the English rulers of Ireland to check, to 
 curb, and to misguide the sense of religion and the love 
 of justice, and to indulge the vanity and pugnacity of 
 the nation. In the reign of Henry II. titles were 
 granted by Pope Adrian to the King of England. The 
 Koman Catholic religion continued without interruption 
 to be the faith of the nation till the period of the 
 Reformation; but at the period of the Reformation, 
 Elizabeth, without any preparatory steps, decreed that 
 the nation should be Protestant. The Reformation 
 deepened the animosity which the Irish felt towards 
 England. To the animosities of race and the dispos- 
 session of the Irish, guilty of rebellion, from their 
 lands, were added the animosity of an oppressed re- 
 ligion. Down to the year 1778, a priest who celebrated 
 the mass according to his own faith and that of the 
 people to whom he administered was liable to imprison- 
 ment for his ofPence. Lord Shelburne, the great-grand- 
 father of the present Marquis of Lansdowne, when 
 Secretary of State, was obliged to implore the mercy of 
 the Crown to save a priest from the legal penalty which 
 he had incurred by saying mass. The Protestant 
 Church had always been a sickly exotic, and had never 
 taken root in the soil. 
 
 It was obvious that when, in 1830, the Whigs came 
 
 1 • The English in Ireland/ by J. A. Froude, toI. i. p. 18. , 
 
IRELAND. 259 
 
 into power, the difficulty of the Irish Church was to be 
 encountered ; and Lord Ripon was not wrong in stating 
 that the appointment of a Commission to inquire was 
 equivalent to an Act of Parliament to abolish. But 
 there were evidently four courses to pursue. 
 
 The first course was that of Lord Lansdowne — to 
 diminish the church revenues gradual^ and partially, 
 to find some kindred object to which the surplus reve- 
 nues could be applied, and to content ourselves with 
 that imperfect remedy. The second course was to 
 secularize the church revenues, and to give the whole 
 of those revenues to secular purposes, such as hospitals 
 and lunatic asylums. The third course was to transfer 
 the revenues, after the expiry of life-interests, to the 
 Roman Catholic clergy. The fourth would be not Yery 
 different in principle from the third ; it would consist 
 of an endowment for the Roman Catholics in the prov- 
 inces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, and for 
 the Presbyterians in Ulster. 
 
 I do not include the absurd proposal of making a 
 grant to every sect, however small its numbers. 
 
 The first of these proposals was that which I sub- 
 mitted to Parliament for some years, and which I only 
 abandoned from seeing that a small majority in the 
 House of Commons would never prevail over a strong 
 majority in the House of Lords. In fact, the people of 
 England never took up warmly the appropriation clause, 
 and, indeed, were not persuaded that the Protestant 
 Church in Ireland could be that miserable, monopolizing 
 minority which Fox had described it to be. 
 
 The second coi\rse is stated by a committee of Mr. 
 O'Connell in very clear terms as follows : — 
 
 ' Your committee claim that the ecclesiastical state 
 revenues should (as the existing vested interests dropped 
 
260 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 off) be applied for the general benefit of the com- 
 munity ; that is, for the support of the poor, for the 
 promotion of education, and in works of charity, equally 
 and without distinction, to all sects and persuasions.' ^ 
 
 On this proposal it may be remarked, that the sup- 
 port of the poor has been provided for by separate Acts 
 of Parliament, and that education is supplied by large 
 annual grants of Parliament. 
 
 As to hospitals, it is to be supposed that the nurses 
 would be after the model of Mrs. Quickly, who is much 
 shocked that Falstaff, when not in immediate danger, 
 should mention the name of God. 
 
 ' " How now, Sir John ? " quoth I ; " what, man ! be 
 of good cheer." So 'a cried out, "• God, God, God ! " 
 three or four times. Now I, to comfort him, bid him 'a 
 should not think of God ; I hoped there was no need 
 to trouble himself with any such thoughts yet.' ^ 
 
 The setting up of hospitals and lunatic asylums in all 
 the great towns of Ireland would doubtless furnish an 
 opening for many jobs, and the Patronage Secretary of 
 the Treasury might gain several converts from Home 
 Rule by promising large endowments for charitable 
 foundations for their constituents. 
 
 The third proposal has many advantages to recom- 
 mend it. First, it would be in accordance with the 
 statutes of the time of Henry H., when Pope Adrian 
 issued a bull by which the King of Engltind was made 
 Lord of Ireland, and tithes were granted to him. 
 
 * There can be no reasonable doubt of the authen- 
 ticity of this document. Baronius published it from the 
 * Codex Vaticanus ; ' John XXII. has annexed it to his 
 
 * ' Post and Trcscnt Policy of England towards Ireland,' by C. 
 Grevillo, p. 288. 
 
 ^ ' King Henry V.,' act ii. scene 3. 
 
IRELAND. 261 
 
 brief addressed to Edward II. ; and John of Salisbury 
 states distinctl}^ in his Metalogieus, that he obtained this 
 bull from Adrian. (^Metal.^ I. 4.) ^ From this time 
 (1154) till the reign of Ehzabeth, that is to say, for four 
 centuries, we must suppose that, however irregularly 
 levied, the tithes of Ireland were appropriated to the 
 Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. If the wovd^ plunder 
 and blunder have any significance, they should be ap- 
 plied, not to Mr. Gladstone and his Cabinet, but to 
 Queen Elizabeth and the Protestant Church of Ireland. 
 
 The endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy of 
 Ireland has, therefore, the plea of antiquity to recom- 
 mend it. 
 
 It has likewise its accordance with the character of 
 the Irish people ; they are described by Mr. Froude as 
 ' passionate in every thing ; passionate in their patriot- 
 ism, passionate in their religion.' ^ He likewise, while 
 with the spirit of a severe historian he pities the imper- 
 fections of their character, says of the nation, that ' they 
 appeal to sympathy in their very weakness, and they 
 possess, and have always possessed, some qualities, the 
 moral worth of which it is impossible to over-estimate, 
 and which are rare in the choicest races of mankind.' ^ 
 
 If such is the moral worth of the Irish people, and 
 if they are passionate in their attachment to religion, it 
 can hardly be denied that a large provision ought to be 
 made to enable the parish priests to attend to their 
 spiritual wants, and give spiritual comfort on those 
 frequent occasions of feasts and fasts, of illness and of 
 worship, when the Roman Catholic gentleman and the 
 
 1 See ' Illustrated History of Ireland,' p. 273. * Religious History of 
 Ireland,' by James Godkin. 
 
 - ' The English in Ireland.' Froude. Vol. i. p. 23. 
 » Ibid., vol. i. p. 21. 
 
262 BECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Roman Catholic peasant alike require that his priest 
 should be able to attend him easily and conveniently. 
 The priest should neither have a long distance to travel, 
 nor want means to obtain the food and the clothing 
 necessary for his maintenance. I will quote one authoiity 
 to make good the proposition I have laid down. It is 
 tlie deliberate judgment of Dr. Arnold. His large and 
 liberal views are thus explained in the volume of his 
 ' Life and Letters ' ; — 
 
 'I think that a Catholic is a member of Christ's 
 church just as much as I am, and I could well endure 
 one form of that Church in Ireland and in England. We 
 are suffering here from that accursed division among 
 Christians of which I think the archfiend must be the 
 author. The good Protestants and bad Christians have 
 talked nonsense and more than nonsense so long about 
 popery and the beast and antichrist, that the simple, 
 just, and Christian measure of establishing the Roman 
 Catholic Church in three-fifths of Ireland seems removed 
 by common consent. The Protestant clergy ought not 
 to have their present revenues in Ireland ; so far I agree 
 with Lord Grey, but not in a narrow, low, economical 
 view of their pay being over-proportioned to their work, 
 but because church property is one of the most sacred 
 trusts of which the sovereign power in the church, i.e., 
 the King and Parliament, not the bishops and clergy, is 
 appointed by God trustee. It is a property set apart 
 for the advancement of direct Christian principles ; 
 first, by furnishing religious comfort and instruction to 
 the grown-up part of the i)opulation ; next, by furnish- 
 ing the same to the young in the shape of religious 
 education. Now the Christian people of Ireland have 
 a right to have the full benefit of their church property, 
 which now they cannot have, because Protestant clergy- 
 
IRELAND. 263 
 
 men they will not listen to. I think, then, that it ought 
 to furnish them with Catholic clergymen. ... I have 
 one great principle which I never lose sight of, to insist 
 strongly on the difference between Christian and anti- 
 Christian, and to sink into nothing the difference be- 
 tween Christian and Christian.' ^ 
 
 I should, for my own part, object very strongly to the 
 setting up of a Roman Catholic Church establishment 
 in Ireland, with its archbishops, bishops, and deans, its 
 preposterous pretensions, and its ultramontane doctrines ; 
 but the Roman Catholic parish priests ought, I think, to 
 have provided for each of them a manse or rectory, with 
 a few acres of land ; in short, sufficient pasture for a 
 cow or a horse. That we should confine our grants to 
 the parochial clergy was the opinion of the late Mr. 
 Tierney. 
 
 Dr. Arnold was not the first person who perceived 
 that reasons, even stronger than those I have men- 
 tioned, exist for endeavoring to range the Roman Cath- 
 olic priesthood on the side of peace and order. Bishop 
 Law, a man of great comprehension of mind, and not 
 less liberality, has spoken to the following effect of the 
 conduct of the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland : 
 ' The almost total dependence of the Roman Catholic 
 clergy of Ireland upon their people for the means of 
 subsistence is the cause, according to my best judgment, 
 why, upon every popular commotion, many priests of 
 that communion have been, and, until measures of bet- 
 ter policy are adopted, always will be, found in the ranks 
 of sedition and opposition to the established Govei-n- 
 ment. The peasant will love a revolution, because he 
 feels the weight of poverty, and has not often the sense 
 
 1 Dr. Arnold's ' Life and Letters/ vol. i. p. 382. _^ 
 
264 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 to perceive that the change of masters may render it 
 lieavier ; the priest must follow the impulse of the pop- 
 ular wave, or be left behind on the beach to perisli.' ^ 
 
 I am aware that there are many obstacles in the way 
 of an endowment for the parish priests of the Roman 
 Catholic Church in Ireland, yet the reasons in its 
 favor are exceedingly strong. They may be thus 
 summed up : — 
 
 1. It is a restoration of property conferred by 
 Henry II. and the Pope on the Roman Catholic Church 
 of Ireland. 2. It is in accordance with the religion of 
 the great majority of the people of Ireland. 3. It 
 would relieve the farmers and peasants of Ireland from 
 very heavy demands. 4. It Avould separate the Roman 
 Catholic clergy from all sympathy and connivance with 
 the Ribbon confederacy, and give the best hope of 
 checking murder, carried on, as it is at present, in the 
 spirit of established regular criminal law, ' ut poena ad 
 paucos, metus ad omnes, perveniat.' 
 
 Thus recommended, it is to be hoped that some 
 great Minister, or some wise Parliament, may at length 
 provide for the prospect of ' Hibernia pacata.' 
 
 I now come to my fourth proposition : — 
 
 That the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
 of Great Britain ought to have in Ireland the same 
 authority as in Scotland. 
 
 In order to place in contrast the two systems, it will 
 be necessary to compare the government of Scotland 
 from 1707 to 1829 with the government of Ireland for 
 a similar period. 
 
 The pr()i)osal I make is justified by the course which 
 was adopted with regard to Scotland by the Union of 
 
 / 
 
 1 Plowden, vol. iii. p. 716. 
 
POLICY TO SCOTLAND AND IRELAND. 265 
 
 1707, and the prodigious success of the policy enforced 
 by that Union. 
 
 The Union of Scotland confirmed in the most solemn 
 manner the establishment of a National Church on prin- 
 ciples to which the Scotch nation were deeply attached. 
 Courts of justice administered laws to which the Scotch 
 Parliament had given its assent. The distribution of 
 property, which had been made with the assent of the 
 nobility, gentry, and commonalty of Scotland, provided 
 a decent though frugal maintenance for the parochial 
 ministers of the National Church, for the repair of their 
 dwellings, and the means of education for the poor, 
 which John Knox had taken care should include relig- 
 ious instruction, in which he and the majority of the 
 people of Scotland could willingly concur. 
 
 The administration of law and the establishment of 
 a religious Avorship agreeable to the conscience of the 
 people being thus -provided for, and guaranteed by 
 special enactments binding on the Sovereign, Lord 
 Somers applied the resources of his wisdom to the 
 maintenance of order and liberty by the Executive 
 Government. 
 
 A strong desire was entertained to preserve the Privy 
 Council of Scotland, and to place in the hands of its 
 members powers of state and justice, but Lord Somers, 
 by a speech in the House of Lords, averted the mis- 
 chiefs which would have resulted from the establishment 
 of two political administrations, one in England and 
 another in Scotland. The following notes contain 
 briefly the heads of the speech in the House of Lords 
 made by this great statesman : ' True concern for pre- 
 serving the public peace. Heartily desirous of the 
 Union. No less desirous to make it entire and complete. 
 Not at all perfect while two political administrations 
 
266 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 subsist. The true argument for the Union was the 
 danger to both kingdoms from a divided state. Prin- 
 cipally hy the help of one to enslave the other^ and to 
 effect another sort of union. The advantage of Scotland 
 is to have the same easy access to the Prince, to be 
 under the immediate personal care of the Prince, and 
 not to owe their protection and countenance to any 
 subordinate institution. This was my argument at the 
 Union. Will not prevaricate. Worse state after the 
 Union if a distinct Administration continue.' ^ 
 
 The policy of Lord Somers was successful ; the seat 
 of government was placed in England, and the govern- 
 ment of the Church was confided to a general assembly 
 composed partly of the ministers of the ' Kirk ' and 
 partly of lay elders popularly elected. 
 
 The administration of justice was intrusted to the 
 most eminent members of the bar of Scotland chcsen 
 by the Crown. 
 
 Thus constituted, the government of Scotland has 
 withstood most dangerous storms. When the young 
 Pretender landed in Scotland, in 1745, the destinies of 
 England were confided to two ministers, of whom it was 
 said with truth and wit, that the one, Lord Carteret, 
 made a trifle of every difficulty, and the other, the Duke 
 of Newcastle, a difficulty of every trifle. Yet the Low- 
 Linders of Scotland were true to their principles, and 
 they had in President Forbes an able and sagacious 
 leader. The history of Scotland from the time of the 
 battle of Cuiloden shows that, whether in her manufact- 
 uring towns, as Glasgow, Paisley, and Dundee, or in 
 her agricultural counties, as the Lothians, industry has 
 its due reward, and that order and liberty flourish 
 
 i Lord Uardwicke's ' State Papers/ vol. ii. p. 478. 
 
SCOTLAND. 237 
 
 together. If there occurs anywhere in Scotland a riot 
 or a conspiracy, the Home Secretary is prompt to direct 
 the forces of Great Britain to the diseased part, and 
 every one relies on the pacific termination of the dis- 
 order. 
 
 I have omitted to mention one blot which did much 
 to diminish the merit of the Union between Eno^land 
 and Scotland. The Parliamentary representation of 
 Scotland was left in the hands, or placed in the hands, 
 of a miserable, monopolizing minority, as odious and as 
 exclusive as the church minority which deformed the 
 Union between Great Britain and Ireland. 
 
 A few owners of land held, under the title of supe- 
 riorities, the whole Parliamentary representation of 
 Scotland in their hands. The supremacy of Dimdas 
 and his followers was not even mitigated by the in- 
 fluence of a majority of numbers, which in Ireland 
 belonged so manifestly to the Roman Catholics, as to 
 break in some degree the tyranny of law. Lord Archi- 
 bald Hamilton was almost the only man who dared in 
 Parliament to raise his voice in the cause of right and 
 justice. During the early days of the French War, a 
 lawyer or man of letters who spoke against the excesses 
 of arbitrary power could, if a lawj^er, hardly obtain a 
 brief ; or if a philosopher, scarcely use his literary talent 
 without the fear of being oppressed and excluded from 
 the legitimate use of his freedom by the oppressive 
 mandate of an intolerant majority. Such men as Mr. 
 Jeffrey, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Fletcher were the 
 targets at which all the arrows of exclusion, of abuse, 
 and of calumny were directed. One lady, the wife of 
 Mr. Fletcher, was said to keep on her toilet table a 
 miniature guillotine, with which she slew the ducks and 
 chickens for her husband's table. These absurd inven- 
 
268 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 tions were suited to the prevailing palate, and made it 
 difficult for Mr. Fletcher to maintain his independence. 
 This tyranny \vas not finally overcome till Lord Grey's 
 accession to power in 1830. 
 
 I have seen private letters which have been pre- 
 Berved describing the enthusiasm, the popular joy, and 
 the sense of deliverance from the yoke of Toryism 
 v/hich animated the crowds of Edinburgh when they 
 welcomed Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Jeffrey, or, more 
 properly, James Abercrombie and Francis Jeffrey, when 
 they were elected under the Reform Act as members 
 for Edinburgh. The Dundases had been as intolerant, 
 as corrupt, and as powerful in the Scotch, as the Beres- 
 fords in the Irish community. 
 
 I am allowed to copy from the diary of Mrs. Fletcher 
 her commemoration of the triumph of political liberty 
 in Scotland ; — 
 
 ' It was during that winter, 1832-3, that the hust- 
 ings were erected for the first time at the cross of 
 Edinburgh for the popular election of the membei*s 
 for the city, under the new Reform Bill. I often took 
 my three grandsons, and explained to them how their 
 grandfather and father would have rejoiced to see that 
 day, for the sake of the improvement of their country, 
 and the security of its future freedom. 
 
 *At length, in March, 1833, came the day of elec- 
 tion, and we were kindl}' invited by the Lord Advocate 
 and Mrs. Jeffrey to their house in Moray Place, to see 
 the members brought home in triumph. The citizens 
 of Edinburgh did themselves honor in choosing two such 
 representatives as James Abercrombie, the Speaker of 
 the House of Commons, and Francis Jeffrey, then 
 Lord Advocate ; men not less eminent for their talents 
 than for their public spirit and com*age in supporting 
 
SCOTLAND. 
 
 269 
 
 the cause of civil and religious liberty, both in and out 
 of Parliament. I scarcely felt equal to go, leaving 
 Mary alone on that day in our lodgings. Our kind 
 Mrs. Thompson secretly consulted her husband, and 
 came with a cheery face early in the day, to say Dr. 
 Thompson allowed his patient to go with me to the 
 chair or sofa offered her near the window by Mrs. 
 Jeffrey. It was a glorious sight for us to see these 
 truly honest men borne home amidst the acclamations 
 of tens of thousands of their grateful and emancipated 
 countrymen. We stood by them on the balcony of 
 Mr. Jeffrey's house while the}^ sh9rtly returned thanks 
 to the people. Few events ever excited me more than 
 those which took place in Edinburgh at that time.' - 
 
 While it must be said of Mr. Fletcher that he sacri- 
 ficed the honest earnings of his profession, in order to 
 maintain the independence of his position, and preserve 
 the utterance of his free opinions in favor of civil lib- 
 erty in the worst of times, it must be also recorded 
 that his widow Mrs. Fletcher never bated a jot of heart 
 or hope when deprived of her husband, and suffering 
 many afflictions of a domestic nature ; she was still one 
 of the most agreeable members of society, and assem- 
 bled Mr. Jeffrey, Mr. Cockburn, and others at her 
 evening parties, which were distinguished amongst the 
 most agreeable resorts of the literary society of Edin- 
 burgh. I shall always remember with pleasure the 
 many evenings on which, with Professor Playfair and 
 others, who maintained opinions favorable to freedom, 
 1 was associated with those parties. 
 
 Let us now turn to Ireland, taking the period from 
 1708 to 1829. 
 
 1 'Autobiography of Mrs. Fletcher/ p. 181, privately printed. 
 
2T0 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The Union of England with Scotland, and the Union 
 of Great Britain and Ireland have been consolidated 
 by two Acts of Union, — the Act of Union between 
 England and Scotland, passed in 1708, and the Act of 
 Union between Great Britain and Ireland, concluded 
 in 1801. 
 
 These two Acts were framed upon totally different 
 principles, and therefore we must not be surprised, 
 omitting all invidious contrast between the national 
 characters of the Scotch and the Irish, if we find that 
 the result has been totally different. While the Scotch 
 Union has established a confirmation of the Scotch 
 National Church, and the maintenance of the laws and 
 courts of justice prevailing in Scotland before the 
 Union, and while Scotland has made wonderful prog- 
 ress in manufactures, in agriculture, and every species 
 of industry, the picture presented by Ireland is of a far 
 less agreeable nature. 
 
 After the Revolution of 1688 in England, after the 
 battle of the Boyne and the battle of Aughrim, the 
 Irish people wished to devote themselves to the growth 
 and manufacture of wool. The soil of Ireland is es- 
 pecially adapted to the feeding of sheep ; the price 
 of fleece-wool in Ireland, in 1733, was fivepence, of 
 combed wool, twelvepence a pound. In France, Irish 
 fleece-wool was sold for two shillings and sixpence a 
 pound; combed wool from four shillings and sixpence 
 to six shillings. It is obvious that if the Irish had 
 been, allowed to export their fleece and combed wool 
 to France, they would have made an enormous profit 
 by their pastoral industry, and the anarchical spirit 
 would have been vanquished. What stood in the way 
 of these benefits? — benefits for Ireland, benefits for 
 England, benefits for the Empu*e? Why could not 
 
IRELAND. . 271 
 
 the Irish build manufacturing towns, and erect manu- 
 factories of cloth in competition with the linen manu- 
 factories of Belfast, in rivalry of the towns of Leeds 
 and Halifax in England ? Was it the anarchical spirit 
 of the Irish ? No. When the Irish rebels with their 
 French allies had been vanquished at the Boyne, when 
 James had gone back to say his prayers and get abso- 
 lution at St. Germains, the English Parliament, instead 
 of making a flourishing United Kingdom, prohibited, 
 by Act of Parliament (the 9th of William HI.)? the 
 direction of the industry of the Irish to the manu- 
 facture of cloth, and, in a spirit of detraction and of 
 selfishness, resolved to build on the poverty of Ireland 
 the supremacy of English law and English administra- 
 tion. When this monopoly had gone on for nearly a 
 century, and the Irish, deprived of a fair course for 
 their industry, had resorted to illegal trade as the only 
 defence against the injustice and impolicy of England, 
 Mr. Hely Hutchinson, an Irish gentleman of noble 
 family, the ancestor of the peer who commanded with 
 distinction, after the death of Sir Ralph Abercrombie, 
 the English army in Egypt, made, in 1779, the fol- 
 lowing statement before Lord Harcourt, the Lord 
 Lieutenant : — 
 
 'As the law stands,' he said, ' we can sell our wool 
 and woollen goods only to Great Britain. We can buy 
 woollen cloths there only. If such a law related to 
 two private men instead of two kingdoms, and enjoined 
 that in buying and selling the same goods one individual 
 should deal with one man only in exclusion of others, 
 it would in effect ordain that both as buyer and seller 
 that man should fix his own price and profit, and would 
 refer to his discretion the loss and profit of the other 
 dealer. You have defeated your own object. The 
 
272 TIECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 exclusion of Ireland from the woollen trade has been 
 more injurious to you than to us. One pack of Irish 
 wool works up two packs of French wool. The French 
 undersell the English, and, as far as they are supplied 
 with Irish wool, the loss to England is double what it 
 would be if the Irish exported their wool manufactured^ 
 ... As to the practice of running wool, Ireland has 
 paid to Great Britain for eleven years past double the 
 sum she collects from the whole world in all the trade 
 which Great Britain allows her — a fact not to be par- 
 alleled in the history of mankind. Whence did all this 
 money come ? Our very existence is dependent on our 
 illicit commerce.' ^ 
 
 Persons of all ranks in Ireland were principals or 
 accomplices in smuggling. ' Distinctions of creed were 
 obliterated, and resistance to law became a bond of 
 union between Catholic and Protestant, Irish Celt and 
 English colonist — from the great landlord whose sheep 
 roamed in thousands over the Cork mountains, to the 
 ganger who, with conveniently blinded eyes, passed the 
 wool-packs through the custom-house as butter barrels ; 
 from the magistrate whose cellars were filled with claret 
 on the return voyage of the smuggling craft, to the 
 judge on the bench who dismissed as frivolous and vex- 
 atious the various cases which came before the courts to 
 be tried.' ^ 
 
 * If encountered at sea, the contraband vessels were 
 sometimes armed so heavily that the government cut- 
 ters and schooners hesitated to meddle with them. If 
 unarmed and overhauled, they were found apparently 
 
 1 * Mr. Hely Hutclnnson to Lord ITnrcourt, July 1, 1770/ MSS. Record, 
 Office. Froudc's ' The English in Ireland,' vol. i. pp. 447-48. 
 3 Froude's ' The Englieh in Ireland/ vol. i. pp. 448-49. 
 
BURKE. 273 
 
 laden with some innocent cargo of salt provisions. The 
 wool was pressed with screws into barrels, which were 
 washed with brine, that they might pass for butter, 
 herring, or salt pork casks. The more determined the 
 authorities showed themselves, the more resolute were 
 the Irish, the lawlessness and wildness of the trade giv- 
 ing it fresh zest. Driven from the Cork warehouses, 
 the packs were stored in caves about the islands and 
 cliffs and crags, where small vessels took them off at 
 leisure ; or French traders, on signal from shore, sent in 
 their boats for them. Chests of bullion were kept by 
 the merchants at Rochelle and Brest to pay for them as 
 they were landed. When the French Government for- 
 bade the export of so much specie, claret, brandy, and 
 silks were shipped for Ireland in exchange on board the 
 vessels which had brought the wool.' ^ Mr. Froude 
 truly declares that this system worked the extremity of 
 mischief commercially, socially, and politically ; but, 
 happily for the political and commercial evils thus 
 brought upon Ireland, a remedy was found. 
 
 Two men of extraordinary genius, both Irishmen, 
 were about this time, that is, in 1778, taking a leading 
 part in the commercial policy of England. The first of 
 these, Edmund Burke, was descended from a family long 
 settled in the south of Ireland. He was born in the 
 year 1730 ; ^ in 1774 he was elected one of the repre- 
 sentatives for the commercial city of Bristol. In 1778 
 he wrote a letter to ' Samuel Span, Esquire, Master of 
 the Society of Merchant Adventurers of Bristol ; ' his 
 letter related to resolutions of the House of Commons 
 somewhat mitigating the exclusive spirit of the measures 
 
 1 Froude's ' The English in Ireland/ vol. i. p. 450j 
 
 2 ' Life of Edmund Burke,' by Peter Burke, Esq. 
 
 18 
 
274 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 framed to secure the monopoly of trade and manufact- 
 ures to England. Burke declared in his letter that he 
 considered the resolutions merely as preparatory of 
 better things, as a means of showing experimentally that 
 justice to others is not always folly to ourselves. He 
 went on to say, ' Too little dependence cannot be had 
 at this time of day on names and prejudices. The eyes 
 of mankind are opened, and communities must be held 
 together by an evident and solid interest. God forbid 
 that our conduct should demonstrate to the world that 
 Great Britain can, in no instance whatsoever, be brought 
 to a sense of rational and equitable policy but by coercion 
 and force of arms.' ^ Further, ' Do we in these resolu- 
 tions bestow any thing upon Ireland ? Not a shilling. 
 We only consent to leave to them, in two or three 
 instances, the use of the natural faculties which God has 
 given to them, and to all mankind.' 
 
 In a later passage, Burke asks : ' How much have you 
 lost by the participation of Scotland in all your commerce ? 
 The external trade of England has doubled since that 
 period.' He adds, * Such liberality there is in virtue of 
 sentiment that you have grown richer by the partner- 
 ship of poverty.' 
 
 Finding that this letter had no success, he wrote to 
 two gentlemen of Bristol, who had lamented that he 
 had tajten so^ decided a part against his constituents. In 
 this second letter he declares, 'No Government ought 
 to own that it exists for the purpose of checking the 
 prosperity of its people, or that there is such a principle 
 involved in its policy.' ^ 
 
 He concludes his letter with the following paragmph : 
 
 » Burke's Works, vol. iii. pp. 212-18. 
 » Ibid., p. 226. 
 
BURKE. .275 
 
 ' It is very unfortunate that we should consider those as 
 rivals whom we ought to regard as fellow-laborers in a 
 common cause. Ireland has never made a single step 
 in its progress towards prosperity by which you have 
 not had a share, and perhaps the greatest share, in the 
 benefit. That progress has been chiefly owing to her 
 own natural advantages and her own efforts, which, after 
 a long time, and by slow degrees, have prevailed in some 
 measure over the mischievous systems which have been 
 adopted. Far enough she is still from having arrived 
 even at an ordinary state of perfection; and if our 
 jealousies were to be converted into politics, as system- 
 atically as some would have them, the trade of Ireland 
 would vanish out of the system of commerce. But be- 
 lieve me, if Ireland is beneficial to you, it is so not from 
 the parts in which it is restrained, but from those in 
 which it is left free, though not left unrivalled. The 
 greater its freedom, the greater must be your advantage. 
 If you should lose in one way, you will gain in twenty.' ^ 
 There is an historical reason why I should make ccfni- 
 ments on this letter. The historical reason is, that in 
 1771 Oliver Goldsmith WTote of Burke : — 
 
 Who, bom for the universe, narrowed his mind. 
 And to party gave up what was meant for mankind. 
 
 This couplet conveys a most unjust charge against 
 Burke. In 1777, he wrote a public letter to the sheriffs 
 of Bristol in favor of concihation to America. In 1778, 
 he wrote, as we have seen, in favor of granting free 
 trade to Ireland. It was impossible to take a course 
 more opposed to national and commercial prejudices, or 
 more conducive to the interests of mankind. Gold- 
 
 1 Burke's Works, vol. iii. pp. 227-28. 
 
276 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 smith, on the other hand, was a Jacobite, and narrowed 
 his mind in the Jacobite vice. 
 
 The second Irishman to whom I alluded was Henry 
 Grattan. Henry Grattan was intended for the bar, but, 
 by the influence of Lord Charleraont, was elected mem- 
 ber for Charlemont in the place of Francis Caulfield, 
 Lord Charlemont's brother. Grattan was born in 1746, 
 in the city of Dublin, which his father represented in 
 Parliament; he was educated at the University of 
 Dublin, and in 1767 was entered a student of the 
 Middle Temple. He admired, to the point of enthusi- 
 asm, the eloquence of Lord Chatham, and more than 
 once reported his speeches. He was called to the Irish 
 Bar in 1772. The first speech, of which we have any 
 record in the collection of his speeches, was delivered 
 in 1778; in 1779, in the Irish Parliament, he moved an 
 amendment to the address to the King, asking for free 
 trade for Ireland. The Prime Serjeant (Mr. Hussey 
 Burgh) and Mr. Flood, in order to secure unanimity, 
 moved, * That we beg leave, however, humbly to repre- 
 Bent to His Majesty that it is not by temporary ex- 
 pedients, but by a free trade alone, that this nation is 
 now to be saved from impending ruin.* This was 
 unanimously adopted, and the address, with this amend- 
 ment, was agreed to. On the succeeding day it was 
 moved by Mr. Conolly, seconded by Mr. Ponsonby, and 
 resolved item, con., ' That the thanks of this House be 
 given to the different volunteer corps in this kingdom 
 for tliejr spiiited and (at this time) necessary exertions 
 in its defence.'^ 
 
 The formation of the volunteers, to the amount of 
 forty thousand armed men, showed that Ireland was in 
 
 1 ' GrattaD'8 Speeches/ rol. i. p. 26. 
 
GRATTAN. 277 
 
 earnest in asserting her rights. In April, 1782, the 
 volunteers had augmented in numbers to nearly eighty 
 thousand men, and in the month of February they as- 
 sembled at a convention at Dungannon, to take into 
 consideration the question of their country's freedom. 
 The three most important resolutions agreed upon were 
 these : — 
 
 ' Resolved : That a claim of any body of men, other 
 than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, to make 
 laws to bind this kingdom, is unconstitutional, illegal, 
 and a grievance. 
 
 ' Resolved : That the powers exercised by the Privy 
 Council of both kingdoms, under, or under color or pre- 
 tence of, the law of Poynings, are unconstitutional and 
 a grievance. 
 
 ' Resolved : That a Mutiny Bill, not limited in point 
 of duration from session to session, is unconstitutional 
 and a grievance.^ ^ 
 
 Ireland had at length been driven into a course of 
 armed resistance to the violent and tyrannical conduct 
 of the English House of Commons and the English 
 Ministry, which nothing but resistance could overcome. 
 At the same time, a change of Ministry took place in 
 England, and Charles Fox, who became Secretary of 
 State, introduced into the British House of Commons a 
 bill to repeal the 6th of George I. Thus was effected 
 without bloodshed a great revolution. Ireland ob- 
 tained a change by which her legislative independence 
 was secured. 
 
 Unhappily, this victory was not fruitful of prosper- 
 ity to Ireland. From 1772 to 1801 the Parliament of 
 
 1 * Grattan's Speeches/ vol. i. p. 121. 
 
278 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Ireland was remarkable chiefly for intolerance and 
 corruption. Grattan iu vain endeavored to obtain 
 for the Roman Catholics, who formed the great major- 
 ity of the people of Ireland, admission to the privileges 
 of the British Constitution. In these efforts he was 
 not supported b}'^ Lord Charlemont. In the name of 
 Protestant ascendency, which was the official creed 
 of all men who took part in the government of Ireland, 
 a grasping, bigoted, and corrupt junto upheld a mo- 
 nopol}^ more narrow, more unjust, and more injuiious to 
 the Commonwealth than any of those which, in her 
 last days, Queen Elizabeth had surrendered. 
 
 We have now to consider what was the new system 
 established by George III. and Mr. Pitt at the begin- 
 ning of the nineteenth century. In order to introduce 
 that system, the Protestants of Ireland were bought 
 with honors and with money, the Roman Catholics 
 of Ireland were deceived and betrayed. Lord Corn- 
 wallis, who, as a loj^al man, was bound to carry into 
 effect the will of his Sovereign, said he was obliged to 
 pay compliments to men whom he should like to kick. 
 A more disgusting, process than the transactions con- 
 nected with the Irish Union could not well be. Mr. 
 Pitt, indeed, not only held out hopes to the Roman 
 Catholics of Ireland, but sincerely wished to give effect 
 to tliose hopes ; he no doubt reckoned that having been 
 more than sixteen years at the head of the councils of 
 the King, having a decided majority in the two Houses 
 of Parliament, the advice he should be prepared to give 
 his Sovereign, in order to unite the hearts of his people 
 in the throes and struggles of a great war, would be 
 accepted. Mr. Pitt was entirely mistaken. The King's 
 answer was in these words : — r 
 
 » 
 
GEORGE III. AND MR. PITT. 279 
 
 * Queen's House, February 1, 1801. 
 ' I should not do justice to the warm impulse of my 
 heart if I entered on the subject most unpleasant to my 
 mind Avithout first expressing that the cordial affection 
 I have for Mr. Pitt, as well as high opinion of his 
 talents and integrity, greatly add to my uneasiness on 
 this occasion ; but a sense of religious as well as polit- 
 ical duty has made me, from the moment I mounted 
 the throne, consider the oath that the wisdom of our 
 forefathers has enjoined the Kings of this realm to take 
 at their Coronation, and enforced by the obligation of 
 instantly following it in the course of the ceremony 
 with taking the Sacrament, as so binding a religious 
 obligation on me to maintain the fundamental maxims 
 on which our Constitution is placed, namely, the Church 
 of England being the established one, and that those 
 who hold employments in the State must be members 
 of it, and consequently obliged, not only to take* oaths 
 against Popery, but to receive the Holy Communion 
 agreeably to the rites of the Church of England. This 
 principle of duty must, therefore, prevent me from 
 discussing any proposition tending to destroy this 
 groundwork of our happy Constitution, and much more 
 so that now mentioned by Mr. Pitt, which is no less 
 than the complete overthrow of the whole fabric. When 
 the Irish propositions were transmitted to me by a 
 joint message from both Houses of the British Parlia- 
 ment, I told the lords and gentlemen sent on that 
 occasion that I would with pleasure and without delay 
 forward them to Ireland ; but that, as individuals, I 
 could not help acquainting them that my inclination to 
 a Union with Ireland was principally founded on a trust 
 that the uniting the Established Churches of the two 
 
280 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 kingdoms would for ever shut the door to any further 
 measures with respect to the Roman Catholics.' ^ 
 
 The consequences of this declaration on the part of 
 George III. was the resignation of Mr. Pitt, Lord 
 Grenville, Mr. Dundas, Lord Spencer, Mr. Windham, 
 and Mr. Canning; the defeat of the hopes which the 
 Roman Catholics of Ireland had entertained ; and the 
 postponement of Roman Catholic Emancipation till 
 1829. 
 
 Fox, Pitt, and Burke were three of the ablest men 
 who have applied their minds to the administration of 
 England and Ireland. Fox and Burke made two im- 
 mense mistakes when they coalesced with Lord North, 
 and proposed a government of India with party views. 
 Mr. Pitt made a blunder of no less importance and 
 more fatal when, in 1804, he surrendered to the King 
 his own project of a coalition. I will give here a note 
 of a combined Administration, recorded by Lord Stan- 
 hope, as planned by Mr. Pitt in May, 180-A : — 
 
 Treasury Mr. Pitt. 
 
 r Lord Melville. 
 Secretaries of State < Mr. Fox. 
 
 ( Lord Fitzwilliam. 
 
 Admiralty Lord Spencer. 
 
 Lord President Lord Grenville. 
 
 Privy Seal Duke of Portland. 
 
 Lord Chancellor Lord Eldon. 
 
 M. General of Ordnance .... Lord Chatliam. 
 
 Chancellor of Duchy Mr. Windham. 
 
 Board of Control Lord Castlereagh. 
 
 Lord Steward Lonl Camden. 
 
 Committee of Trade T^rd Ilarrowby. 
 
 Secretary at War Mr. Grey. 
 
 Secretary to Ireland Mr. Canning. 
 
 1 Stanhope's * Life of Pitt/ vol. iii. App. 28, 29. 
 
 # 
 
PITT'S PLAN OF COALITION. 281 
 
 It may safely be said, that never in difficult circum- 
 stances was there so bright a prospect of a strong 
 Ministry, for all the foreign and domestic interests of 
 England, as at the hour when the project of Mr. Pitt 
 was laid before the King of England. Fox, although 
 he afterwards observed that he would not have served 
 under Pitt, had, in reality, only two conditions on 
 which, in his letters to his friends, he would have in- 
 sisted — one, that a coalition was clearly right; the 
 other, that no mediocrities should be admitted into the 
 Cabinet. Pitt, after his interview with the King, 
 humbly declared that he had never been so vanquished. 
 Yet, in fact, there never was an argument so weak as 
 that which George III. opposed to him. He reminded 
 Pitt that he had himself proposed to exclude Fox from 
 the Privy Council ; but the only ground for that exclu- 
 sion was, that Fox had put forward as an abstract 
 theory the sovereignty of the people. The real ground 
 of difference between Pitt and Fox had arisen from 
 the democracy of France. From the moment when 
 Napoleon Bonaparte became First Consul, all danger of 
 democracy in France had disappeared, and a despotism, 
 resting upon a military dictator, whether under the 
 name of First Consul or Emperor, was a form of gov- 
 ernment against which Pitt and Fox would with equal 
 spirit and equal abhorrence have contended. Burke 
 had said of Lord Chatham, that a peep into the King's 
 closet intoxicated him ; and Lord Chatham's son, with 
 all his abilities and all his eloquence, seems to have 
 been subject to a similar intoxication. Had Fox been 
 at the Foreign Office in 1804, Austria would not have 
 been hurried into war, the battle of Austerlitz would 
 not have been fought, and Pitt would not have died in 
 1806. Pitt and Fox would have a^eed not to force on 
 
 * 
 
282 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 the Catliolic question, and, in 1810, the policy of those 
 two great men would have prevailed in Ireland. What 
 actually happened was very different. 
 
 In January, 1806, Pitt died. In September of the 
 same year Fox died. George III. said to his daughter, 
 the Princess Mary, afterwards Duchess of Gloucester, 
 who told it to me, that he never thought he should 
 have regretted the death of Fox so much as he found 
 he did. In the following year a very moderate proposal 
 with respect to the army was made by Lord Grenville's 
 Ministry. Not only did the King reject this proposal, 
 but he made a demand inconsistent with the Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 ' He required an assurance, in writing, from the 
 Ministers, that they would never press upon him in 
 future any measure connected with the Catholic ques- 
 tion ; ' in other words, that his advisers would never 
 give him advice upon one great and important branch 
 of public affairs, involving in their opinion the charac- 
 ter and ' even the safety of the Empire.' ^ 
 
 This condition implied that not even in the imme- 
 diate prospect of civil war — a prospect that made the 
 Duke of Wellington advise his Sovereign to yield — 
 would the Minister give any advice respecting the 
 Roman Catholic question. 
 
 Of course neither Lord Grenville nor Loixl Spencer, 
 neither 'Lord Holland nor Lord Fitzwilliam, neither 
 Mr. Grey nor Lord Henry Petty could assent to such 
 degrading terms. The Ministers resigned ; and not till 
 twenty-three years afterwards did any of the Ministers 
 of that day, with the exception of Lord Sidmouth, enter 
 the Cabinet. 
 
 1 ' Memoirs of the Whig Party.* Lord Holland. Vol. ii. p. 208. 
 
IRELAND. 283 
 
 ' The No Popery ' cry of 1807, and the general elec- 
 tion of that year, was the proceeding most discredit- 
 able to the English people of any that has occurred 
 in my time. Several of the ablest men in Parliament, 
 the chief ornaments of the House of Commons, were 
 obliged to take refuge in small boroughs. Mr. Grey, 
 then Lord Howick, went from Northumberland to 
 Appleby ; Mr. Windham went from Norwich to 
 Romney. 
 
 Mr. Perceval was the author of the 'No Popery* 
 cry, and did his utmost to arouse the people to relig- 
 ious hatred. 
 
 The flame did not subside till 1829, when O'Connell 
 agitated the people of Ireland to assemble in their 
 thousands, and impressed upon the Duke of Wellington 
 the fear of civil war. 
 
 In 1829, the Catholic claims were granted, and from 
 that time till 1868 it was the object of the advisers of 
 the Crown of England to increase the privileges and 
 promote the happiness of the people' of Ireland. This 
 has been well stated by Lord Mayo, in his speech of 
 1868 ; but any one who knows the history of national 
 feelings must be aware that long and fatal injuries are 
 not forgiven till after many years of conciliation and 
 repentance. The wound still rankles, the injuries are 
 still remembered, and the stronger the feelings of the 
 nation, the deeper the wound and the longer the cure. 
 It is acknowledged by Lord Mayo himself, that in 1868 
 the hostile feelings of the Irish people against English 
 government were not changed ; yet, he says, ' Professor 
 Ingram has truly remarked, that changes so great, and 
 made within so short a period, constitute the largest 
 peaceful revolution in the history of the world.' ^ 
 
 1 Lord Mayo's Speech on the state of Ireland, March 10, 1868. 
 
284 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Yet the Union with Ireland preserved and crystal- 
 lized some of the worst wrongs which had aggravated 
 the miseries of conquest. 
 
 One of these wrongs was the Protestant Church 
 establishment. I have seen a letter written by one of 
 the descendants of the conquerors, himself the owner 
 of a large landed estate, which contained the advice of 
 the writer to his Sovereign Queen Elizabeth. He says 
 that there were two ways in which the Irish people 
 could be governed ; the one was by extirpating all the 
 Roman Catholics in the country ; the other, the conver- 
 sion of all the Roman Catholics to the Protestant relig- 
 ion. The writer says that the Queen is too humane 
 and too tender to adopt the first method, he therefore 
 recommends the second. 
 
 The second was, in fact, the mode adopted, but it 
 entirely failed. After three hundred years of trial, not 
 above one-seventh or one-eighth of the people of Ireland 
 were Protestants of the Established Church. In 1867, 
 when Mr. Gladstone and I were both in Italy, I ascer- 
 tained the opinions and sentiments of Mr. Gladstone 
 upon this important subject. I found that he was as 
 little disposed as I was to maintain Protestant ascen- 
 dency in Ireland; and from that time I judged that 
 this great question would be safer in his hands than in 
 mine. This last observation requires some develop- 
 ment. 
 
 In 1838, when Lord Melbourne told me that all tlie 
 members of the Cabinet wished me to take the lead of 
 the Liberal party in the House of Commons, I willingly 
 consented to do so. 
 
 The question of the maintenance, diminution, or 
 abolition of the Protestant EstabUshed Church in Ire- 
 land had long attracted my attention. Upon this ques- 
 
MR. GLADSTONE. 285 
 
 tion, in 1835, I had overthrown the Administration of 
 Sir Robert Peel. I was of opinion that unless some 
 great change was made in the Established Church, 
 justice to Ireland could not be done. I was not, indjeed, 
 in 1869, physically equal to a much longer continuance 
 of the labor imposed upon a leader of the House of 
 Commons. But there was a further consideration. 
 
 My political character is very much the reverse of 
 that which Sydney Smith, in an angry temper and a 
 witty mood, attributed to me. I never was ready either 
 to take the command of the Channel fleet or to behold 
 the loss of that fleet with equanimity. My disposition 
 has always been favorable to compromise and modera- 
 tion, r had acted in that temper on this very subject 
 of the Irish Church. I had listened to Lord Lansdowne, 
 who had maintained that if any property was taken 
 from the Church of Ireland it should not amount to the 
 whole of that property, and should be given to some 
 kindred purpose, such as that of education. 
 
 I felt, however, that boldness, which, according to 
 Lord Bacon, is the first quality of a statesman, was re- 
 quired as the primary quality for dealing with the Irish 
 Church, and that no man could dispute the pre-eminence 
 in that quality of Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 I knew that Mr. Gladstone had an eloquence equal 
 to that of Mr. Canning, and I believed that he was en- 
 dowed with integrity fit to be compared with that of 
 Lord Althorp. I knew that Mr. Gladstone was .pre- 
 pared to take a large and liberal view of the question 
 of the Irish Church ; to him, therefore, I was ready to 
 transfer the mantle which I had worn for thirty years. 
 I have only one remark to add to my estimate of the 
 qualities of the late Prime Minister. I was not wrong 
 in attributing to him eloquence equal to that of Mr. 
 
286 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Canning, and integrity on a par with that of Lord 
 Althorp. But I had omitted in my observation one 
 important quality. Lord Macaulay says of WiUiam 
 Lor^ Russell, and his influence in the House of Com- 
 mons : ' He had long exercised there an influence 
 resembling the influence which, within the memory 
 of this generation, belonged to the upright and benevo- 
 lent Althorp ; an influence derived, not from superior 
 skill in debate or in declamatioa, but from spotless in- 
 tegrit}^ from plain good sense, and from that frank- 
 ness, that simplicity, that good nature, which are 
 singularly graceful and winning in a man raised by 
 birth and fortune high above his fellows.' ^ So it was 
 of Lord Althorp ; it was his fearless frankness which, 
 above all, gave him the confidence of the House of 
 Commons. He was not afraid to call a spade a spade, 
 and make his hearers understand, in a few plain words, 
 the policy he meant to pursue. In that quality Mr. 
 Gladstone is greatly his inferior. 
 
 In defining the policy to be adopted by the nation 
 with regard to the Irish Established Church, there 
 were two objects to be considered. One was, the dis- 
 position to be made of the property and privileges of 
 the Church ; the other, the use to be made of the prop- 
 erty, whether the amount were large or small, after 
 the expiry of the life-interests of the existing Protes- 
 tant clergy. 
 
 \Yith respect to the first of these objects, nothing 
 conld be more wise or more complete than the demon- 
 stration of Mr. Gladstone. The Irish Protestant Church 
 had been from its beginning in the reign of Elizabeth 
 foreign to the soil, ill-planted and ill-nurtured, a scare- 
 
 1 Macaulay's 'History of England/ vol. iii. 
 
SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH. . 287 
 
 crow rather than a tree, a fountain of bitterness and 
 animosity rather than a fertilizing stream. Mr. Glad- 
 stone illustrated most happily the fall of such a Church 
 by the fall of Lear, when he thinks himself falling 
 down a precipice, and is, in fact, only throwing himself 
 down on the flat ground on which he stands. 
 
 The second object was the wise and judicious dis- 
 posal of the revenues which the total destruction of 
 the Church of Ireland would place within his reach. 
 But this matter has been already elucidated. 
 
 What I have here to ask is, whether the time has 
 not arrived for placing in the Home Department in 
 Whitehall the administration of the internal govern- 
 ment of Ireland? Whether the evils which Lord 
 Somers foresaw would have happened to England and 
 Scotland if separate administrations had been granted 
 to them, have not actually happened to Ireland? 
 Whether there is any reason for refusing to the Irish 
 people the -benefits of English rule ? 
 
 I remember that, in 1819, after the Manchester 
 meeting, known by the name of Peterloo, I was stay- 
 ing in the house of Sir James Mackintosh, in the coun- 
 try. We read every day in the newspapers accounts 
 of meetings ; it was generally stated that the meeting 
 at Manchester, although legal, had been attacked and 
 dispersed by military force. Sir James said to me, ' It 
 will be worth while to look at my law-books and see 
 wdi ether this assumption that the meeting at Manches- 
 ter was legal is founded in law.' We soon found rea- 
 son to conclude that the Manchester meeting was an 
 illegal meeting. Sir James Mackintosh and I agreed 
 that in the approaching session of Parliament we would 
 not affirm the legality of the Manchester meeting. 
 Accordingly, when the prisoners arrested at Manches- 
 
288 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 ter were brought to trial, Mr. Justice Bailey and Chief 
 Justice Tinclal pointed out, in the clearest terms and 
 on the highest authorities, the circumstances which 
 made the meeting an illegal one. 
 
 Yet only two years ago, a meeting was held in the 
 neighborhood of Belfast, marked by similar illegalities 
 in a far more offensive form ; and it seems never to 
 have occurred to the Irish Government that they had 
 permitted, with the most insulting publicity and with 
 the most disastrous consequences, that which had called 
 down the censure of Mr. Justice Bailey and Lord 
 Chief Justice Tindal. A year after, Mr. Justice Law- 
 son pointed out, amid the ruins of houses, and after 
 many wounds had been given and suffered on both 
 sides, the illegality of the Belfast meeting. 
 
 Now, I ask, why is not the power and the duty of 
 maintaining internal peace in Ireland transferred to 
 our present Home Secretary, who, by his answer respect- 
 ing tlie condemned Fenians, has given promise that he 
 will not go to sleep over his charge ? I may add here 
 that this was the change recommended in 1850 by Sir 
 Robert Peel. 
 
 I should say, at the same time, that while it is the 
 duty of England to preserve internal peace in Ireland, 
 she is bound to look with regret to lier four hundred 
 years, from 1480 to 1829, during which period she did 
 every thing in her power to check the industry, to re- 
 press i\u) manufactures, to persecute the religion, and 
 to confiscate the rights of the Irish people. 
 
 It has been said and repeated that the spirit of 
 anarchy in Ireland is so inherent in the people that it 
 is im[)ossible to subdue it. 
 
 But we have seen that the government of Scotland 
 from 1707 to 1829 was guided by political wisdom and 
 
POLICY AFTER THE UNION WITH IRELAND. 289 
 
 by civil and religions liberty, while the review of the 
 government of Ireland from 1707 to 1829 shows it 
 to have been directed by commercial jealousy, by po- 
 litical corruption, and by religious intolerance. Is it, 
 then, so certain that the nature of the two races makes 
 the one incapable of submitting to government, and 
 the other tranquil and obedient ? Maj^ it not be that 
 such different prescriptions — political wisdom with civil 
 and religious liberty to the one, and political corrup- 
 tion with commercial jealousy and religious intolerance 
 to the other — may have caused the difference ? 
 
 I now arrive at my sixth proposition, viz., ' " Home 
 Rule " must be refused in as peremptory a manner as 
 repeal of the Union was rejected by Lord Grey and 
 Lord Althorp in 1830.' I should have been very glad 
 if the leaders of popular opinion in Ireland had so modi- 
 fied and mollified their demand for ' Home Rule ' as to 
 make it consistent with the unity of the Empire. There 
 can be no doubt that the existing legislation by Private 
 Bills is exceedingly cumbrous and expensive ; that great 
 funds are wasted in purchasing private interests, and in 
 giving fees to lawyers for services Avhich are neither 
 conducive to the public good nor advantageous to prop- 
 erty. It would have been a great advantage in light- 
 ening the labors of Parliament, and in promoting useful 
 public legislation, if the rural parts of England, Scotland, 
 and Ireland had been divided and distributed into munic- 
 ipalities springing from a popular origin, and invested 
 with local powers. The principle of our Constitution, 
 that no taxes or rates should be levied except by popular 
 consent, is grossly violated by the raising of large sums 
 by virtue of the orders of magistrates, named by the 
 Crown upon the advice of the Lord Chancellor. The 
 Private Bills of Lords and Commons do not violate this 
 
 19 
 
290 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUQGESTIONS. 
 
 principle, but are in many instances ver}' costly. The 
 late Mr. Brassey was enabled to construct a railway 
 from Turin to the Alps at no greater expense than was 
 incurred in carrying a bill through Parliament to sanc- 
 tion the Great Northern Railway of England. 
 
 It is, however, useless at present to discuss the project 
 of provincial corporations. The favorers of ' Home Rule * 
 in Ireland have declared very distinctly that what they 
 propose is to convert the legislative Union of England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland into a federal Government, on the 
 model of the old Republic of Holland, or the modern 
 federal union of the United States of America. 
 
 This would be to open a source of civil war over 
 England and Ireland, not against law, but by virtue 
 of law, owing its authority to the Imperial Parliament 
 itself. 
 
 No matter how well devised the restrictions which 
 might be framed to prevent the province of Ireland en- 
 croaching on the centralpower, the earliest efforts of a 
 popular demagogue at Dublin would be directed to the 
 enlargement of local privileges, to the absorption of one 
 part after another of the central authority by the local 
 assemblies. The taxes, the poor-rates, the funds for 
 education, the private property consecrated by the Act 
 of Settlement, the right of Protestants to their churches 
 and chapels, nay, the privileges of Protestants to enjoy 
 their own places of worship and their own religious cer- 
 emonies, would all be matters of dispute, and the * Home 
 Rulers,' to whom Great Britain would have given power, 
 would then throw in the teeth of their partners in Lon- 
 don the concessions which had been made by themselves. 
 
 I own I can see no hope that Ireland would be well 
 and quietly governed under the dispensiition of * Home 
 Rule.' In my opinion, the prLsonei-s convicted of 
 
HOME RULE. 291 
 
 treason-felony under the rule of Lord Kimberley and 
 the Duke of Abercorn were too easily let off by the 
 Cabinet of Mr. Gladstone. But peace was not thereby 
 obtained. There can be no doubt that the policeman 
 murdered at Manchester was slaughtered, not from 
 private malice, but for the sake of obtaining impunity 
 for high treason. Thereupon it was alleged that the 
 murder was a political offence, and as such entitled to 
 indemnity. How could we expect that there would be 
 peace and harmony between two assemblies, one of 
 which, in Ireland, would assert the right to impunity, 
 and the other, in London, which would look to punish- 
 ment as the retribution for murder ? It will be as well, 
 therefore, that we should look to the declarations of 
 Lord Grey and Lord Althorp, when Mr. O'Connell de- 
 manded the repeal of the Union as a compliance with 
 his petition for justice to Ireland. Lord Althorp said 
 on that occasion that he could not agree to the repeal 
 of the Union, as he considered it a dismemberment of 
 the Empire. 
 
 Lord Grey as openly and firmly declared that he 
 might support the Union on the ground, ' quod fieri 
 non debuit factum valet ; ' but, without availing himself 
 of that plea, that he gave his unhesitating and uncom- 
 promising adherence to the Act of Union. 
 
 Let me here assert that there can be no greater 
 mistake in the government of Ireland than to yield upon 
 points where justice is against the popular demand. I 
 have said that the Irish have a character rather resem- 
 bling that of the French than that of the English nation. 
 At all events, we may safely lay down in regard to 
 Ireland, that every just petition ought to be granted, 
 and that every unjust demand ought to be refused. 
 The abolition of the Protestant Established Church, the 
 
292 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 education of Protestant and Catholic together on secular 
 subjects, ought to be maintained. The parish priests 
 of Ireland of the Roman Catholic Church ought to be 
 supported from the property now at the disposal of 
 Parliament. A Roman Catholic University should be 
 founded. The power to gran,t degrees should be con- 
 fined to the Queen's University, and the colleges founded 
 upon the advice of Sir Robert Peel and Sir James 
 Graham should be maintained. Those who insist upon 
 having a University where, by an Index Expurgatorius^ 
 modern history and moral philosophy are not taught, 
 should be considered as the partisans of bigotry and 
 ignorance. 
 
 But, while every attempt to revive the University 
 Bill, rejected in 1873 by the House of Commons, should 
 be resisted, the utmost care should be taken not to keep 
 up the disdainful and contemptuous tone which has 
 been too long the prevailing language of the government 
 press. Government can exercise, and does exercise, a 
 great influence over part of the press, by communicat- 
 ing from authority intelligence which has been received, 
 and the decisions which have been arrived at by per- 
 sons holding high office. It is an abuse of that influence 
 when decisions, which have not been arrived at, are 
 suggested by leading persons as likely to be the course 
 of policy of the existing Ministers. I remember a time 
 when the late Duke of Richmond said he could always 
 tell what the Cabinet were about to do by reading the 
 * Times ' of the day when the Cabinet was summoned. 
 But without thus abusing the right of a Government, 
 and putting a gag on the mouths of those Ministers wlio 
 have not been consulted on the views communicated to 
 the ' Times ' or * Daily Telegraph,' it would be easy to 
 make it a condition of communicatiufr intellicrence that 
 
POLICY IN FRANCE AND ITALY. 293 
 
 the tone of the newspapers thus favored should not be 
 one of scorn and insult towards the people of Ireland. 
 There is no harm in using towards angry people the 
 soft language which turns away wrath. Kindness to- 
 wards the Irish people will do more to extinguish bad 
 passions than bitter invectives and boastful claims to 
 superiority on the part of the English press and the 
 English nation. 
 
 In answer to all I have urged, it may be said that the 
 inhabitants of Scotland are Scotchmen and Protestants, 
 and that the inhabitants of Ireland are Irishmen and 
 Eoman Catholics ; and that a policy which was success- 
 ful in Scotland might have totally failed in Ireland. 
 
 It may, therefore, be useful to examine what has 
 been the policy pursued by the Governments of France 
 and Italy, and in what respects it differs from the policy 
 pursued by the English in Ireland. 
 
 France and Italy, it is well known, have a great 
 majority of Roman Catholic inhabitants. 
 
 I will not touch upon Germany, as there are questions 
 still pending in that country. But France and Italy 
 have for some time adopted a policy which appears to 
 be now, and promises to be hereafter, successful. 
 
 This policy forms a striking contrast to the coarse 
 long pursued by the English in Ireland. 
 
 For instance, both in France and Italy the clergy 
 have the means of living afforded them. In France, 
 these means are afforded by a grant of the Representa- 
 tive Assembly. In Italy, where tithes are as much 
 abolished as they are in France, the clergy are sustained 
 on moderate salaries by endowments and voluntary con- 
 tributions from the principal towns. 
 
 But there are two subjects sedulously kept apart 
 from priestly interference. These are marriage and 
 education. 
 
294 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The English in Ireland have pursued a totally differ- 
 ent course. They have left the parish priests to volun- 
 tary contributions, to fees on baptism, on marriage, and 
 on funerals. Marriage and education they have left 
 almost entirely in the hands of the Roman clergy. In 
 the year 1831, an effort was made to introduce large 
 portions of the Bible to be read in the National Schools. 
 Archbishop Whately has recorded, by the pen of Mr. 
 Senior, what were his expectations from his agreement 
 with Archbishop Murray on this subject. Dr. Whately 
 said, ' Archbishop Murray and I agreed in desiring large 
 portions of the Bible to be read in our National Schools, 
 but we agreed in this because we disagreed as to its 
 probable results. He believed that they would be 
 favorable to Romanism ; I believed that they would be 
 favorable to Protestantism ; and I feel confident that I 
 was right. ... Though the priest may still, perhaps, 
 denounce the Bible collectively as a book dangerous to 
 the laity, lie cannot safely object to the Scripture ex- 
 tracts which are read to children, with the sanction of 
 the prelates of his own church. But these extracts 
 contain so much that is inconsistent with the whole 
 spirit of Romanism, that it is difficult to suppose that a 
 person well acquainted with them can. be a thorough- 
 going Roman Catholic. The principle upon which that 
 Church is constructed, the duty of uncnquiring, uni- 
 reasoning submission to its authority, rentiers any doubt 
 fatal. A man who is commanded not to think for him- 
 self, if he finds he cannot avoid doing so, is unavoidably 
 led to question the reasonableness of the command ; and 
 when he finds that the Church which claims a right to 
 think for him has preached doctrines, some of which are 
 inconsistent with, and others are opposed to, what he 
 Las read in the Gospel, his trust in its infallibility, the 
 
NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND. 
 
 295 
 
 foundation on which its whole system of faith is built, 
 is at an end. The education supplied by the National 
 Board is gradually undermining the vast fabric of the 
 Irish Roman Catholic Church.' ^ 
 
 But Archbishop Whately was not immortal, nor had 
 the Irish Board of Education the perpetuity of the 
 Roman Church; consequently it has become entirely a 
 tool in the hands of the Roman Catholic clergy. The 
 case of Father O'Keefe has shown that when a man is 
 degraded from the position of parish priest he is sure 
 to lose his rank as manager of parish schools. The 
 Education Board in this case have found out new 
 offences to lay upon the head of Father O'Keefe ; but 
 this is one of the usual tricks and devices of the Jesuit 
 school. The Institution of Irish Education, once so 
 bright a wreath on the brow of the late Lord Derby, 
 has become of late years a weapon in the hands of 
 Cardinal Cullen and the Ultramontane clergy of Ireland. 
 The number of pupils on the rolls were : — 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number on the 
 Rolls. 
 
 Average daily- 
 attendance. 
 
 1869 
 1870 
 1871 
 
 991,335 
 
 998,999 
 1,021,700 
 
 358,560 
 359,199 
 363.850 
 
 That is to say, the average daily attendance but slightly 
 exceeded one-third of the number of children nominally 
 attending the schools. The Parliamentary grant to 
 these schools last year amounted to 542,222^., and the 
 voluntary contributions from the whole of Ireland were 
 only 14,955/. That is to say, the property of Ireland 
 contributed less than one shilling, while the State ex- 
 pended more than a pound. 
 
 1 Senior's Journals relating to Ireland, 1868. 
 
296 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 I am told that it is not uncommon, in the National 
 Schools of Ireland, when the Protestant children are 
 "withdrawn for their own religious instruction, to take, 
 from cases in the wall, the graven images which the 
 Roman Catholics use to enliven or, as some would say, 
 supply the object of their worship. 
 
 The question of marriage need not here be dwelt 
 upon. Had Mrs. Fitzherbert had a male child, the 
 question of a disputed succession might have been seri- 
 ous ; but as that misfortune did not happen, we may 
 for the present omit the reflections which would have 
 arisen. 
 
 The question of the state of the Roman Catholic 
 Church in Ireland ought to attract the serious consider- 
 ation of our statesmen. Not many years ago an Irish 
 priest, taught at Maynooth, wished to devote to learning 
 the chief employment of a studious life. I saw such a 
 priest in France last year, who, with his small library, 
 and his bachelor menage^ enjoyed the delights of a 
 picturesque countr}^, and the regard of his friendly pa- 
 rishioners. No such good fortune was reserved for the 
 priestly scholar of Ireland. His sleep was broken by 
 the seditious or indecent songs of the farmers who occu- 
 pied a room close by his bedroom in the small farm- 
 house where he had obtained a lodging. Driven to 
 distraction by these interruptions, he gave up his plan 
 of study, and was content to live with his neighbors as 
 a thoughtless and unlearned priest. Another parish 
 priest received a message requiring his attendance from 
 a dying penitent, whose house was separated from his 
 own dwelling by a river and a mountain. He arrived 
 at the bedside, but the penitent was no more. 
 
 Is it to be supposed that these privations and disturb- 
 ances, which the parish priests of Ireland suffer, have 
 
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. 297 
 
 had no effect on their equanimity and their tempers ? 
 Can we imagine that the priest who trudged along the 
 road weary and exhausted would see, with wholly char- 
 itable feelings, the Protestant rector pass by in his chariot 
 and pair, enjoying the luxury of his comfortable position 
 and his light labors ? Is it enough to say that the Prot- 
 estant clergy have their incomes only for life ? Have 
 three hundred years of proscription and persecution 
 passed by without leaving bitter dregs in the cup from 
 which he was condemned to drink ? Why must we 
 suppose that the men who recollect these things with 
 anger, and perhaps with hatred, are incurably barbarous 
 and irreclaimable ? Why should we not try the experi- 
 ment which in France and Italy has been found success- 
 ful? Why not provide a frugal maintenance for the 
 parochial clergy of the people, and assert for the State 
 the control of marriage and education ? 
 
 It is no question of the supremacy of the Pope, or of 
 permission to the Church of Rome to draw the line as it 
 pleases between spiritual and temporal, leaving ' to God 
 that which is God's, and to Caesar that which is Csesar's.' 
 It is a question of the happiness of a people long vexed 
 by religious injustice and political oppression. 
 
 Fortunate the Ministry whose fate it shall be — 
 
 To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land 
 And read their history in a nation's eyes. 
 
298 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 TENANTS IN IRELAND. 
 
 Let us now consider the treatment of tenants in Ire- 
 land. We have seen that Mr. Grattan described the 
 Government and the people of Ireland as a people ill- 
 governed and a Government ill-obeyed. 
 
 Towards the end of the last century a fit of liberality, 
 or a fit of panic, induced the Parliament of Ireland to 
 grant new franchises to the Roman Catholics. Not that 
 a Roman Catholic, the son of a gentleman of propert}"-, 
 or a leading barrister in the courts of law, was permitted 
 to sit in Parliament to represent any portion of his 
 countrymen, but the Roman Catholic was allowed to 
 choose a Protestant knight of the shire or borough 
 member. The consequences of this boon were most 
 calamitous. Thousands of freeholds were created, thou- 
 sands of freeholders were marched to the poll, to pur- 
 chase for a great proprietor a deanery for his brother, a 
 place at the Board of Customs for his son. In 1820, Sir 
 Robert Peel denounced the mischief of this large exten- 
 sion of the franchise, and proposed its abolition. 
 
 It happened to me to be present at a small meeting 
 of Members of Parliament, mostly Whigs, at the house 
 of Sir Francis Burdett. Alarmed at the prospect of 
 the destruction of a popular franchise, we asked Lord 
 Althorp to wait upon Sir Robert Peel to propose for the 
 retention of the forty-shilling freeholders,' coupled with, 
 
LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 299 
 
 the great measures which we intended warmly to sup- 
 port, tord Althorp returned, bringing a negative to 
 our proposal. But I remember that Sir Francis Burdett 
 said, ' It seems that the abolition of the forty- shilling 
 freeholders, instead of being a punishment, will be a 
 benefit to Ireland.' We most of us took a similar view. 
 But we little knew the character of the miserable, 
 monopolizing minority who, by aid of the prejudices 
 of George III. and the cry of ' No Popery,' had so long 
 governed Ireland. Thousands of human beings, who 
 from their wretched huts had swarmed to the elections, 
 men with wives and helpless children, were rooted out 
 as noxious weeds when they had served their purpose 
 as ladders, whereby their landlords miglit climb to 
 wealth and to power. They were now useless instru- 
 ments, and hundreds of them were driven out in the 
 cold days or bleak nights of winter, their miserable 
 cabins levelled with the ground, iind they themselves, 
 scantily clothed, left to struggle with the inclemency 
 of the elements, to die by the roadside, or to perish of 
 famine after weeks of suffering and exhaustion. Is it 
 the ' fickleness, the perversity, and the levity of Irish- 
 men ' that has caused the great mass of the people to 
 recollect with pain and with resentment the heedless 
 laxity with which their freeholds were bestowed upon 
 them, and the cruelty with which they were driven out, 
 when their votes were no longer available, to pine and 
 to perish ? Or is it not rather a proof that the people 
 have been ill-governed? Is it wonderful that such 
 injuries, apparent benefits so fallacious, real sufferings 
 so undeserved, should have sunk deeply into their 
 minds, and created a feeling of revenge, against which 
 the lounger in St. James's may protest, while he re- 
 peats, after the London newspaper,, a declamation 
 
300 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 against *the fickleness, the perversity, the levity of 
 Irishmen ' ? 
 
 It is true that these evils have been in a great degree 
 remedied. After many years a poor-law was enacted, 
 and the wretched families driven out of their homes 
 found temporary shelter and food, if they could get 
 nothing better. But at length, with the boldness which 
 belongs to him, and the genius which inspires him, Mr. 
 Gladstone devised a remedy. 
 
 In order to understand the nature of this remedy, 
 the reader should be aware that in England the land- 
 lord usually undertakes, in some districts by established 
 custom, in the country generally by a prevailing sense 
 of obligation, to keep in repair, or to provide for the 
 repair of, the houses and farm-buildings of his tenants. 
 Often the tenant does not wish for a lease, but relies 
 on the continuance of a practice by virtue of which 
 his father and his grandfather have flourished, and he 
 hopes to continue, neither burdened by a great rise of 
 rent nor fettered by written obligations. 
 
 In Ireland the tenant was often left to provide for his 
 own comfort. If he had built a good house, with a 
 roof of slate and beams of timber, and was suddenly 
 turned out for giving a vote to the popular candidate, 
 he had no claim in law for any compensation. In Mr. 
 Trench's volume on the ' Realities of Irish Life,' a 
 sturdy, rebellious farmer is introduced, who boasts that 
 he has put at his own expense every stick in his house, 
 and planted every cabbage in his garden, without any 
 means of legal redress. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone saw that it was of no use to spend his 
 time on legal refinements, or to show that in the course 
 of law and equity the victim of political or religious 
 ,enmity could obtain no redress. He saw that rough 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S LAW. 301 
 
 justice was better than no justice at all ; and he gave a 
 remedy for disturbance, even where no positive injury 
 had been inflicted. 
 
 If Mr. Gladstone has met with scanty forbearance 
 from his opponents, it cannot be said, as some Liberal 
 agitators are fond of repeating, that the House of Lords 
 have unfairly obstructed this great measure. For in- 
 stance, the bill of the Government proposed that a 
 tenant should receive seven years' rent for a wilful act 
 of ejection. The House of Lords proposed to reduce 
 the seven years to six ; so that a man who paid 51. a 
 year rent would have received 30^. instead of 35^. But 
 this cannot be said to be a fatal obstruction, nor would 
 the disturbance have been compensated very inade- 
 quately. The seven years may be a fairer limit than 
 the six; but it is a strong instance of party injustice to 
 complain of the Duke of Richmond, of Lord Derby, of 
 Lord Salisbury, and Lord Cairns, as the obstinate and 
 pertinacious opponents of every Liberal improvement. 
 This amendment was afterwards withdrawn, and the 
 seven years' compensation restored. 
 
 Of course the alterations in the tenure of land do 
 not cause the disappearance of an old hereditary feud, 
 or prevent altogether those acts of violence which are 
 sanctioned by the code of the Ribbon confederacy. 
 In 1839 I ventured to say, in Parhament, that I trusted 
 that in forty years the grievances of Ireland would be 
 redressed. That time has not yet come, and I am not 
 sanguine that those who are witnesses of the istate of 
 Ireland in 1879 will see an end of Ireland's evils, while 
 no sufficient remedy is proposed by authority, and 
 while a portion of the press makes it a pastime to 
 calumniate the Irish people, and to provoke enmity 
 between the two portions of the British Empire. 
 
302 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 A work of great ability and likewise of great re- 
 Bearch, entitled * The English in Ireland,' ^ has lately 
 appeared. The work is in three thick octavo volumes. 
 Unfortunately, the ability is misapplied, and the re- 
 search is adapted to reconcile the English people to the 
 worst instances of intolerance and corruption on the 
 part of the English Governments which succeeded each 
 other from 1700 to 1829. 
 
 The general view of the writer, worked out with 
 elaborate detail, is, that the Irish people, in asking that 
 Roman Catholics should not be disqualified and de- 
 graded on account of their religion, that abuses should 
 be reformed, and that honesty should be introduced 
 into the administration, asked that which it was pre- 
 posterous to ask, and which it was justice to refuse. 
 The author exalts Lord Clare as a hero, and lowers 
 Mr. Grattan as the utterer of ' glittering declamations.' 
 Mr. Grattan, as I have already mentioned^ spoke of 
 Ireland as *a people ill-governed, and a Government 
 ill-obeyed.' I must be excused for my want of percep- 
 tion, but I own I cannot see any glitter or any declama- 
 tion in this picture. Mr. Grattan, in his speeches in 
 the Irish Parliament, described in minute detail the 
 hardships suffered by Irish cottagers, who were forced 
 to pay tithes for their wretched vegetables till they 
 were left in a state of impoverislmient, ruin, and 
 despair. It may be called glittering declamation to 
 describe these sufferings of the Irish peasant, but I own 
 that neither the adjective nor the substantive appears 
 to me to be justly applied. 
 
 On April 14, 1788, Mr. Grattan said: * In three- 
 fourths of this kingdom potatoes pay no tithe ; in the 
 
 1 'The English in Ireland in the Ei<;hteenth Century/ James Froude. 
 
TITHES IN IRELAND. 303 
 
 south they not only pay, but pay most heavily. They 
 pay frequently in proportion to the poverty and help- 
 lessness of the countrymen ; for in the south it is the 
 practice to crouch to the rich and to encroach upon 
 the poor ; hence, perhaps, in the south the mutability 
 of the common people. What so galling, what so 
 inflammatory as the comparative view of the condition 
 of His Majesty's subjects in one part of the kingdom 
 and the other ! In one part their sustenance is free, 
 and in the other tithed in the greatest degree ; so that 
 a grazier coming from the west to the south shall 
 inform the latter that with him neither potatoes nor 
 hay are tithed ; and a weaver coming from the north 
 shall inform the south that in his country neither 
 potatoes nor flax are tithed ; and thus are men, in the 
 present unequal and unjust state of things, taught to 
 repine, not only by their intercourse with the pastor, 
 but with one another. 
 
 ' To redress this requires no speculation, no extraor- 
 dinary exercise of the human faculties, no long fatigu- 
 ing process of reason and calculation, but merely to 
 extend to the poor of the south the benefits which are 
 enjoyed by His Majesty's subjects in the other parts 
 of Ireland ; it is to put the people of the south on a 
 level with their fellow-creatures. If it shall be said 
 that such an exemption would cause a great loss to the 
 parson, what a terrible discovery does that objection 
 disclose ! that the clergy of the south are principally 
 supported by the poor ; by those whom they ought, as 
 moral men, to relieve, and, as Christian men, support, 
 according to the strictest discipline of the Church.' 
 This, I suppose, is what Mr. Froude calls * glittering 
 declamation ! ' I confess I do not perceive the glitter 
 or the declamation. 
 
804 :ilECOLLECTIONS AND SlTGGESTIONS. 
 
 It is true, that equal rights given to the Catholics 
 and reform of Parliament, obtained previously to the 
 Act of Union with Ireland, might have raised to power 
 such men as Lord Fitzwilliam, Mr. Grattan, and Sir 
 Ralph Abercrombie, and might have prevented such a 
 man as Lord Clare from taking his seat in the English 
 House of Lords. Lord Clare was a man of splendid 
 talents, and was successful in resisting the Irish Re- 
 bellion ; but I confess I cannot see that in giving bribes 
 to a majority of the Irish Parliament, Mr. Pitt and 
 Lord Westmoreland used the necessary means of govern- 
 ment. If such men as I have mentioned, Lord Fitz- 
 william, Sir Ralph Abercrombie, Lord Cornwallis, and 
 Mr. Grattan had been employed to govern the Irish 
 people by honest means, who can convince me that such 
 means must have failed ? Who can prove that large 
 salaries and prodigal pensions, unfit appointments to 
 offices of trust and honor, the sale of peerages for 
 monej^, and the support of the Roman Catholics ex- 
 torted by promises, not afterwards kept, were the only 
 means by which Ireland could be governed ? 
 
 I must reject this apology for a system of intoler- 
 ance and corruption ; I hold it to have been cruel to 
 Ireland to inflict it, and shameful to England to per- 
 mit it. 
 
 Lord Edward Fitzgerald and other victims incurred, 
 no doubt, the penalties of high treason ; but, however 
 successful the attempt to blacken and to blast the 
 memory of the men who at that time were driven by 
 despair to appear in arms against the Government of 
 their country, it will be impossible for history, if fairly 
 written, to justif}'^ the broken promises of Pitt, and to 
 sink in oblivion the iniquity of his colleagues, CasUe- 
 reagh and Dundas. 
 
NATIONAL EDUCATION. 805 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 NATIONAL EDUCATION. 
 
 During the reign of the House of Hanover till a period 
 within my memory the faith of the Church of England 
 was professed by all the graduates of the English 
 Universities. About 1820 an agitation sprang up for 
 the purpose of abolishing religious tests as a condition 
 for admission to degrees. But this agitation was con- 
 demned by the authorities of the Universities, and the 
 Whigs had recourse, in despair of a successful change 
 in Oxford and Cambridge, to an address to the Crown 
 to allow a separate University to be erected, where 
 religious tests should not be required. This question 
 came on for discussion during Sir Robert Peel's short 
 administration of 1835, and the Minister was defeated 
 by a majority of eighty votes. At a more recent time, 
 Mr. Hey wood, brother of Sir Benjamin Heywootl, 
 brought forward a proposal for a Commission to inquire " 
 into the state of the English Universities. As the 
 organ of the Government, I supported Mr. Hey wood, 
 and, notwithstanding the powerful and able opposition 
 of Mr. Gladstone, I succeeded in procuring the inquirj^ 
 Into the history of more recent events it is not neces- 
 sary to enter. 
 
 The ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge 
 required only amendments and reforms in conformity 
 with the spirit of their institutions, and with a view to 
 
 20 
 
306 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 those liberal studies which must from time to time be 
 made suitable to the spirit of the age. 
 
 But the education of the great mass of the people 
 was so deficient as to require new measures, which 
 became the subject of fierce party debate. 
 
 In 1808, the Duke of Sussex, the Duke of Bedford, 
 Lord Somerville, and others, established a society for 
 the purpose of teaching the poorer classes, and espe- 
 cially with the view of giving to the whole population 
 of England Scriptural education. This society received 
 from the first the cordial patronage of George III. 
 
 A bystander might have supposed that an object so 
 simple and so benevolent as that of teaching the people 
 to read and understand the Bible, if it had not met 
 with warm support, would have encountered no oppo- 
 sition. But the party-spirit of the Church was roused, 
 and the clergy thought that it was superfluous, if not 
 dangerous, to teach the poorer classes to read. How- 
 ever, the desire for instruction among all classes grew 
 wider and deeper, and a resolute opposition to the 
 general education of the people became unpopular and 
 unpalatable. 
 
 The friends of the Church, therefore, in 1811, three 
 years after the foundation of the British and Foreign 
 School Society, set up the National Society, in order to 
 educate the population in the principles of the Estab- 
 lished Church. Every scholar was to learn the Cate- 
 chism, and to attend divine worship on Sundays in the 
 Established Church, where he was to pray for God*s 
 blessing upon the bishops and clergy, and the congre- 
 gations committed to their charge, with an entire omis- 
 sion of the Dissenting sects, however pious and liowever 
 religious they might be. The clergy were, however, 
 permitted to allow the children of Dissenting parents 
 
NATIONAL SOCIETY. 307 
 
 to come to tlie schools of the National Society, and 
 even to go on Sundays to worship .with their parents 
 if the clergyman of the parish did not forbid so great 
 a latitude of religious liberty. The exertions of the 
 National Society, supported by the large funds of the 
 great proprietors of England in addition to the wealth 
 of the Church, were, of course, successful. But, in 
 spite of the exertions of the two societies, the educa- 
 tion of the general population of England was lamen- 
 tably deficient. I, therefore, soon after Her Majesty's 
 accession to the throne, drew her attention to the great 
 want of education among her subjects, and engaged 
 Lord Lansdowne, the President of the Council, to 
 co-operate with me in the endeavor to extend, to im- 
 prove, and to organize the education of the people of 
 Great Britain. Lord Lansdowne, however, desired to 
 confine our official duties and responsibilities to the 
 supervision of the funds voted by Parliament. 
 
 I, therefore, submitted to the Queen a proposal that 
 a Committee of Privy Council, consisting entirely of 
 persons holding office in the Administration, should be 
 formed to superintend the funds voted by Parliament. 
 I humbl}^ advised that Her Majesty should express her 
 wish that the youth of her kingdom should be relig- 
 iously brought up, and that the rights of conscience 
 should be respected. Her Majesty was graciousl}^ 
 pleased to approve of these suggestions. It was a part 
 of the plan submitted that a Normal School should be 
 founded, where the J^oung of the Established Church, 
 and of various religious sects, should be educated to- 
 gether. 
 
 Early in the session of 1839 the heads of this scheme 
 were communicated to the House of Commons. It is 
 difficult to understand at this time the storm that w^as 
 
308 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 raised. I explained in the simplest terms, without 
 any exaggeration, the want of education in the coun- 
 try, the deficiencies of religious instruction, and the 
 injustice of subjecting to the penalties of the criminal 
 law persons who had never been taught their duty to 
 God and man. 
 
 The proposal of a Normal School, especially, excited 
 the most vehement opposition, and we were obliged to 
 renounce that part of the plan. But the throwing out 
 of one of our children to the wolf did little to appease 
 hia fury. The violence of bigotry and fanaticism ex- 
 cited the numbers brought together by party hostility. 
 Lord Stanley, in a long and animated speech, proposed 
 to overthrow our whole plan, and to rely upon the 
 Church as the recognized and legitimate teacher of re- 
 ligious and secular knowledge. On a division, he was 
 defeated by a majority of five. The grant of 30,000/., 
 in a Committee of Supply, was carried by a majority 
 of only two. In the House of Lords, the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury carried, by a majority of one hundred 
 and eleven, resolutions condemnatory of our whole 
 scheme. 
 
 It is \exy well for Mr. Lowe to censure us for not 
 proposing at that time a scheme comprehending the 
 whole population, and expelling ignorance from the 
 realm. But A'Ir. Lowe at that time had only to deal 
 with Australia, we had to deal with England. 
 
 The Bishop of London, Dr. Blomfield, who was very 
 sincerely friendly to education, suggested to me that if 
 the State and the Church went oil fighting, we shoulil 
 only injure one another, without promoting the great 
 object we both had in view. Seeing the justice of this 
 remark, I agreed to a meeting at Lansdowne House, 
 where the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops 
 
COMPROMISE WITH THE BISHOPS. S09 
 
 of Loifdoii and Salisbury, met Lord Lansdowne and 
 me. 
 
 After a conference we agreed to a treaty, of which 
 the principal terms were that the inspectors of the 
 schools of the National Society should send their reports 
 to the English bishops as well as to the Committee of 
 Privy Council, and that we should co-operate on the 
 most friendly terms in the great work of education. In 
 this manner the Committee of Privy Council of Edu- 
 cation was confirmed, and has lasted till the present 
 year. 
 
 Lord Lansdowne attached, with justice, the greatest 
 hnportance to the appointment of inspectors, and to the 
 choice of a chief or head to direct and guide the whole 
 machine of education. Lord Lansdowne found a person 
 so well fitted for this ofiice (Dr. Kaye, now Sir James 
 K. Shuttle worth), that, whether in his office at White- 
 hall or in his journeys in the country, he was capable 
 of organizing and directing the whole plan according to 
 which the public funds could be brought to aid the 
 system of education. 
 
 Lord Brougham had, in 1833, proposed a grant to 
 the National Society, and an equal grant to the British 
 and Foreign School Society, of a sum of 10,000?. each, 
 for the purpose of assisting those two societies. For 
 six years the amount remained unchanged. It was in 
 1846 that the Liberal Ministry, having been restored 
 to office, gave fresh vigor to the cause, and inspired new 
 efforts for the promotion of general education. Sir 
 Robert Peel, when he came into power, so far from 
 continuing the spiteful war which the Tory party had 
 commenced in 1839, expressed to Sir James Kaye Shut- 
 tle worth his great satisfaction that, through the channel 
 of the British and Foreign School Society, the Govern- 
 
310 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 ment would obtain a means of communicating with the 
 Dissenting bodies. 
 
 It was about the year 1846, I think, that I recom- 
 mended to the Committee of Council a capitation 
 grant in proportion to the attendance of the different 
 scholars. 
 
 It was long intended j;o establish a general system of 
 education for England, and I frequently spoke of the 
 intention both in the House of Commons and at the 
 meetings of the British and Foreign School Society. 
 
 In my opinion the Act of 1870 was not brought 
 forward too late, but rather too soon. Many difficulties 
 might have been obviated, many objections avoided, and 
 some unpopular provisions omitted, if the Government 
 had taken more time for consideration, and then made 
 its plan more comprehensive. In 1870 there was accom- 
 modation for 1,878,584 children in schools receiving 
 grants from Government ; and in 1870-71, there was 
 accommodation for 2,012,679. Now, when it is consid- 
 ered that this school accommodation had been provided, 
 not by the State, but only by the assistance of the State ; 
 that the clergy of the Church of England had shown 
 unremitting zeal and unflagging attention in the work 
 of education, it is no wonder that Mr. Forster has said 
 that his work, and that of his colleagues, was to sup- 
 plement the existing education, and not build a new 
 house from the beginning. Indeed, if such had been 
 the attempt, the Government would have been guilty 
 not only of a large superfluity of grants and much 
 waste, but of great ingratitude. 
 
 That tliere are some faults in the Education Act of 
 1870 is not to be denied. No time will be lost if I sub- 
 mit for consideration some of the improvements that 
 may be required, and how the edifice may be rendered 
 complete. 
 
BOARD SCHOOLS, 1870. 311 
 
 I am encouraged to make some criticisms by the 
 speech of Mr. Stansfeld, the late President of the Board 
 of Local Government, at Liverpool. He declares that 
 none of the Cabinet, nor Mr. Forster himself, ever sup- 
 posed that the Education Act of 18T0 was a perfect or 
 permanent measure. Such is the view that I have al- 
 ways taken of it. I have considered the Act of 1870 as 
 an excellent Act, but as one that would be improved, 
 and possibly perfected, by the lessons of experience, 
 and the patient observations of the Committee of 
 Council. 
 
 I will remark, in the first place, that although the 
 Government were quite right to avail themselves of the 
 voluntary efforts that had been made between 1846 and 
 1870, a period of twenty-four years, it was neither in 
 the spirit of Mr. Forster's declaration nor in the spirit 
 of sound progress to commence a great scaffolding of 
 new Voluntary Schools of a denominational or sectarian 
 character. There was this fault in such an attempt, that 
 the Board Schools intended by the Act of 1870 were to 
 be schools in Avhich the Bible would be read in its in- 
 tegrity, and no formularies were to be admitted. The 
 Voluntary Schools newly to be set up were to receive 
 instruction according to catechisms of the Church of 
 England, the very first questions in which could not be 
 answered with truth by the children of Baptists, who 
 deny the propriety of infant baptism, and in which a 
 paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer is given, which omits 
 some of the most essential words of Christ, and inserts 
 words which Christ never used, in the Prayer. This 
 paraphrase is followed by an explanation of the sacra- 
 ments, which no child of eight or ten years old is able 
 to comprehend. 
 
 Instead of these sectarian formularies, encouragement 
 
312 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 ought to be given, in schools aided by the State, to the 
 daily reading of the Bible, with such simple explana- 
 tions as an intelligent and discreet school-master is fully 
 competent to give. 
 
 It is well known that in rural districts the clergy, the 
 country gentlemen, and the farmers, intent upon avoid- 
 ing rates, and hoping to escape with a very moderate 
 subscription, do all they can to avoid a school board, and 
 augment the number of what, by a misnomer, are called 
 Voluntary Schools ; but this is not the way to found a 
 national system of education. 
 
 There is, however, a much greater defect introduced 
 into our system by the 25th clause or section of the Ed- 
 ucation Act. By that clause, or section as it is properly 
 called, the only voluntary act is performed by the parent 
 of the child to be taught. Before the Act of 1870 Vol- 
 untary Schools were really voluntary, and were sup- 
 ported by voluntary subscriptions ; but now the parent 
 of the child is told, ' If you have got any money in your 
 pocket, or if one of your neighbors is willing to subscribe 
 for a National or Church School, the payment may be 
 voluntary ; but if no such sum can be procured, the 
 power of the State will help you ; and if your neighbor, 
 who is a Baptist, does not choose to subscribe to a Church 
 School, his chair and his table will be seized, and sold by 
 auction, to procure a sum to promote the teaching of 
 infant baptism.* The Presbyterian and the Congrega- 
 tionalist, in the same manner, will undergo compulsion 
 to compel them to support a Voluntary School. 
 
 It is obvious that in this manner a great injustice is 
 committed. 
 
 In the last century Dissenters were fined for not ac- 
 cepting municipal offices, which they could not hold 
 without receiving the Sacrament according to the rites 
 
COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLISHED. 313 
 
 of the Church of England. But Lord Mansfield, in his 
 memorable judgment of 1767, abolished these fines as 
 illegal in the name and in the spirit of religious liberty. 
 
 Unhappily, the present payments by Dissenters to 
 Church Schools are legal, being sanctioned by Act of 
 Parliament. There is, however, a precedent, which is 
 apt and appropriate. 
 
 In the year 1868, on July 31, an Act was passed, 
 called an ' Act for the Abolition of Compulsory Church 
 Rates.' The preamble and the first section of this Act 
 are as follows : — 
 
 'Whereas Church Rates have for some years ceased 
 to be made or collected in many parishes by reason of 
 the opposition thereto ; and in many other parishes, 
 where Church Rates have been made, the levying 
 thereof has given rise to litigation and ill-feeling : 
 
 ' And whereas it is expedient that the power to com- 
 pel payment of Church Rates by any legal process should 
 be abolished : 
 
 ' Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excel- 
 lent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the 
 Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this 
 present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of 
 the same as follows : — 
 
 ' I. From and after the passing of this Act no suit 
 shall be instituted, or proceeding taken, in any ecclesi- 
 astical or other court, or before any justice or magistrate, 
 to enforce or compel the payment of any Church Rate 
 made in any parish or place in England or Wales.' 
 
 This precedent is the more applicable, as it was 
 originally entertained on the suggestion of Mr. Glad- 
 stone. 
 
 I will here give a rough sketch of the measures which 
 appear to me suitable for the completion of a plan for 
 ^National Education in England' and Wales: — 
 
814 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 I. England and Wales should be divided into five 
 or six hundred districts, each having its own name and 
 title. 
 
 ir. Each district should have a board elected in the 
 manner now prescribed by Act of Parliament. 
 
 III. Each district should have a central school ; and, 
 where necessary, two or more central schools. 
 
 IV. Each central school should be a free school, 
 where no payment should be required. 
 
 V. A portion of the Bible should be read daily in 
 each central school. 
 
 VI. The central school or schools should be main- 
 tained by payments from the Consolidated Fund, to be 
 voted annually by grants of the House of Commons. 
 
 VII. Denominational or sectarian schools should be 
 divided into two classes ; the first class consisting of 
 schools which were built and founded before the year 
 1870, and the latter of schools which have been built 
 and founded since that year. To the schools of the 
 first class grants should be made during each year for 
 ten years ; to schools of the second class for five years 
 from the year of the proposed enactment. To schools 
 of the first class half the yearly cost of the schools 
 should be voted ; to schools of the second class one- 
 fourth of the yearly cost. 
 
 VIII. The Committee of Privy Council, which should 
 direct the whole plan, should consist of the President 
 and Vice-President of the Council and three other mem- 
 biTs. Ordinary business should bo conducted by the 
 President and Vice-President of the Council ; extraor- 
 dinary business by the whole five members of tlie Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 IX. The school-rates, enacted by the 25th section of 
 the Education Act, should be treated as church-rates 
 .are treated by the* Act of 1868. 
 
PLAN FOR NATIONAL EDUCATION. 315 
 
 I subjoin a few remarks on the principles upon which 
 this scheme is founded. 
 
 The people of England and Wales are not pagans, or 
 infidels, or atheists. The School Boards have already 
 declared, in answer to official inquiries, their preference 
 for a religious education. I have no doubt that, in 
 answer to similar inquiries, they would declare their 
 wish that the rights of conscience should be respected. 
 It would, therefore, be necessary that the Roman Cath- 
 olic schools should be allowed their own catechism and 
 their own version of the Bible ; and that they should 
 have the same grant from Government as other denomi- 
 national schools. 
 
 It would be necessary that, as in Saxony, Switzerland, 
 and Scotland, geography and history, and the elementary 
 parts of political economy, should be taught in the upper 
 schools ; or, in small districts, in the upper parts of the 
 elementary schools. The revised code should not be 
 permitted or revived. 
 
 I have endeavored to reconcile the homage and regard 
 due to the Bible with the consideration which is due to 
 the ministers of religion, who have exhibited so much 
 zeal and liberality in the cause of education. With the 
 exception of Roman Catholics, all Christian sects in 
 England profess faith in the Bible. The working-men 
 of England have neither the time nor the capacity to 
 give religious instruction to their children. 
 
 There is no question of greater interest to be settled 
 by Parliament than the question of National Education. 
 In the present tranquil state of our foreign relations, 
 there is no object of greater importance to which the 
 attention of the country can be called than the estab- 
 lishment of a sound, universal system of education of 
 the people. 
 
316 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 But, unhappily, there is no question upon which there 
 seems less prospect of general agreement. The clergy- 
 will not yield an inch of their pretension to tax the 
 Baptist to pay for the teaching of infant baptism, and 
 the Presbyterian to call for God's blessing upon the 
 bishops and clergy, and the congregations committed to 
 their charge, with the marked omission of the vast pop- 
 ulation who are not under the charge of the bishops and 
 clergy of the Established Church. Who are these Prot- 
 estant Dissenters ? Before the glorious Revolution of 
 1689, James II. offered a bribe to Protestant Dissenters 
 in the shape of indulgence and dispensations if they 
 would separate their cause from that of the Established 
 Church. They firmly refused to do so. 
 
 At another period, upon the accession of the House 
 of Hanover, there was an opportunity for the eminent 
 men who at that time were at the head of Protestant 
 dissent to appeal to King George I. for liberty to them- 
 selves, accompanied with restrictions on the Protestant 
 Church. They resolved that as the Protestant Church 
 was a barrier against Popery, they were bound to sup- 
 port and uphold it. 
 
 It seems to have occurred to the High Church party 
 that an opportunity had come for revenging themselves 
 upon the Nonconformists, whose benefits are too heavy 
 to bear, whose hostiUty they are happy to provoke, and 
 whose downfall they hope to offer up as a sacrifice to 
 the Bitualists, the affniity of whom to the Church of 
 Home they dchght to recognize. 
 
 The position of Dissenters is more fully explained and 
 recognized in the famous speech I have already referred 
 to, of Lord Mansfield in the case of the Chamberlain of 
 London against Allen Evans. It had been the practice, 
 the intolerant practice, of the city of London to name 
 
LORD MANSFIELD. 317 
 
 Dissenters to certain offices in their gift, knowing that 
 they could not take the Sacrament according to the 
 rites of the Church of England for a year before their 
 election, and reckoning upon the fine which they would 
 be able to levy to increase the funds of the corporation. 
 
 When the case came to be heard, seven judges gave 
 their opinion that the defendant was at liberty to object 
 to the validity of his elecjion, and only one judge, Mr. 
 Baron Perratt, gave his opinion that the defendant was 
 not at liberty to object to the validity of his election. 
 
 Lord Mansfield stated that as the Corporation Act 
 was originally framed, the disability ' was owing to what 
 was then in the eye of the law a crime ; every man 
 being required by the canon law, received and confirmed 
 by statute law, to take the Sacrament in the church at 
 least once a year ; the law would not permit a man to 
 say that he had not taken the Sacrament in the Church 
 of England, and he could not be allowed to plead it in 
 bar of any action brought against him.' 
 
 But Lord Mansfield went on to state in noble terms, 
 ' that Nonconformity being no longer a crime, the 
 natural liberty of the subject was in favor of the Dis- 
 senter. There is no usage or custom, independent of 
 positive law, which makes Nonconformity a crime. 
 The eternal principles of natural religion are part of 
 the common law; the essential principles of revealed 
 religion are part of the common law, so that any person 
 reviling, subverting, or ridiculing them may be prose- 
 cuted at common law. But it cannot be shown from 
 the principles of natural or revealed religion that, inde- 
 pendent of positive law, temporal punishments ought to 
 be inflicted for mere opinions with respect to particular 
 modes of worship. Persecution for a sincere, though 
 erroneous, conscience is not to be deduced from reason 
 
318 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 or the fitness of things ; it can only stand upon positive 
 law. . . . The Toleration Act renders that which was 
 illegal before, now legal ; the Dissenters' way of wor- 
 ship is permitted and allowed by this Act ; it is not only 
 exempted from punishment, but rendered innocent and 
 lawful ; it is established, it is put under the protection, 
 and is not merely under the connivance, of the law. In 
 case those who are appointed by law to register Dis- 
 senting places of worship refuse on any pretence to do 
 it, we must,, upon application, send a mandamus to 
 compel them.' ^ 
 
 Lord Mansfield was able to say that the requiring the 
 payment of a fine by the Dissenters was both unjust and 
 illegal. But the Dissenters who now say, ' We will not 
 pay denominational fees, because it does violence to our 
 religious scruples,' may say, indeed, that it is unjust to 
 compel them to do so ; but they cannot say that it is 
 illegal. It is for this reason that Lord Cairns cannot 
 follow in the steps of Lord Mansfield, while he may 
 entertain sentiments as liberal as those of the great 
 Tory judge. 
 
 It may be said that the precedent of Lord Mansfield's 
 judgment does not apply, as in that case Dissenters 
 were singled out for penalty and fined as Dissenters. 
 But there is a more recent precedent which is clearly 
 applicable. Church-rates, when voted by a majority of 
 rate-payers, were payable by all householders. The 
 present school-rates are payable by the Baptist house- 
 holder on the demand of a Churchman parent who 
 wishes his son to acknowledge, in the words of the 
 Catechism, the efficacy of infant baptism, and the teach- 
 ing given to the infant by his godfather and godmother. 
 
 1 • Parliamentary History/ 1767. 
 
DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS. 819 
 
 The difference between the two parties is clearly pointed 
 out by a writer in the ' Pall Mall Gazette ' of Jan. 28, 
 1874 ; that writer says : ' " We will not pay denomi- 
 national fees because it does violence to our religious 
 scruples," and "you must pay denominational fees, 
 because to refuse them does violence to other peoples' 
 religious scruples ; " these represent the positions re- 
 spectively occupied by the two parties.' 
 
 There is, indeed, in one of the States of New England, 
 if not more than one, a way out of the difficulty. In 
 the State of Massachusetts there is no compulsion on 
 the parent to send his boy or girl to school. It is left 
 to him to find out the advantage of having his children 
 educated in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The 
 schools are all free schools. At the end of the year 
 the expenses of all the schools are charged as an article 
 in the Budget upon the revenue of the State, and the 
 amount is generally the heaviest item in the State 
 Budget. 
 
 I am told, however, that such a scheme would not be 
 palatable in England, and that parents would not take 
 advantage of the opportunity of sending their sons and 
 daughters to school. 
 
 It seems to me, therefore, that what was done as 
 regards church-rates ought to be done in regard to 
 school-rates. Any deficiency in the payment of rates 
 could be made good, if public opinion approved of it, 
 by an additional grant in the House of Commons. 
 Tlie amount required would not be large, and the poor 
 parents, who wanted to send their sons to Church 
 schools, would probably be better off than they are 
 now. 
 
 Let me here say, that I do not look upon Denomina- 
 tional Schools with any of the horror with which they 
 
320 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 are regarded at Birmingham. For many years I pro- 
 posed large grants in the House of Commons for schools 
 mainly supported by the clergy of the Church of Eng- 
 land. There is much to be learned in the Catechism 
 which will do no one any harm. With liberal grants 
 from Parliament, the elementary facts of history and 
 geography might be easily and well taught. If the 
 children under fourteen years of age were taught on 
 three days of the week, and allowed to apply the other 
 three to industry, recompensed by wages, the cause of 
 education and the cause of labor and industry would 
 be both promoted. 
 
 June 15, 1874.-^1 perceive that in a recent debate in 
 the House of Commons, Lord Frederick Cavendish and 
 Mr. Salt each proposed a scheme by which the religious 
 difficulty in the schools would be solved. One scheme 
 is, that a large additional grant should be made for edu- 
 cation by Parliament. The other scheme is, that Vol- 
 untary Schools should be required out of their existing 
 funds to educate the sons and daughters of pauper 
 Churchmen. Either of these schemes seems to me to 
 furnish an easy solution of a difficulty which has cre- 
 ated much ill-will, and may produce further discord. 
 Unless the High Church party desires as a Christian 
 object, and the Prime minister desires as a political 
 object, to put down Dissenters, one of these schemes 
 will be accepted, and the cause of peace and good-will 
 towards men will make new progress. 
 
 To return once more to the question of the Dissentere : 
 I see it is repeated over and over again, that it would 
 be very hard to compel a man to send his boy to school, 
 and then not to allow him to choose the school to which 
 his boy shall be sent. Very hard, indeed, I answer, if 
 the parent can afford to pay for the school he chooses, 
 
REMEDIES PROPOSED. 821 
 
 and bis boy's maiutenance tbere, or if he can get a 
 subscripfcion from a friend for that payment. But that 
 the man should have a right to put his hand into his 
 neighbor's pocket, and take out of it such a sum as 
 will enable him to send his boy to a school Avhich 
 teaches opinion to which that neighbor has a conscien- 
 tious objection, is unjust. It would be better to abolish 
 compulsion in the matter of education altogether than 
 to inflict such injustice. The fact is, that the Church 
 of Rome and the Protestant Dissenters of England 
 have practices totally distinct on the subject of religion. 
 The Church of Rome indulges in absolutions and dis- 
 pensations ; she declares it is wrong for a man to marry 
 his niece, or his first cousin, and then she" grants a 
 special dispensation for the purpose. At the beginning 
 of Lent a proclamation is made that on certain days 
 the strictest fast is to be observed. Not only meat and 
 fowls, but butter, milk, and cream are prohibited. But 
 then both men and women of weak constitution can 
 easily obtain a license dispensing with these severe 
 rules. 
 
 The Protestant Dissenters of England have a totally 
 different view. I can give an instance of the scruples 
 they entertain. I asked Mr. John Wood, the Chairman 
 of the Board of Inland Revenue, whether his father 
 had acted as a magistrate during the time the Corpora- 
 tion and Test Acts had been in force. His answer was, 
 ' No,' his father had no objection to take the Sacrament 
 according to the rites of the Church of England, but 
 he did not like to do it for a purpose which by the law 
 was prohibited. 
 
 The late Mr. Henry Drummond said, in the House 
 of Commons, that two centuries ago every man was 
 governed by the word credo^ but that in the present 
 
 21 
 
822 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 century the governing word was changed to credit. It 
 is thus that at the present time the giievance which 
 affects the consciences of Dissenters is dechired by the 
 most powerful organ of the press to be a ' blot which 
 is very minute.' In fact, some of the organs of public 
 opinion care little for a cause which does not affect the 
 price of the Three per Cents, and makes only a very 
 minute difference in the price of Erie shares. 
 
TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 323 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 It is a painful part of my task to discuss the foreign 
 policy of the late British Ministry, and especially the 
 Treaty of Washington, with its antecedents and accom- 
 paniments. But this task cannot be avoided. 
 
 I shall, in the first place, refer to the opinions re- 
 corded by Baron de Hiibner. Baron de Hiibner is an 
 intelligent traveller, who has been more than once in 
 the United States. But, besides this, he has had great 
 diplomatic experience, having been for some* time the 
 Ambassador of Austria in France, and is universally 
 esteemed for his good sense and sagacity. He thus 
 puts on record the opinions he gathered from English- 
 men and citizens of the United States on his last voyage 
 to America : ' The English regret unanimously that 
 there was any necessity to make concessions, but in 
 their opinion the satisfaction outweighs the discontent. 
 If I am not much mistaken, that is the feeling which 
 predominates in England. American statesmen ap- 
 pear uncertain as to the value they ought to attach 
 to the Treaty. . . . In the opinion of the public at 
 large, the Treaty of Washington is, on the part of the 
 English Government, an act of deference — the acknowl- 
 edgment of the superiority of the power of the United 
 States. England has submitted — she has capitulated ; 
 neither more nor less. If this erroneous interpretation 
 
324 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 is spread throughout the Union, and takes root in the 
 conviction of the masses, the conciliatory dispositions 
 which have animated the English negotiators are ill- 
 understood, and this Treaty, while removing present 
 difficulties, will have prepared the minds of men for 
 future complications.' ^ 
 
 This last remark of Baron Hiibner is of great im- 
 portance. If it is believed, in the opinion of the public 
 at large in America, that the Treaty of Washington is, 
 on the part of the people of England, ' an acknowledg- 
 ment of the superiority of the power of the United 
 States : England has submitted and has capitulated ; ' 
 such a conviction in the mind of a nation so proud 
 and self-sufficient as the Republic of the United States 
 is no doubt a bad preparation for peace. It is a great 
 mistake to suppose that a concession, even the most 
 abject to a foreign nation, is certain to conciliate their 
 good-will. The power which conceives that a great 
 Empire has confessed its inferiority, is apt to make 
 demands which a nation having a lively sense of honor 
 is certain to reject. For instance, the present Govern- 
 ment of the United States might ask from the present 
 Government of England the annexation of Canada 
 with the States of the Union. Some members of the 
 late Cabinet might think this a cheap mode of securing 
 peace. But Lord Palmerston always considered the 
 retention of Canada essential to the maintenance of 
 British honor, and the nation at large would assuredly 
 agree with Lord Palmerston in this opinion. Thus the 
 danger of war would not be averted, but increased by 
 the proposal of this concession. 
 
 It remains to be considered, however, whether there 
 
 * * Promenade Autour du Monde/ vol. ii. 
 
TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 325 
 
 are any just grounds for the opinion, that the conces- 
 sions made in and by the Treaty of Washington, or in 
 consequence of that Treaty, were ' an act of deference 
 and an acknowledgment of the superiority of the power 
 of the United States.' If not, the opinion is a mere 
 bravado on the part of the American people, but the 
 following points may be quoted in support of the 
 American opinion : — 
 
 I. That instead of subjecting the conduct of the 
 British Government, during the civil war in the United 
 States, to the known rules of International Law and 
 the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, an ex 
 post facto law was invented, by which, and by the ar- 
 bitrary interpretation of which, the conduct of the 
 British Government was tried many years after the 
 event. 
 
 II. That that part of the Treaty of 1846 which re- 
 spects the channel between the American continent and 
 Vancouver's Island was subjected to a perversion of its 
 plain words, whereby British interests were exposed to 
 the risk of a wrong decision by the arbiter pointed out 
 by the Treaty of Washington. 
 
 III. That while the British Government professed 
 to give redress for any wrongs inflicted on either side 
 during the civil war, the injuries inflicted on the 
 Canadian subjects of the Queen, killed or wounded, 
 by the Fenian invasion from the United States were 
 not provided for, either by the demands of the British 
 Government or by the provisions of the Treaty of 
 Washington. 
 
 On June 12, 1871, Lord Granville, alluding to an 
 assertion of mine, said — 
 
 * The noble Earl said that the United States has 
 made no concessions ; but, in the very beginning of the 
 
326 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 protocols, Mr. Fish, renewing the proposition he had 
 made before to much larger national claims, said : — 
 
 * " The history of the ' Alabama,' and other cruisers 
 which had been fitted out or armed, or equipped, or 
 which had received augmentation of force in Great 
 Britain or in her Colonies, and of the operations of 
 those vessels, showed extensive direct losses in the 
 capture and destruction of a large number of vessels 
 with their cargoes, and in the heavy national expen- 
 ditures in the pursuit of the cruisers ; and indirect 
 injury in the transfer of a large part of the American 
 commercial marine to the British flag, in the enhanced 
 payments of insurance, in the prolongation of the war, 
 and in the addition of a large sum to the cost of the 
 war and the suppression of the rebellion ; and also 
 showed that Great Britain, by reason of failure in the 
 proper observance of her duties as a neutral, had become 
 justly liable for the acts of those cruisers and of their 
 tenders ; that the claims for the loss and destruction of 
 private property which had thus far been presented 
 amounted to about fourteen millions of dollars, without 
 interest; which amount was liable to be greatly in- 
 creased by claims which had not been presented." 
 
 * These were pretensions which might have been 
 carried out under the former arbitration ; but they en- 
 tirely disappear under the limited reference which 
 includes merely complaints arising out of the escape 
 of the '' Alabama." ' 
 
 Who would have supposed that, after this solemn 
 declaration of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 
 made in the House of Lords, these * Indirect Claims ' 
 for the prolongation of the war, and various other pre- 
 posterous claims which had never been heard of before, 
 would ever be heard of again ? Every one would have 
 
BRITISH HONOR. 327 
 
 supposed that all these claims would have been with- 
 drawn from the decision of the arbitrators, and that the 
 British Government, if the American Government had 
 not consented to their withdrawal, would have refused 
 to appear in the Hall of Arbitration. But so far was 
 this from being the case, that the British arbitrator, it 
 is true, did not appear to arbitrate on the Indirect 
 Claims ; but a decision was come to by the arbitrators, 
 and the claims, which Lord Granville declared had 
 entirely disappeared, were dismissed, not as being con- 
 sistent with the Treaty, or expunged from the Amer- 
 ican case, but as inconsistent with the law of nations. 
 
 That a Government should sign a Treaty, and should 
 afterwards allow to go before arbitrators articles which 
 that Government had declared not to be contained in 
 the Treaty, appears to me entirely inconsistent with 
 the national honor. 
 
 So, likewise, the omission to insist upon compensation 
 for the wives who had lost their husbands, and the 
 mothers who had lost their sons, by the Fenian invasion 
 of Canada, was a desertion of that protection to life and 
 property of the Queen's subjects upon which Her 
 Majesty's Ministers were bound to obtain redress. Tt 
 is to be remarked that, although many American mer- 
 chants lost property by the aggressions of the ' Ala- 
 bama,' the only injuries to life and limb were inflicted 
 on British subjects. Sir John Macdonald, the late 
 Prime Minister of Canada, expressed, in a public 
 speech, his surprise and dissatisfaction at this neglect. 
 
 2. The surrender of the Island of Juan, and the re- 
 treat from the line which General Scott, an honorable 
 American officer, had fixed of his own accord, was a 
 serious and wanton loss ; and, on the whole, it is no 
 wonder that the American public should have con- 
 
328 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 eluded that ' the Treaty of Washington is, on the part 
 of the English Government, an act of deference — the 
 acknowledgment of the superiority of the power of the 
 United States. England has submitted — she has capit- 
 ulated ; neither more nor less.' 
 
 One is tempted to ask. Why should England have 
 performed this act of deference ? Have English troops 
 surrendered at Saratoga ? Has an English army ca- 
 pitulated at Yorktown? Have hostile fleets paraded 
 the British Channel in defiance of England ? 
 
 So far was it from true that such or similar events 
 have happened, that one of the last transactions that 
 took place between the two countries before Mr. Glad- 
 stone acceded to office was, that Great Britain, having 
 demanded the liberation of American citizens captured 
 in the 'Trent,' and having intimated that a refusal 
 of her demands might produce serious consequences, 
 those demands were complied with, promptly and un- 
 conditionally. 
 
 3. The position taken by Her Majesty's representa- 
 tives with regard to the Treaty of 1846, signed by 
 Mr. Pakenham, was singularly, if not intentionally, 
 calculated to produce a decision adverse to the claims 
 of the British Commissioners. The Treaty of 1846 
 said, in plain terms, that persons named by the two 
 Powers were to draw a line across the strait which 
 separates the American shore from Vancouver's Island, 
 that upon arriving at the point which intersects that 
 line, at the 40th parallel of latitude, a line was to be 
 drawn through the middle of the channel to the south 
 till the line should reach the open sea. 
 
 It might have been difficult to find a passage free 
 from obstacles in the middle of the channel, but the 
 obvious resource was to take a line that would approxi- 
 
TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 329 
 
 mate most nearly to the middle of the channel, and 
 allow of an open passage. But unfortunately it oc- 
 curred to the British Commissioners that the line 
 through the middle of the channel was to be found 
 in a channel close to the American shore, departing 
 altogether from the words of the Treaty. It occurred, 
 on the other hand, to the American Commissioners, 
 that the proper line through the middle of the strait 
 was to be found close to the shore of Vancouver's 
 Island. It was quite evident that neither a line which 
 went close to the American shore, nor a line which 
 went close to Vancouver's Island, could be the line 
 intended by the Treaty. 
 
 It is perfectly obvious that a line that was to go to 
 the midst of the channel which separates the Conti- 
 nent from Vancouver's Island, and then southerly to 
 the middle of the channel of Fuca's Straits, and then 
 to the Pacific, could not approach the American shore ; 
 nor, on the other hand, could a line which, leaving the 
 middle of the channel, approached Vancouver's Island, 
 be the channel intended by the Treaty of 1846. So 
 that neither the channel called Rosario, nor the channel 
 called the Canal de Haro, was the channel intended by 
 the Treaty. Moreover, the British Government was 
 perfectly aware that the Canal de Haro would be un- 
 favorable to the British Government. This is stated 
 in the case of the Government of Her Britannic Maj- 
 esty : — 
 
 ' An interpretation, therefore, of the Treaty which 
 would declare the Canal de Haro to be the channel 
 down which the boundary line is to be carried, would 
 be to declare that Her Britannic Majesty's Government, 
 when it concluded the Treaty of 1846, intended to favor 
 the United States Crovernment to its own prejudice, for 
 
330 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 it would be to declare that Her Britannic Majesty's 
 Government intended to abandon the use of the only 
 channel leading to its own possessions which it knew 
 to be navigable and safe, and to confine itself to the 
 use of a channel respecting which it had no assurance 
 that it was even navigable in its upper waters for sea- 
 going vessels ; nay, respecting which it is not too much 
 to say, that Her Britannic Majesty's Government had a 
 firm belief that it was a dangerous strait, "^ ^ Her Majesty's 
 Ministers being thus fully persuaded that the choice of 
 the Canal de Haro would favor the United States Gov- 
 ernment to the prejudice of Great Britain, deliberately 
 resolved to leave the Emperor of Germany no alterna- 
 tive, but to bind him to choose between a boundary 
 through the Rosario Straits or through the Canal de 
 Haro. Had the British Government submitted the 
 whole Treaty of 1846 to the arbitration of the Emperor 
 of Germany, there might have been a decision favor- 
 able to the interest of Great Britain ; but, pinned to 
 the choice between two lines, both inconsistent with 
 the Treaty, the learned men to whom the Emperor of 
 Germany referred the question decided it against Great 
 Britain. They probably thought that Great Britain 
 could well bear an additional humiliation. Therefore 
 it was, that not only were the wives of Canada left 
 widows, not only, were the mothers of Canada left child- 
 less, without compensation, but it was determined to 
 complete the surrender of British honor and of British 
 character. 
 
 If we look back to the transactions of former times, 
 it appears that in 1793-94 there was a complaint made, 
 on the part of Great Britain, that British merchant 
 
 ^ Case of the British Government. 
 
TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 331 
 
 ships had been captured within the jurisdiction of the 
 United States. A correspondence between the Govern- 
 ments of London and Washington accordingly took 
 place. It so happened that at that time each Govern- 
 ment was presided over by a man of high honor and 
 integrity. At the head of the Foreign Office of Eng- 
 land was Lord Grenville, descended from an ancient 
 and honorable English family. At the head of the 
 Government of America was George Washington, de- 
 scended from a family of the Cavaliers of the time of 
 Charles I. These two men were determined to pursue 
 the paths of truth and justice. Mr. George Hammond, 
 the father of the respected Under-Secretary of State 
 for Foreign Affairs, wrote, in May, 1793, that several 
 ships belonging to British merchants had been captured 
 by the French frigate the 'Embuscade,' and had been 
 condemned as lawful prize by the French Consul. On 
 May 15, Mr. Jefferson wrote in the following terms to 
 Mr. Hammond : ' Sir, — Your several memorials of the 
 8th instant have been laid before the President, as had 
 been that of the 2d, as soon as received. They have 
 been considered with all the attention and impartiality 
 which a firm determination could inspire, to do what 
 is equal and right between all the belligerent Powers.' 
 
 Mr. Jefferson goes on to state that the condemnation 
 as legal prize of a British vessel captured by a French 
 frigate was, as Mr. Hammond had justly stated, ' not 
 warranted by the usage of nations, nor by the stipula- 
 tions existing between the United States and France.' 
 
 In a subsequent part of his letter, Mr. Jefferson 
 states, ' The capture of the British ship " Grange," by 
 the French frigate " I'Embuscade," has, on inquiry, 
 been found to have taken place within the Bay of Dela- 
 ware, and jurisdiction of the United States, as stated in 
 your memorial of the 2d instant ; the Government is. 
 
332 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 therefore, taking measures for the liberation of the crew 
 and restitution of the ship and cargo.' 
 
 The correspondence between the two Governments 
 was carried on in the same friendly spirit in which it 
 had been commenced. There was no question of arbi- 
 tration ; a convention was signed, by which commission- 
 ers were appointed to estimate the value of the British 
 vessels captured, and their cargoes, which had been 
 brought as prizes into the ports of the United States, 
 and it is stated to be much underrated at the amount 
 of 195,548Z. sterling, and the compensation was paid in 
 due course. 
 
 The relations of amity between the two countries of 
 England and the United States were not disturbed, and 
 not even the oldest of the old women of Great Britain 
 expressed any apprehension of war between the two 
 nations. But then General Washington had no inclina- 
 tion to calumniate Lord Grenville, and the Secretarj^ of 
 the Treasury in England was not concerned in raising 
 a panic in England for the sake of obtaining a majority 
 in the House of Commons. 
 
 Had Lord Granville agreed to see me before he sent 
 his mission to Washington, I should have pointed out to 
 him the weak parts of our case ; I should have said, as 
 Lord Chief Justice Cockburn has since done, that after 
 I had received the opinion of Sir Robert Collier, there 
 was Q. primd facie case for detaining the * Alabama,' and 
 that I had failed in not doing so during the interval of 
 four days which elapsed before I received the legal 
 opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. General 
 Washington, in like manner, had, from mistake, allowed 
 British ships to be captured within the jurisdiction of 
 the United States. 
 
 Had Lord Granville and Mr. Gladstone conducted 
 themselves as General Washington and Mr. Jefferson 
 
TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 333 
 
 had done in 1793, compensation would have been paid, 
 at a moderate and not a fancy value, for the ships capt- 
 ured and destroyed by the 'Alabama.' There would 
 have been no war, no panic, and no arbitration. 
 
 I only trust that if any similar case should arise of 
 mistakes in regard to the law of nations, or the exact 
 sense of treaties, the official correspondence will be con- 
 ducted in the tone of George Washington and Mr. 
 Jefferson, of Lord Grenville and Mr. Hammond, and 
 not in the language of Fish and Gushing, of Lord Gran- 
 ville and the Marquis of Ripon. In any such case, I 
 shall say to Lord Granville, as Sir Peter Teazle said to 
 Mrs. Candour, ' If my character is attacked, I only beg 
 of you not to undertake my defence.' 
 
 There can be no better testimony to the honesty with 
 which the neutrality of England was observed than that 
 of Mr. Grote. 
 
 I must confess that the conduct of Lord Granville 
 and Mr. Gladstone on this occasion deeply wounded my 
 feelings. I was not quite satisfied with the behavior of 
 Lord Clarendon, when he left, without notice, the orig- 
 inal dispatch of Mr. Fish. But our characters were safe 
 in the hands of the British Parliament and the British 
 people. It was a different question when the accusa- 
 tion of falsehood and hypocrisy was laid in the name of 
 the Government of the great Republic before five arbi- 
 trators of different nations. 
 
 The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary took 
 for their model, apparently, the character of Donna 
 Inez in the poem of ' Don Juan ' : — 
 
 Calmly they heard each calumny that rose, 
 
 And saw his agonies with such sublimity, 
 
 That all the world exclaimed * What magnanimity ! * 
 
 So let it be. 
 
334 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The more I respect the constitution and the character 
 of the great American Republic, the more am I inclined 
 to feel calumnies from such a source. Happily, neither 
 the memory of Lord Palmerston nor my character are 
 likely to suffer from the charges of Mr. Fish. It is to 
 be hoped that, on any similar occurrence, the British 
 nation will have better defenders than those who held 
 the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Secretary 
 of State for Foreign Affairs in the years 1871 and 1872. 
 
 Had Lord Granville remembered his promise to see 
 me before the President of the Council departed for 
 Washington, I should have advised him not to insist on 
 the weak parts of our case. 
 
 I assent entirely to the opinions of the Lord Chief 
 Justice of England, that the ' Alabama ' ought to have 
 been detained during the four days in which I was 
 waiting for the opinion of the law officers. But I think 
 that the fault was not that of the Commissioners of 
 Customs; it was my fault, as Secretary of State for 
 Foreign Affairs. 
 
 I should have been glad to have admitted that fault 
 as plainly and as explicitly as General Washington ad- 
 mitted his mistake in 1793. 
 
 I have only further to say, that I do not wish to 
 impute to Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville any per- 
 sonal ill-will to me in all this matter. But they seem 
 to have been quite unaware that the United Kingdom 
 is a great country, and that its reputation ought to be 
 dear to every British heart. 
 
POLICY FOR THE FUTURE. 335 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 POLICY FOR THE FUTURE. 
 
 When I first came into public life, the great Empire of 
 Napoleon was tottering to its downfall. Yet his insane 
 confidence in his star was scarcely abated. Having 
 been successful in a trifling action in the interior of 
 France, he said to three of his marshals who were with 
 him at supper, ' In six weeks we shall be on the Vistula.' 
 The abdication of Fontainebleau put an end to these 
 dreams. He himself had said, with his wonderful 
 sagacity, ' If the Emperor of Austria were driven five 
 times out of Vienna he would come back with un- 
 diminished strength; but if I am once driven out of 
 Paris, I may never sit on the throne again.' 
 
 In expectation of the fall of Napoleon, there were 
 two great problems to be solved : Who should be the 
 Sovereign of France ? What should be the boundaries 
 of France? 
 
 The restoration of the Bourbons was agreed to with- 
 out much difficulty. 
 
 The future extent and limits of France seem to have 
 been decided by the advice of England. 
 
 The Emperor Alexander told Count Pozzo de Borgo 
 that Lord Aberdeen had spoken to him of the Alps, the 
 Pyrenees, and the Rhine as the future limits of France. 
 Pozzo de Borgo replied that neither the Prince Regent 
 nor his Ministers would consent to such frontiers. 
 
336 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Not long after this Lord Castlereagh wrote to Lord 
 Aberdeen to instruct him that the English Ministers 
 would grant the limits of the French Monarchy in 1792 
 as the boundaries of the kingdom of Louis XVIIL 
 
 Upon this question hung the decision then made, and 
 perhaps the future history of France. Napoleon wrote 
 to his brother Joseph, the mock-King of Spain, that if 
 it fell to his fortune to sign peace with the allies, and 
 they granted him the natural frontiers of France, mean- 
 ing the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the Rhine, he would do 
 all in his power to observe that peace ; but if they gave 
 liim a restricted frontier, he should seize the first oppor- 
 tunity of making a quarrel, and endeavor to recover the 
 whole of the left bank of the Rhine. 
 
 Such was the quarrel upon which, after fifty-six 
 years of peace. Napoleon III., the nephew of the great 
 Napoleon, fastened, in July, 1870, as a fit cause for 
 renewed war in Europe. Napoleon III. — inferior to the 
 first Napoleon in preparing for war, in collecting his 
 armies for war, and in making war — fell in 1870 as his 
 uncle had done in 1814. But the contest is not yet 
 over. The French nation is hungry for the recovery of 
 Alsace and the surrendered parts of Lorraine. 
 
 As soon as Napoleon III. took the command of his 
 army at Metz, he informed them, in an order of the day, 
 that they would have many sieges to undertake. Those 
 sieges were, doubtless, the sieges of Cologne, of Cob- 
 lentz, of Mentz, of Landau. His hopes were disap- 
 pointed, his projects defeated. But the quarrel remains 
 for the present or for a future generation. The objects 
 to be sought are, a restored French Empire on the one 
 side, a powerful and united Germany on the other. 
 
 It is easy to see on which side are the interests of 
 England and of Europe. 
 
FRONTIERS OF FRANCE. 
 
 337 
 
 Perhaps it will be enough for the United Kingdom in 
 1874, as it would have been enough in 1792, to refuse 
 the most tempting offers of France, and to keep aloof 
 from the quarrel. 
 
 We may rely upon the prudence of Germany, of 
 Austria, and of Russia, that ttese three Powers will 
 remain banded together in spirit, if not in form. Some 
 eight or ten months before the war of 1870 broke out. 
 Lord Clarendon informed me of his own knowledge that 
 Prussia had an understanding with Russia, according to 
 which Russia would have an army of sufficient strength, 
 on the frontier of Polish Galicia, to prevent Austria 
 from assisting France in the coming war. That Russia 
 was prepared so to act, that Austria was fullj^ aware of 
 it, and that, forewarned, she meant to be forearmed, 
 are facts which have lately been given in an authentic 
 bhape to the English public. 
 
 We may, I trust, be confident that when the crisis 
 comes, our Minister of Foreign Affairs will neither be 
 taken by surprise nor omit the measures which the 
 emergency will require. 
 
 There are some who suppose that the Sovereigns of 
 Europe will look only to their own advantage, and will 
 be only anxious to divide Belgium, Holland, and Lux- 
 emburg among them as a magnificent banquet. 
 
 But, in the first place, the Sovereigns of Europe are 
 not in these days such plunderers and murderers as the 
 newspapers imagine them to be. In the next place, it 
 would be difficult to satisfy the various pretensions of 
 the Sovereigns, and give to each the slice that would 
 appease his appetite. 
 
 It is, indeed, not difficult, but impossible, to say what 
 may be the circumstances in which a new war in Europe 
 may arise. If Germany should attempt to annex Hol- 
 
 22 
 
338 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 land, I trust that the arm of England will be lifted in 
 defence of Holland. If France, or any other Power, 
 should conspire to destroy the independence of Belgium, 
 I trust that Lord Palmerston's Treaty of 1839 will 
 bring England to the aid of Belgium. If the dreams of 
 Na2)oleon I. should inspire some future Bonaparte, and 
 induce him to attempt to recover what are called the 
 natural frontiers of France, I trust that the revival of 
 another hundred days will lead to a third overthrow of 
 France. But at present all is dark ; and we can only 
 trust that when the day of danger arrives, England will 
 prove true to her engagements, conscious of her great 
 power, and mindful of her duties to mankind. 
 
 / 
 
GENERAL ELECTION. 389 
 
 CHAPTER Xiy. 
 
 GENERAL ELECTION. — FALL OF MR. GLADSTONE'S 
 MINISTRY. 
 
 The crisis has arrived. The General Election has given 
 a majority of upwards of fifty to the Tory Opposition ; 
 and it is reported that Mr. Gladstoiie's Cabinet have 
 determined to resign. 
 
 With respect to the result of the General Election, 
 there are numbers of precedents for such an event. In 
 1690, only one year after the glorious Revolution, com- 
 plaints were made that the Whigs had gone too far in a 
 spirit of exclusiveness, all the members of corporations 
 who had accepted King James's rule being excluded for 
 seven years from office. This was done by w^hat was 
 called the Sacheverell Clause. King William prorogued 
 Parliament with a view to an immediate dissolution. 
 When the General Election came, the turn of the tide 
 against the Whigs was conspicuous. The four members 
 for the city of London were replaced b}^ four Tories. 
 Sir Isaac Newton, who had been elected for the Univer- 
 sity of Cambridge, resigned his seat, and gave his vote 
 in favor of Sir Robert Sawyer, a very prominent Tory. 
 The elections went, generally, in the same channel ; 
 and, although it was not then the custom to change the 
 entire Ministry as the effect of a General Election, many 
 Whigs retired from the Executive, and many Tories 
 succeeded to their places. 
 
340 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 In the reign of Queen Anne, the name of Sacheverell 
 again occurs, as that of a man impeached by foolish zeal 
 and Whig proscription. In 1710, when Dr. Sacheverell 
 was rashly impeached, and Queen Anne had given to 
 Tory Ministers the predominance which, in the days of 
 Marlborough and Godolphin, had been enjoyed by the 
 Whigs, four Tories of the High Church party came in 
 for the city of London at the General Election. 
 
 But the most signal example of a change of popular 
 feeling, and the downfall of Whig power, occurred in 
 1784 — Fox and Burke were dismissed from office. The 
 most prominent men of that day thought the attempt to 
 make a new Ministry of the Opposition so foolish as to 
 be ridiculous ; ^ yet Pitt, by the exercise of extraordinary 
 patience, and by keeping his footsteps in the narrow 
 path of the Constitution, gained a great triumph. The 
 coalition of Fox and North had disgusted the people ; 
 the India Bill, with its oligarchy of seven party men to 
 be rulers of India, alarmed the King for the safety of 
 his prerogative. 
 
 Where Fox and Burke were defeated, it can be no 
 disgrace to Gladstone to have failed. 
 
 The General Election of 1841, which drove the 
 Whigs from office, and gave a majority of ninety-one 
 to Sir Robert Peel, is fresh in the recollection of all 
 our elder statesmen. 
 
 We come now to the fall of Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 There can be no doubt that Mr. Gladstone, by his 
 great eloquence, by his power of developing the most 
 abstruse propositions, and embracing at once, in his large 
 capacity, the most logical demonstrations with the most 
 captivating and dazzling rhetoric, has made for himself 
 
 ^ See ' Letters of Sir Gilbert Elliot/ lately published. 
 
FALL OF MR. GLADSTONE. 341 
 
 a fame wliicli, in the lapse of centuries, will suffer no 
 eclipse. The only man whom I have heard in Parlia- 
 ment who combined to an equal degree the most severe 
 reasoning with the most wonderful flights of imagination 
 was Mr. Plunket in his speeches for Catholic emancipa- 
 tion. But Mr. Gladstone will be renowned not only 
 for his parliamentary eloquence, but for his legislative 
 acts. 
 
 For three hundred years the Protestant Established 
 Church of Ireland has been the most odious and offen- 
 sive emblem of the corruption and the intolerance of 
 England. To have quietly removed this monopoly so 
 offensive to the Irish nation, the target against which 
 the arrows of Ireland's best archers were always aimed, 
 without any of the rabbling which marked the expulsion 
 of the English liturgy from Scotland, without disorder, 
 without riot, is a great feat in the history of any states- 
 man. No man can complain that he has been wronged, 
 a nation may rejoice that she has been righted. The 
 attempts to remedy this portentous injury, without 
 extinguishing the . Church to turn the curse into a 
 blessing, were sure to prove, as Lord Althorp, Lord 
 Durham, and I contended in Lord Grey's Cabinet they 
 would be in 1833, stupendous failures. Driving with 
 the Duke of Leinster one day, some miles from Carton, 
 we came to a very handsome new church, fit for the 
 reception of several hundred people. That, said the 
 Duke of Leinster to me, is one of the churches erected 
 by the Commissioners, under Lord Stanley's Church 
 Reform Act. The only Protestants of the parish are 
 the Duchess and I, and we always attend at the church 
 at Maynooth. 
 
 Not a less conquest over difficulties, perhaps a greater, 
 was Mr. Gladstone's Land Act. A farmer, who had 
 
842 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 built a house, roofed it with slate, put glass in the 
 windows and vegetables in the garden, might have 
 been turned out for giving a wrong vote at an election 
 without any legal claim for compensation of the smallest 
 amount. It was said that these instances were rare, 
 but the power to commit such injustice was an evil to 
 be remedied. Mr. Gladstone, doing rough justice to 
 the poor tenantry of Ireland, added to the right of the 
 evicted tenant to obtain shelter and food at the work- 
 house, the right to pecuniary compensation for dis- 
 turbance, to the amount of seven years' rent of his 
 holding. 
 
 These reforms require the sanction of time to make 
 them fit and easy, and that advantage be taken of the 
 wise provision of Lord Cairns, that the Irish Church 
 Act should be subject to revision. The landlords of 
 Ireland, upon whom, by the Act of 1836, the obligation 
 of paying tithe rent-charge was imposed, have no right 
 whatever to claim the .extinction of that rent-charge 
 in their own favor. It was a bribe to the landlords of 
 Ireland which may still be withdrawn. I am one of 
 those who have had the advantage of the Act of 1869, 
 but I am quite willing to give up that advantage and to 
 leave my heirs still subject, as I am now, to the pay- 
 ment of the tithe rent-charge. 
 
 I do not wish in this place to recite by rote the faults 
 of Mr. Gladstone as a statesman, but I feel bound to 
 do him justice with respect to another great act of his 
 career. 
 
 The Education Act of 1870 was a great and wise 
 measure, framed with a view to complete the assistance 
 which had already been given b}- Parliament to popular 
 instruction. Mr. Forster was wise as well as just in 
 proposing rather to complete by supplementary pro- 
 
MR. GLADSTONE. 343 
 
 visions what liad been done, than to kick down the 
 scaffolding which had been already erected, and build 
 from the ground a new edifice. But in the manner of 
 doing this, Mr. Forster adopted a very clumsy expe- 
 dient, and made his measure offensive and insulting to 
 the Protestant Dissenters of England. It would have 
 been easy to supply the need of sectarian or denomina- 
 tional schools by grants from the House of Commons. 
 The Tory party would equally have assisted Mr. For- 
 ster, and a great cause of irritation would have been 
 spared. To tell a Baptist he must support a voluntary 
 school, and that if he does not choose to do so, his table 
 and chair will be sold by auction, was a revival of 
 church-rates in a more offensive form. It is said that 
 the Dissenters would object as much to a vote of Par- 
 liament in favor of denominational schools as to a school- 
 rate. But it is one thing to agitate against the payment 
 of a rate which offends his conscience, and another 
 thing to agitate at a public meeting for the repeal of an 
 Act of Parliament or a change of its provisions. The 
 Society of Friends never petition against the votes for 
 the army and navy. 
 
 I may as well proceed now to name two other prom- 
 inent causes of Mr. Gladstone's defeat at the General 
 Election, 
 
 At the same time with Mr. Gladstone's manifesto 
 appeared declarations generally in favor of progress, 
 but urging the abolition of the Church Establishment, 
 and the proposal of free land, free church, free schools. 
 
 These proposals put me in mind of a note of Dean 
 Swift, on a remark of Bishop Burnet, that the Duke 
 of Monmouth was a man free of all vice. ' Yes,' said 
 Dean Swift, ' as a man is free of a club.' 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain, who is a leading apostle of this 
 
344 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 school, reminds me, with his notions of progress, of Tony 
 Lumpkin, in the play of ' She Stoops to Conquer.' I 
 will copy part of a dialogue from that play, in which 
 Tony Lumpkin and his mother represent tolerably well 
 Mr. Chamberlain and John Bull. When asked to de- 
 scribe his journey, Tony answers : — 
 
 ' Tony. You shall hear. I first took them down Feath- 
 erbed Lane, where we stuck fast in the mud. I then 
 rattled them crack over the stones of Up-and-down Hill. 
 I then introduced them to the gibbet on Heavy-tree 
 Heath ; and from that, with a circumbendibus, I fairly 
 lodged them in the horse-pond at the bottom of the 
 garden. 
 
 ' Hast. But no accident, I hope? 
 
 ' Tony. No, no, only mother is confoundedly fright- 
 ened.'^ 
 
 So in this case, no harm, no accident has happened, but 
 John Bull was ' confoundedly frightened.' In fact, he 
 has been more frightened than hurt b}' the threats of the 
 advanced Liberals. Mr. Chamberlain was left at Shef- 
 field at the bottom of the poll. Mr. Roebuck and Mr. 
 Mundella have been triumphantly returned. But the 
 want of plain speaking on the part of Mr. Gladstone 
 has ruined his cause. One opponent, indeed, attacked 
 Mr. Gladstone, of whom Mr. Gladstone, with more truth 
 than A jax, may say, — 
 
 Et cum rictus erit, mecum certasse feretur. 
 
 A third fault of his Ministry, however, was greater 
 than either of the others. 
 
 By his foreign policy ho has tarnished the national 
 honor, injured the national interests, and lowered the 
 
 1 * She Stoops to Conquer/ act r. 
 
MR. GLADSTONE. 345 
 
 national character. Happily the strength of the Em- 
 pire, as it is described in the Imperial Census, abridged 
 in the ' Times ' of February 19, 1874, is such, that no 
 power will be in a hurry to quarrel with us. 
 
 And surely peace and happiness, truth and justice, 
 religion and piety, are such blessings that we ought not 
 to put a limit to the time we may hope to possess them. 
 That future generations should have the same blessings, 
 that there may be no rashness, no impatience, no greed- 
 iness to catch the fruit before the sun of summer has 
 matured it, is my earnest prayer for the country whose 
 freedom I have worshipped, and whose liberties and 
 prosperity I am not ashamed to say we owe to the 
 providence of Almighty God. 
 
846 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 CONCLUDING CHAPTER. 
 
 I PROPOSE in the present chapter to end this long and 
 "various narrative. I wish, in doing so, to review the 
 present state of England and pending questions both 
 as regards the external and the internal relations of the 
 United Kingdom. But before I do so, it may be well 
 to give in a summary my own view of the coui*se I have 
 pursued, and of the results I have obtained. 
 
 When I first began public life, the Tories of England, 
 who were styled by Madame de Stacl, with truth and 
 justice, the Whigs of Europe, had achieved a decided 
 and a successful victory. I could only say with Lord 
 Byron, 
 
 I greatly venerate the nation's glories, 
 
 And wish they were not owing to the Tories. 
 
 At this time Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh ruled 
 the destinies of England. After the suicide of Lord 
 Castlereagh and Mr. Canning's death, Mr. Peel became 
 the real chief of the Tory party and of the majority 
 which followed his lead. The chief heads of the policy 
 which he adopted may be thus stated: — 
 
 (1) The Roman Catholics were to be pcrmauontly 
 excluded from Parliament and from office. 
 
 (2) The Protestant Church of Leland was to be 
 maintained without diminution or alteration. 
 
 (3) Foreign corn was not to be admitted, except at a 
 very high duty, into the United Kingdom till the corn 
 of England had reached nearly a famine price. 
 
PLAN OF REFORM. 847 
 
 (4) Other articles of foreign produce and manufact- 
 ure were to be admitted with high duties, on the prin- 
 ciple of protection. 
 
 It would be an injustice to Sir Robert Peel if these 
 governing principles of policy were to be stated as the 
 results of his own intelligent mind. But he was gov- 
 erned by the narrow views and intolerant principles 
 of the Tory party, which had embraced measures ex- 
 pedient, and perhaps necessary, during war, but which 
 were quite unfitted for a policy of peace. 
 
 The point to which I directed my efforts was the 
 refusal to grant even the most moderate measure of 
 parliamentary reform. I proposed as a minimum to 
 give members to Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham. 
 This proposal was considered in the Cabinet in the 
 time of Sir Robert Peel. But it was rejected, and 
 from that time it became hopeless to extract even the 
 smallest concession upon this subject of parliamentary 
 reform through the Tory Administration. 
 
 The Duke of Wellington pronounced the existing 
 system perfect, and in a few days was obliged to give 
 up his post to Lord Grey. 
 
 At Lord Grey's desire I prepared a plan of reform, 
 by which one hundred and fifty seats for close boroughs 
 were to be transferred to the great manufacturing 
 towns and populous counties of England. Although 
 nothing had been heard of such proposals before, they 
 were no sooner promulgated than popular enthusiasm 
 rose in its strength and converted them into law. It 
 happened soon after this event that I was called upon 
 to lead the House of Commons, and then obtained in 
 Lord Melbourne not so much a master as a friend and 
 a co-operator. 
 
 I had carefully studied the history of the civil wars 
 
348 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 of England and of the Revolution of France. The best 
 men of England and the best men of France had been 
 carried forward by a current in which they knew not 
 how to guide the ship intrusted to their care. I had 
 my own difficulties. The Philosophical Radicals were 
 intent upon the destruction of the Church ; the Chartists 
 
 , wished to create confusion. With such dangers I had 
 to contend, and might have been overwhelmed in the 
 flood. With the help of Sir Robert Peel and a majority 
 of the House of Commons I defeated the Philosophical 
 Radicals. With the valuable aid and assistance of the 
 
 V Duke of Wellington I reduced the Chartists to insig- 
 nificance. 
 
 I do not wish to carry this narrative further. It 
 seems to me that in 1873 the contest had been fully 
 decided : that we had carried into effect a change 
 which has given prosperity for more than forty years, 
 without convulsion, without infringing the prerogatives 
 of the Crown, the privileges of the two Houses of Par- 
 liament, or the rights and liberties of the people, which 
 Lord Grey, in the name of his Sovereign, had called 
 upon the nation to maintain and defend. 
 
 I should mention, however, that soon after the Re- 
 form Bill was carried, 20,000,000?. were granted as 
 compensation to the owners of slaves. Mr. Stephen, 
 one of the ablest men whom I have known in the 
 course of political life, and Mr. Taylor, whose high 
 worth as a poet all England knows, and whom it is a 
 happiness to me to call my friend, had calculated at 
 20,000,000^ the loss which the planters would incur by 
 the abolition of slavery. But it was one thing to esti- 
 mate the loss ; it was another to obtain from Parliament 
 means to defray the 20,000,000?. charged upon the 
 national revenue. This could only be done by Lord 
 
RITUALISM. 349 
 
 Althorp, the guardian of the public finances, and the 
 responsible Minister for the national exchequer. 
 
 Lord Althorp did not shrink from this appalling task. 
 The British nation had been aroused to enthusiasm by 
 agitation, and the continual distribution of pamphlets 
 and addresses. Mr. Stephen said with great justice, 
 ' That we ought to be thankful to God for having per- 
 mitted us, even at such a cost, to atone for the sin of 
 so many years of slavery.' 
 
 I have already given my views respecting the state 
 of Ireland, and with respect to the past and future 
 of education. 
 
 I have reserved for the last part of this account 
 the sensual or symbolical worship of the Church of 
 Rome and its imitators, the melodramatic representa- 
 tion of the Crucifixion. 
 
 We all know that when Christ was brought to trial 
 for his life before Pontius Pilate he prayed to God that 
 he might be spared this painful sacrifice, but concluded 
 his prayer by saying to God, ' Not my will, but thy will 
 be done.' We all know that the Jewish mob called 
 out, ' Crucify him ! Crucify him ! ' and that he under- 
 went an ignominious and degrading death. But we 
 have now to relate that men who are not required to 
 endure an hour's pain for the benefit of mankind, put 
 on all kinds of harlequin dresses, and perform all sorts 
 of antics, to resemble, as they pretend, the great and 
 memorable sacrifice of Christ's propitiation ; and, with- 
 out suffering pain in a little finger, pretend to imitate 
 and assume the attitudes of our Saviour, and to ac- 
 complish in their own persons the mystery of a divine 
 being who actually gave his life for the benefit of man- 
 kind. If this were only like one of the sacred plays 
 of the Spanish theatre, we might be content to say that 
 
350 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 it was a contemptible farce, but assuming, as it does, to 
 be an act to inspire devotion, and give to the Christian 
 world a lively representation by clerical performers of 
 the real tragedy which was performed in Jerusalem 
 under the Roman government more than eighteen hun- 
 dred years ago, we can only pronounce it to be a shock- 
 ing profanation. 
 
 It will be enough to show that I am not exagger- 
 ating the assumptions or the pretences used to disguise 
 this offensive spectacle by alluding to, and quoting a 
 writer in the ' Directorium Anglicanum^^ an authorized 
 publication of the Ritualist section of our religious 
 comminiity. The whole service, indeed, instead of 
 being a compliance with the command of our Saviour 
 to his friends and companions at his Last Supper, 
 ' Do this in remembrance of me,' is a sacrifice offered 
 up by a priest who performs this melodrama before 
 retiring to dine, after the fatigues of the day. Thus 
 we learn that the amice represents the linen rag where- 
 with the Jews blindfolded our Saviour; the alb^ the 
 white garment in which Ilerod clothed him ; the girdle^ 
 stolcy and maniple, the cords and fetters with which he 
 was bound ; the chasuble, the seamless vest of Christ ; 
 the cross emhroidered on its back, that which our Lord 
 carried up the hill of Calvary. 
 
 But surely this is enough of the masquerade dresses 
 which our Ritualist priests use for the purpose of paro- 
 dying a solemn and sacred event in history. 
 
 For my part, I am ready to forgive the members 
 of an ancient and venerable Church which, in the dark 
 middle ages of Europe, thought to symbolize the creed 
 of christians, and to awaken the devotion of millions 
 who could neither read nor write by statues ,to attract 
 worship, and by pictures to represent the Virgin Mary 
 
BITUALISM. 851 
 
 and the disciples of Christ, who followed his preaching 
 and inculcated his doctrine. 
 
 But at the present time the question is totally altered. 
 The millions who, before the revival of letters, could 
 only be taught by signs and emblems, have now been 
 replaced by millions who have learned to read the 
 Bible, who have been taught the words of Christ in 
 their own native language, and are no longer bound 
 by the theology of subtle logicians. I remember once 
 calling upon a Spanish canon in his native town. I 
 found him at dinner, and he kindly invited me to join 
 him. But not being in very good health, I declined to 
 drink a second glass of wine. ' What,' he said, ' don't 
 5'OU know the syllogism : " Qui bene bibit bene dormit ; 
 qui dormit non peccat ; qui non peccat salvatus erit " ? ' 
 He told me that this syllogism, though popular at Sala- 
 manca, was a silogismo caneioso, or, in other words, a 
 hoax. 
 
 But I believe the syllogism was quite as good and 
 as sound theology as many of the dogmas which have 
 pervaded scholastic theology. 
 
 Indeed, it is absurd to suppose that we are on the 
 brink of a great contest between those who have learnt 
 the principles of the Reformation and those who wi.>h 
 to lead us by crooked paths, and windows that shut out 
 the light, to the temples where truth is lost amid a 
 blaze of light, a great pomp of dresses, .and the strains 
 of melodious music. 
 
 It is very evident that the disciples of the Church 
 of Rome wish to lead us from confession and absolution 
 to the doctrine of transubstantiation ; from thence to 
 the worship of images, and from thence to all the abuses 
 which at the end of the fifteenth century and at the 
 beginning of the sixteenth excited the anger and the 
 scorn of Luther, Calvin, Zwinglius, and others. 
 
352 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 We may now define the difference between tlie 
 Reformers who hold to the fundamental doctrines of 
 the Reformation, and the Ritualists, whether of the 
 Church of England or of the Church of Rome. The 
 difference is, then, that the Reformers hold to the faith 
 in Christ, not as explained by Thomas Aquinas, or 
 Duns Scotus, or even by Luther and Calvin, but as laid 
 down by Christ himself in the Gospels. With this 
 faith the Reformers combine great respect for the 
 authority of Aristotle. 
 
 The Ritualists, on the other hand, combine faith in 
 Aristotle with great respect and even veneration for 
 the character of Jesus Christ. The primary faith of 
 the Reformers is in the words of Christ. The primary 
 faith of the Ritualists is in Aristotle. 
 
 It is not doubtful which way the Protestants of 
 England will decide. They will follow in the footsteps 
 of the Reformers. 
 
 It is to be noted that the sentiments of devotion 
 awakened by fine dresses, fine music, and dark mys- 
 teries, figured in symbols and ceremonies, are not 
 confined to any particular religious faith. Devotion to 
 Mahomet, or to Buddha, may be excited by the same 
 means which prevail with the Ritualists of England in 
 favor of the name of Cln-ist. 
 
 But another course has been taken by the leaders 
 who laid the foundation of what we in England call 
 the Reformation. 
 
 It has been the object of the English Reformers, 
 whether attached to the Established Church or belong- 
 ing to the various bodies of Christians known as the 
 three denominations of Presbyterians, Baptists, and 
 Independents, or belonging to the sect of Unitarians, 
 or to various other religious bodies who are established 
 
RITUALISM. 353 
 
 in England, to inform the minds and consciences of 
 their hearers by the doctrine, commandments, and 
 teaching of Christ. 
 
 Luther began the campaign against Rome by calling 
 upon men publicly to read the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 The theologians of the Roman Church were not pre- 
 pared to meet him on this challenge. Learned doctors, 
 who bore sway as theologians at Rome, were quite 
 ignorant of the Gospel, and while they could contend 
 in favor of Thomas Aquinas against Duns Scotus, in 
 favor of Duns Scotus against Melancthon or Zwinglius, 
 they could not venture to quote the words of Jesus 
 Christ, or to support their doctrines by the words of 
 St. John or of St. Paul.i 
 
 Men, however, were informed by the New Testa- 
 ment, read ' audibly and distinctly,' that Christ taught 
 his disciples to love all men ; that a man ought to love 
 his neighbor as himself; that if he had any personal 
 quarrel with any man he should seek reconciliation, 
 and offer to forgive them who had trespassed against 
 him, before he placed his gift upon the altar. 
 
 A follower of Christ would likewise be taught that 
 a Samaritan guilty of schism became the true neighbor 
 of a man lying wounded and naked, by attending to 
 his wounds, and giving money to provide for his care 
 and sustenance. 
 
 A hearer of Christ's word would also be taught that 
 of two men who went into the temple to pray, the rich 
 man who boasted that he gave tithes of all he possessed, 
 and that he was not as other men were, would not be 
 so surely justified as the man who said humbly, ' Lord, 
 be merciful to me a sinner.' 
 
 1 Paolo Sarpi. 
 23 
 
354 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 He would likewise hear that the man who forgave 
 trespasses against him, and not he who refused to for- 
 give, would be excused and pardoned. Above all, he 
 would be taught that love between man and man was 
 the true way to make peace prevail on the earth. He 
 would not, indeed, conceal the prediction of Christ that 
 mankind would persecute those who taught this doc- 
 trine, and thereby a sword and not good-will would be 
 the first consequence of his appearance upon earth. 
 But he would also learn that the song of the angels 
 who proclaimed on earth peace and good-will would be 
 the final result of Christ's teaching. He would hear 
 from the Bible that the sabbath was made for man, and 
 not man for the sabbath. 
 
 Beyond all these lessons, the Reformers we're taught 
 that Christ was cruelly put to death by a degrading 
 and disgraceful mode of punishment ; that he gave his 
 life for mankind, and submitted humbly to all the in- 
 sults which those who called out * Crucify him ! Crucify 
 him ! ' thought were the due punishment of a person 
 who was a model of virtue, of kindness, of love of his 
 kind. 
 
 Is there not something to excite devotion in the 
 repetition of a narrative so sublime, so touching, so use- 
 ful for the improvement of mankind? Yet more than 
 one device has been put in force to conceal these les- 
 sons from the knowledge of mankind. 
 
 It may be said that the Protestant congregations 
 of England may adopt the music and the pomp of 
 Ritualistic service and still attend to the sublime les- 
 sons of charity and humility of our Lord. This is 
 certainly possible, but not prol^able. Those who adopt 
 the mummeries of the Ritualists are apt to forget that 
 they ought not to boast that they are not as other men 
 
RITUALISM. 355 
 
 are, and to reject the exclamation of the publican, 
 ' Lord, be merciful to me a sinner.' 
 
 The English nation must choose between the two. 
 Either they must adopt the Ritualistic mode of wor- 
 ship, and set aside the Acts of Parliament by which 
 the country is now governed, or they must, with the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, adhere to the principles 
 of the glorious Reformation begun by Henr}^ VIII., 
 and established by his daughter Elizabeth, Queen of 
 England and of Ireland. 
 
 There is one gift bestowed by Jesus Christ upon 
 his people which we still enjoy, and which I hope we 
 may continue to enjoy. 
 
 When Jesus Christ was asked whether he w^as the 
 Saviour for whom they looked, or whether they should 
 look for another, he gave instances of the miracles he 
 had performed ; that the blind had been made to see, 
 that the paralytic had been told to take up his bed and 
 walk, and that even the dead had been bidden to appear 
 in his grave-clothes with life restored. 
 
 All this power of miracles has departed from us. 
 We do not, like the Roman Church, pretend to restore 
 the broken limb or make whole the wounded body. 
 But there was one concluding sentence in Christ's 
 declaration which we still preserve. He terminated 
 his message by saying, ' and the poor have the Gospel 
 preached to them.' This we preserve. The Bible 
 Society could tell how many copies of the Gospel they 
 distribute every year among all the nations of the 
 world. Only a few years ago, by the exertions of a 
 zealous minister of the Gospel, the price of the Bible 
 was reduced in Scotland from 5s. to lOd. 
 
 Thus the people of Great Britain have inherited a 
 privilege worthy of the divine author of the religion 
 
856 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 which has its name and its teaching from Christ. If 
 the British nation is wise, it will not allow the Roman 
 Church with its infallible head, or the Ritualists with 
 their mimic ornaments, nor those who are deaf to the 
 teachings of Socrates and of Cicero, of Bacon and of 
 Newton, to deprive them of the inestimable blessing 
 of the Gospel. 
 
 From this great and sublime question we may pro- 
 ceed to matters which have obtained of late years more 
 or less of public attention. 
 
 In preparing a conclusion to ' Recollections and Sug- 
 gestions,' which have been the object of memory or 
 meditation for sixty years, it is fit that I should make 
 ax general avowal of the impression I have received 
 with regard to my own part in public life, and that 
 which others have taken with whom I have been associ- 
 ated, or to whom I have been opposed. 
 
 My persuasion is that I have been received with 
 quite as much favor as I deserved. I tliink what I 
 have done well has been honestly supported ; and that 
 where my measures have miscarried, the failure has 
 been owing not to undue animosity or malignant mis- 
 representation, but to errors which I have committed 
 from mistaken judgment or a mistaken appreciation of 
 facts. 
 
 I believe I may say, with many other of the leading 
 men who, since the Revolution of 1G89, have hud the 
 direction of public affairs, that my ends have been 
 honest, and that I have looked to the happiness of my 
 countrymen as the object to which my efforts ought to 
 bo directed. 
 
 Speaking generally, and with some exceptions, I am 
 willing to give the same testimony to those with whom 
 I have been associated and to the chief leaders to 
 
k UNiV£RSITY J 
 
 CROMWELL'S PLAN OP REPRESENTATION. 357 
 
 whom I have been opposed. I relied, and I believe 
 justly relied, on the integrity and sound principles of 
 Lord Althorp ; and while I believe that Sir Robert 
 Peel erred from over-caution, I see no reason to doubt 
 that his great capacity was at all times employed for 
 what he believed to be the welfare of his country. 
 Indeed, I do not doubt that with the exception of the 
 small band who were said to occupy the Cave of Adul- 
 1am, the parties I have had to act with or to confront 
 have been animated with the sincere desire to devote 
 their talents to the public good. 
 
 Among the questions which may or may not occupy 
 the attention of the House of Commons in the approach- 
 ing sessions, the question of parliamentary reform de- 
 serves to be noted. It was inevitable that the growth 
 of large towns, the seats of the manufactures of cotton, 
 of wool, and of linen, could not be permanentl}^ excluded 
 from that wliich called itself the Commons House 
 of Parliament ; and that the representation of the 
 people which excluded all those seats of manufacture 
 could not be, as the Duke of Wellington supposed, a 
 perfect system of representation. We to a great ex- 
 tent remedied the evil in 1832. But there is an obser- 
 vation which cannot escape either legislators or their 
 constituents. 
 
 When Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector of the 
 United Kingdom, he framed a new instrument of gov- 
 ernment, and united with it a new sj^stem of repre- 
 sentation. Disregarding the divisions which separated 
 Scotland from England, and Ireland from both, he 
 framed a scheme by which the counties of the three 
 nations should have four, six, eight, or ten members 
 each, as the circumstances of the time seemed to de- 
 mand, by which great towns were represented by one 
 member each, and small boroughs were totally omitted. 
 
858 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 In the list of members I find for Middlesex four mem- 
 bers, for the city of I^ondon six, for Westminster two. 
 The number of members for Devonsliire I find to be 
 eleven, for Plymouth two, Exeter two, Totness one, 
 Barnstable two, Honiton one, Dartmouth one. For 
 Cambridgeshire I find four members, for Cambridge 
 town one, and for Cambridge University one ; for the 
 Isle of Ely two. For Lincolnshire I find ten members, 
 one for Stamford, Boston one. In Lancashire the num- 
 ber of members is four, but there is one for Manchester, 
 which, after the restoration of 1660 till 1832, had no 
 member. For Liverpool there is one member, one for 
 Preston, and one for Lancaster. 
 
 The representation was extended to Scotland and 
 Ireland on the same principles which were applied to 
 England, but Cromwell's dislike to Scotland, of which 
 he said that he was told ' that it was a poor country 
 inhabited by honest people,' but that he found that the 
 country was not poor, and that the people were not 
 honest, was visible in this scheme of representation. 
 
 Ireland had been too recently ground down by civil 
 war to admit of a fair representation. But of this whole 
 scheme Lord Clarendon says ' that it Avas generally 
 thought a warrantable alteration, and fit to be made in 
 better times.' 
 
 It is a marked feature in this scheme of representation, 
 that the boroughs which in those days were small were 
 totally omitted. 
 
 I confess it appears to me that if the question of 
 parliamentary reform is again touched, Parliament ought 
 not to content itself with giving to householders in 
 counties the same right of voting which they have in 
 boroughs, lopping off a few small towns, but that the 
 scheme of Cromwell should be revived in these better 
 times. 
 
THE PRESENT MINISTRY. 359 
 
 The difficulties which prevented a union with Scot- 
 land for so long a time after the Restoration, and the 
 mismanagement which so long afflicted Ireland, ought 
 to be kept out of sight in a large and capacio iis view of 
 the union of Great Britain and Ireland. The populous 
 counties of Ireland, with her cities of Belfast and Cork, 
 ought to have a fair representation, and the miserable 
 small towns of Ireland ought to be at once disfran- 
 chised. 
 
 As the scheme of Disestablishment and Disendowment 
 of Churches, which was so popular with the Cabinet a 
 few years ago, seems to have been now finally relin- 
 quished, Ireland ought to have for her Roman Catholic 
 people an establishment of parish priests governed by a 
 single Metropolitan, as the Church of England is gov- 
 erned by its Metropolitans of Canterbury and of York, 
 and Scotland by her General Assembly of clerical min- 
 isters and lay members, which meets every year under 
 the authority of a high commissioner appointed by the 
 Crown, and which invokes the spirit and the guidance 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Whether a Tory Ministry will ever undertake such 
 a task, or whether a Whig Ministry will ever again be 
 called to the councils of the Sovereign, I am unable to 
 say ; I only wish to point out what in my opinion the 
 public interest demands. 
 
 There are many topics to which the attention of the 
 present Ministry must be directed. I think myself they 
 would have done better if, instead of introducing a 
 number of important measures in the late session of 
 Parliament, they had made an excuse of the suddenness 
 with which the burden of government had been thrown 
 upon them, and had reserved for the coming session of 
 1875 the development of their whole foreign and domes- 
 
360 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 tic policy. Twelve gentlemen who, though bound by 
 party ties, have been acting independently for five or 
 six years are not at once inspired with oracular systems 
 of policy ; with a regular plan of finance ; with a plan 
 for the army and navy ; or with a judgment upon the 
 precedents left by their predecessors, distinguishing 
 those acts which may be accepted as permanent altera- 
 tions and those which may admit of alteration or rever- 
 sal. The late Lord Brougham, for instance, had devoted 
 much attention to endowments. Many of these, such 
 as hospitals for the cure of leprosy, and sums to be 
 devoted to the redemption of captives made by the Dey 
 of Algiers, might properly be otherwise applied. But 
 it is not enough to say that a man who devoted the sav- 
 ings of a long life to the education of the poor in the 
 city of London or Westminster, was a pious founder, in 
 order to disendow his schools, and make the caprice of 
 a Minister the new rule for charitable foundations. 
 
 There are in the air of public opinion, besides errors 
 to be corrected with temper and moderation, other 
 schemes which have no solid foundation, and are sure 
 to pass away with the bubbles of the day's froth ; for 
 instance, certain unions have declared that if farmers 
 had more capital and more agricultural skill, the land 
 would have a greater produce and the country be more 
 flourishing. This is quite true. But who is to furnish 
 the capital, and who the agricultural skill ? The unions 
 will not furnish the one, and are unable to furnish 
 the otlier. The inexorable law of demand and supply 
 extinguishes the whole scheme. 
 
 A farmer in Scotland, with his nineteen or twenty- 
 one years' lease, accumulates profits sufficient to become 
 the tenant and the improver of a new farm. Thus 
 gradually and thus surely does agriculture improve, and 
 
SCOTCH FARMING. 361 
 
 thus insensibly will the landlords and tenants in Eng- 
 land accumulate the wealth and the science which have 
 distinguished Scotland. 
 
 When Sir Robert Peel imposed the income-tax in 
 1842, several farmers of Berwickshire and the neigh- 
 boring counties intrusted to my hands a petition, pray- 
 ing to have the proportion of income-tax paid by tenants 
 lowered. On looking over the list of the tenants who 
 signed their names to the petition, I found some who 
 paid 2,000Z. a year of rent, and others who paid 1,500?. 
 and 1,200Z. yearly. The landlords and tenants of Eng- 
 land have not generally acquired the spirit or the 
 knowledge which would enable them to cultivate their 
 farms well. I have heard that on the estate of Londes- 
 borough, sold by the late Duke of Devonshire, the in- 
 curia of low rents and lazy farming produced at the 
 period of the sale bad cultivation and contented indo- 
 lence. But these changes are not to be made on a 
 sudden ; ' Rome was not built in a day,' says the 
 English proverb. ' No se tom6 Zamora, En una hora,' 
 says the Spaniard. 
 
 With regard to our security from foreign invasion, 
 it must be said, in the first place, that the invasion of 
 the British Isles would require immense preparation, 
 and that immense preparation could not not be made 
 without such expense, so many ships, and so many regi- 
 ments, that the population of Great Britain would have 
 full time to organize their forces, and to make the battle 
 of Dorking a signal victory for the British against an 
 invading army. 
 
 We may, therefore, put . out of the question the 
 dangers of an invasion of the British Islands by a for- 
 eign enemy. We must call to mind, however, that we 
 have a land frontier of 1,200 miles in North America, 
 
362 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 open in many passages, and a land frontier of 12,000 
 miles in our Indian Empire, which good military judges 
 have pronounced to be defensible at every point of its 
 vast extent. It is worth while, however, to weigh and 
 estimate the dangers to which our Empire may be ex- 
 posed both in the West and in the East. 
 
 There occurs frorn time to time in the press of the 
 United States an explosion of ambition and envy, 
 prompted by the desire of adding the Dominion of 
 Canada to the territory of the United States. 
 
 That is, however, far from being a deliberate in- 
 tention of aggrandizement on the j)art of the Great 
 Western Republic. 
 
 Mr. Cobden, who was friendly to our giant son, ex- 
 pressed his opinion that if the lust of dominion should 
 ever possess the government and the people of the 
 United States, they would look rather to the south than 
 to the north for the gratification of their ambition. He 
 pointed out that the territory to the north gave a return 
 to the efforts of a laborious and frugal workman of only 
 moderate crops of corn, while the great table-land of 
 Mexico produced cotton and sugar, and her mines were 
 rich with silver. He, therefore, reckoned the risk of a 
 war with Great Britain, which might, as in 1812, prove 
 destructive to the trade of the United States, while the 
 land of Mexico, divided by civil war, would, as in the 
 days of General Scott, be easily subdued and as easily 
 held in subjection. 
 
 I know not Avliether he was acquainted with the 
 saying of a French statesman, engaged in framing 
 the treaty of Versailles of 1703, that those who were 
 masters of North America would, in the end, be ma8tei*3 
 of the South. 
 
 Be this as it may, the honor of the British Crown 
 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. oG3 
 
 is pledged to defend the Queen's dominions in North 
 America with the utmost forces of the Empire ; and it 
 is very improbable that, with such a prospect before 
 them, the President and Secretary of State at Wash- 
 ington will coolly contemplate a hostile invasion of the 
 Queen's possessions in Canada. 
 
 It is true, that the late Government committed a 
 folly when they evacuated the new and expensive for- 
 tifications at Quebec, and abandoned the garrison at 
 Halifax. Very few years have elapsed since part of the 
 garrison at Halifax furnished the means of preserving 
 the Island of Jamaica to the British Crown, and it is 
 not likely that a Canadian garrison would be dispatched 
 to Jamaica with the same readiness, or act with equal 
 efficiency, against a negro insurrection. 
 
 But this error can easily be repaired by a Government 
 which is prepared to defend the Queen's possessions, 
 and which has a proper sense of the value of British 
 honor. I should, therefore, pay little regard to the 
 speeches which in the United States are called ' Bun- 
 come,' and which are as void of meaning as they are 
 hollow in sound. 
 
 I have said that the British Empire of India has a 
 frontier of 12,000 miles, and is, according to the judg- 
 ment of military men, in every point of that frontier, 
 defensible. But still, the commander of 800,000 men, 
 the autocrat of a vast Empire, possessed with a spirit 
 
 Like Macedonia's madman or the Swede, 
 
 may be tempted by the riches of India, by the rumors 
 of disaffection to British rule, by intrigues constantly 
 springing up, and by the hope of glory to the Russian 
 name, to undertake the vast enterprise of depriving 
 Great Britain of her Indian possessions, and annexing 
 
364 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 them to the crown of the Muscovite. Let us consider 
 what are the reasons to be thrown into the opposite 
 scale. 
 
 In the first place, there is the danger and the dis- 
 grace of initiating a great disturbance of the peace of 
 the world. When Napoleon failed in his task of com- 
 pleting the conquest of Europe, England became the 
 friend of Russia, and for more than half a century the 
 bonds of friendship, broken only by the blunder of 
 the Crimean war, have united the two nations. 
 
 It will be said by the surrounding spectators, ' Asia is 
 surely large enough to contain two European powers.' 
 Each power is strong and independent ; they are not, 
 like Caesar and Pompey, contendhig for rule or the 
 same empire. Russia has carried her conquests to the 
 shore of the Black Sea, and her power is only bounded 
 by an ocean limit and the river Danube. Her trade in 
 Central Asia is not disturbed by England. 
 
 Why, it will be said, destroy peace, the greatest bless- 
 ing of nations, by new aspirations, by new alliances, 
 and by making an open wound on the fair body of Eu- 
 rope ? 
 
 Other considerations must intei'vene. England can 
 at any time borrow, on moderate terms, one hundred 
 millions in tlie market of London. The capitalists of 
 Europe would expect that if the Russian Emperor would 
 be ready to borrow he would be equally ready to violate 
 his engagements. A high rate of interest would be 
 demanded, and the people of Russia would complain of 
 unwonted and unexpected burdens. Nor is the state 
 of a large military empire, a stratocracy, as it was for- 
 merly termed, without its separate dangei-s. 
 
 If Alexander the Great had lived longer he might 
 have found his favorite generals rebel against his au- 
 
THE INDIAN MUTINY. 365 
 
 tliority. When Napoleon the Great sent his legions 
 into Portuguese territory, they were greatly inclined, 
 and even conspired, to make one of his marshals King 
 of Portugal. 
 
 Dangers such as these, obstacles such as these, might 
 stop the path of a Hannibal, but Hannibal was a soldier 
 of fortune sworn to hate the Roman name. A Czar of 
 Russia, filled with anxieties every morning, and dreading 
 every night the fate of Peter or of Paul, might well be 
 induced to prefer the ease and securit}^ of a tranquil 
 reign to the prospect of unceasing dangers and an un- 
 interrupted anxiety. 
 
 But I am not so very confident of our security as to 
 advise that any precautions should be neglected. 
 
 It was well said by Tippoo Saib, ' that what he dreaded 
 was not so much the British army then in India, as the 
 British army that might arrive from England.' 
 
 None of the advantages that modern science has fur- 
 nished in the way of weapons, of railroads, of discipline, 
 and intelligent officers, should be neglected. 
 
 Lord Salisbury has well advised that a railway along 
 the course of the Indus should enable the Governor- 
 General of India to pour an overwhelming force on the 
 points most likely to be threatened by an enemy. 
 
 The genius of Clive and the unscrupulous policy of 
 Warren Hastings, the far-seeing view of Lord Wellesley 
 and the peaceable watchfulness of Lord Minto, have 
 created, have strengthened, and have preserved our 
 Indian Empire. 
 
 I cannot myself believe that we shall be overcome in 
 the effort to maintain that which we have with so much 
 difficulty acquired. The mutiny of the Indian army 
 threatened our Empire with extinction. A wise Viceroy 
 guided our councils with unshaken firmness. A skilful 
 
366 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 general traversed vast tracts of the country with victory 
 in his hand ; intrepid soldiers rescued beleaguered gar- 
 risons. Beautiful women implored their husbands to 
 put them to death, rather than leave them victims to 
 infamy and dishonor. 
 
 By such virtues the Indian Empire was saved ; but 
 it would be idle to suppose that such an Empire can be 
 maintained by virtues less resolute, by qualities less 
 exalted, by courage less invincible, than the virtues, 
 the qualities, and the courage which have founded and 
 preserved it. 
 
 I have stated in the House of Lords, that by the 
 Treaty of Washington the honor of the British nation 
 was tarnished, her character lowered, and her interests 
 endangered. But as every prominent candidate at the 
 late general election had blamed the foreign policy of 
 Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet, and as that general election 
 had for its result a majority of fifty for Mr. Disraeli in 
 the place of a majority of sixty for Mr. Gladstone, I 
 also stated that in my opinion the British people, by 
 giving a majority to the Conservative candidates, had 
 passed a sentence of condemnation against the authoi-s 
 of the concession which had tarnished the honor, low- 
 ered the character, endangered the interests of the 
 British nation. 
 
 In 185G, England obtained at Paris a treaty by 
 which Russia bound hei-self to make the Black Sea a 
 neutral sea, and not to send her ships of war to navi- 
 gate that sea. Considering that a hirge number of the 
 subjects of Russia live on the borders of tlie Black Sea, 
 this was a very harsh and unusual stipulation. No one 
 would have been surprised to learn that Russia, when 
 her naval and military losses were repaired, had asked 
 tlie Powers of Europe to meet and to modify that harsh 
 
THE BLACK SEA TREATY. 867 
 
 condition of the Treaty of 1856, to whicli all the prin- 
 cipal Powers had agreed. Nothing could have been 
 more reasonable than such a request. Is that Avhat she 
 did ? did she propose that the Powers should come 
 together under the leadership of Great Britain ? Quite 
 the contrary: Prince Gortchakoff, on behalf of the 
 Emperor of Russia, declared this humiliating part of 
 the Treaty of Paris to be null and void. He declared 
 it would no longer be submitted to by his Imperial 
 master. 
 
 It is true that a conference took place, and that a 
 condition was inserted in the articles, according to 
 which, in case of the violation of the other parts of the 
 Treaty of 1856, England and France would be at 
 liberty to assist Turkey by their naval power. This 
 was to put a decent mask on the harsh features of the 
 Russian dictator. But it seems to be admitted, that if 
 Russia finds any treaty to which she has given her 
 public and solemn assent injurious to her interests, she 
 is at liberty to declare that treaty null and void, and to 
 proceed as if it did not exist. 
 
 For the injuries to property inflicted by the 'Ala- 
 bama' on American merchant vessels, an ample com- 
 pensation, not to say an extravagant and inordinate 
 compensation, of upwards of three millions sterling has 
 been paid, and I w^ill not say any thing further upon 
 this subject. 
 
 Eighty-five years ago, the French nation determined 
 to reform its constitution, and to aim at the blessings 
 of a free government. For eighty-five years they have 
 struggled in vain ; they have tried putting to death, 
 without form of trial, the highest of their nobility, the 
 fairest ladies of their aristocracy, the bravest of their 
 generals, the most accomplished of their men of science, 
 
368 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 the most virtuous of their princesses, and the best of 
 all classes. Robespierre declared that 200,000 heads 
 must fall before France could be free and happy. They 
 put him to death, and interrupted the reign of terror. 
 They then accepted as their ruler a great military chief 
 who governed tyrannically, and carried 600,000 men to 
 Moscow to perish in an insane expedition. The nation 
 then put him aside, and restored the brother of Louis 
 XVI. He governed like Charles II., caring nothing 
 for moral principles, but understanding his own enjoy- 
 ments, and delighting in witty conversation. I have 
 heard Prince Talleyrand describe the scene of his 
 death-bed. Charles X., his successor, was, like James 
 XL, a bigot, and it was part of his religion to break 
 faith with his subjects. 
 
 I was riding in Hyde Park at Easter, 1830, with the 
 Duke of Laval, the French ambassador, when I said 
 to him, ' AVe are going to have a revolution in France.* 
 * What,' he said, ' are we going to have a Republic ? ' I 
 said, * No, you will have the Duke of Orleans as j^our 
 king.' I knew what was about to happen from living 
 much with the French Whigs. 
 
 One of the cleverest of them had said at dinner when 
 I was present, * None but so stupid a king as Charles X. 
 would have appointed as his Minister so stupid a man 
 as the Prince of Polignac' The event occurred as I 
 had expected, and at the end of July the Duke of 
 Orleans was made King of the French, but he neglected 
 the maxim of one of the ablest of French statesmen, 
 ' not to govern too much.' He attempted to govern by 
 corruption, but not the corruption of Sir Robert Wal- 
 pole, with a great end in view. The corruption of 
 Louis Philippe was a sordid traffic of places and honors, 
 of dinners and entertainments, in order to control the 
 
FRANCE. 369 
 
 members of an assembly chosen by 200,000 electors for 
 the whole of France. 
 
 Thiers has lately pointed out this fault, which led 
 to the abdication of the citizen King. Had the French 
 been English they would have kept their King, but 
 compelled him to adopt reform. 
 
 The subsequent events in France are well known. 
 The choice of the French nation now lies between 
 several alternatives. One recommended b}^ M. Thiers, 
 and favored by a large popular support, would consist 
 of confirming and consolidating the present form of 
 government, with a President chosen for a term of 
 years, a senate or House of Lords calculated to give 
 steadiness to the action of the Representative Assembly, 
 and laws intended to perpetuate the public liberties of 
 the nation. 
 
 Its advocates affirm that this form of government 
 would institute and maintain a Conservative Republic. 
 Its adversaries deu}^ that a Republic in France can ever 
 be conservative ; they say it would always be violent 
 and revolutionary, and they point to the examples of 
 1793 and of 1873 with a shudder, to express their fears 
 and confirm their objections. 
 
 I do not venture to give a decided opinion upon a 
 judgment which must, after all, depend on the will of 
 a nation so numerous and so enlightened as that of 
 France ; but I will not conceal my opinion upon another 
 alternative which is about to be submitted to the deci- 
 sion of the French nation; that alternative involves the 
 restoration of the French Empire, with its despotic gov- 
 ernment and its passion for foreign wars. 
 
 Napoleon I. was a man of the most extraordinary 
 talents for strategy and tactics in war, and for adminis- 
 tration in peace. His preparations for war are related 
 
 24 
 
3T0 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 in detail in the history of Thiers, and show an energy 
 and activity by day and night which have never been 
 equalled by kings the most celebrated for their warlike 
 achievements, or by the most famous generals who have 
 led the armies of ambitious sovereigns. In peace, his 
 great maxim of administration was ' that every thing 
 should be done for the people, but nothing by the 
 people.' Whether a man should be raised to the highest 
 honors and intrusted with the highest commands, or 
 whether he should be put to death without trial and 
 without inquiry. Napoleon thought ought to be left to 
 his sole will and his sole decision. It was said of him 
 by a woman of genius, ' he traversed crimes and virtues 
 as he traversed mountains and rivers, because they were 
 on his road.' 
 
 Napoleon III. had neither the talents nor the energy, 
 neither the errors nor the ambition, of his uncle. For 
 a long time he followed the path of peace, maintained 
 friendly relations with the great enemy of his prede- 
 cessor, and sought in the lessons of political economy 
 the road to riches and to peace. But the curse of his 
 family was upon him. We have found it recorded that 
 Napoleon I. had declared to his brother that if France 
 had her natural frontiers he would abide by a treaty of 
 peace ; but if she had not those frontiers, he would 
 make war upon the first convenient opportunity. Thus, 
 after twenty years of successful power, Napoleon III. 
 made a war the most unjust, the most senseless, the 
 most ill-prepared, and the worst conducted which this 
 generation has seen. The omens which attend upon 
 such a war are fearfid. At the beginning of June, 
 1815, Napoleon I. reckoned with certainty upon enter- 
 ing Brussels before the month was over. On June 18 
 he was defeated at Waterloo. In the beginning of 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 871 
 
 July, 1870, Napoleon III. announced to his army the 
 approaching capture of all the fortresses on the left 
 Lank of the Rhine. At the beginning of September 
 he capitulated with all his troops, and was dethroned 
 by force at Paris. These precedents are surely enough 
 to induce the French nation not again to place a mem- 
 ber of the family of Bonaparte on the throne of France. 
 The one hundred days of 1815 are commemorated with 
 the battle of Waterloo. The war of 1870 is associated 
 in our lively recollection with the defeat and fall of the 
 Second Empire. The French nation may well shrink 
 from the fear of incurring a second Waterloo, or from 
 being exposed to a renewal of the surrender of Sedan. 
 
 Whatever may be the mature decision of the French 
 nation, the other Powers of Europe are sufficiently 
 warned ; England and Italy, Germany and Prussia, 
 Austria and Russia will do well, when the Imperial 
 Eagle flies from the towers of Notre Dame, to make 
 treaties of alliance and prepare for action. 
 
 I leave to future consideration the measures that 
 will be necessary. 
 
 Various events, to which it is needless to recur, have 
 since prevented the introduction of a complete measure 
 of reform. In 1867, Mr. Disraeli, then Prime Minis- 
 ter, proposed the law of the right of election in boroughs 
 to a simple rated household suffrage, and this proposal, 
 with the addition made by Lord Cairns of a minority 
 clause, borrowed from the Bill of 1854, was adopted 
 by both Houses of Parliament. 
 
 How, then, do we stand at present ? 
 
 Let us first consider the immediate requirements of 
 political expediency, and next what is fitted to the 
 permanent welfare of the country. 
 
 With regard to the first of these questions, it is 
 
B72 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 obvious that there are two demands, one of which has 
 already received much popular support, and which was 
 thrown open by Mr. Gladstone to any member who 
 chose to take it up — this was the admission of rated 
 householders to vote in counties as they are now admit- 
 ted to do in boroughs. 
 
 The other demand which is put forward by the 
 Radical party is a further disfranchisement of small 
 boroughs. My own opinion is, that if ever there 
 should come a time when public opinion should be 
 favorable to the destruction of the small boroughs 
 and the admission of householders to vote in counties, 
 it will be well not to make some paltry changes which 
 would whet the appetite for fresh designs, but to make 
 a warrantable alteration which may stand the test of 
 time, and be fitted to serve the purposes of the coming 
 generation. 
 
 For this purpose, it is well to look back to the pro- 
 ject of Oliver Cromwell. His frame of government 
 provided for a protector who, upon his death, was to 
 be replaced by another chief of the State, to be elected 
 likewise for life. 
 
 What part of CromwelFs plan of representation Lord 
 Clarendon would have thought fit to adopt in better 
 times is quite uncertain, but it is obvious that Cromwell 
 was a man of large conceptions, and that if he had had 
 any one fit to succeed him in the Protectorate he might 
 have founded a commonwealth which John Milton and 
 Algernon Sydney would have contributed to support, 
 the one with his extensive learning, the other with his 
 high spirit, and both by their lofty and unblemished 
 characters. 
 
 Those things are past ; we have happily contrived 
 to join with the rights of hereditary Monarchy as large 
 
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 373 
 
 a sclieme of popular freedom as any of the ancient 
 Republics ever devised. That it may long endure, is 
 my fervent and humble prayer. 
 
 I will not attempt to review the changes which have 
 taken place in Europe from the days of Charles V. and 
 Louis XI. to the present time. But there is some ad- 
 vantage in having attained to old age in a period of 
 happy progress, and to be able to bear testimony to the 
 advances which have been made in the cause of civil 
 and religious liberty during the half century which has 
 elapsed since 1824 to the present year. At the former 
 of these periods, it was laid down as an axiom, which 
 no one could venture to contradict, that changes intro- 
 duced by Sovereigns from above would be productive 
 of peace and improvement, but that if introduced from 
 below, by the initiative of popular movements, they 
 could produce nothing but anarchy and confusion. 
 
 In 1874, we see institutions introduced in Germany 
 by universal suffrage, planted in Italy by popular revo- 
 lution, resting in France, as in Germany, upon univer- 
 sal suffrage. 
 
 Generally speaking, the authority of governments 
 in Europe is based upon those principles which in 1824 
 were pronounced to be the parents of anarchy and dis- 
 order. No one can say that, with the exception of 
 England, the Powers of Europe have yet attained a 
 settled condition ; but there are many signs which give 
 hope of the prevalence of religious liberty. In the 
 course of this retrospect, it is impossible not to recollect 
 that the Madiai were severely punished for reading in 
 a family circle some chapters of the Holy Gospel, and 
 that in Spain some few scattered Protestants were pun- 
 ished for a similar profanation. 
 
 We hear now of Protestant places of worship at 
 
374 RECOLLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 Cordova and Seville, in. Spain, and at Florence and 
 Rome, in Italy. 
 
 When the great truths of the Gospel are thus ad- 
 mitted and allowed to reach the public ear, we may 
 have good hopes for the cause of civil ahd religious 
 liberty. With this sentiment I conclude my work. 
 John Milton has said: — 
 
 What more oft in nations grown corrupt, 
 And by their vices brought to servitude, 
 Than to love bondage more than liberty, 
 Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty. 
 
 Such is happily not now our case. From 1815 to 1873 
 there has been a course of gradual progress towards 
 civil and religious liberty. There is nothing so con- 
 servative as Progress. England is in the full enjoyment 
 of civil and religious freedom. I hope she may never 
 descend from this height, and that the wish of the great 
 poet, under whose roof I conclude, may see his vision 
 fulfilled, and become the creed and the confidence of a 
 better and a stronger age of mankind : — 
 
 Of old sat Freedom on the heights, 
 The thunders breaking at her feet ; 
 
 Above her shook the starry lights, 
 She heard the torrents meet. 
 
 There in her place she did rejoice, 
 
 Self-gather'd in her prophet-mind. 
 But fragments of hor mighty voice 
 Came rolling on the wind. 
 
 Then stept she down thro' town and field. 
 
 To mingle with the Imman race, 
 And part by part to men revealed 
 
 The fulness of her face. 
 
 Russell. 
 Ald WORTH, October 29, 1874. 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 IiS" the progress of liberal opinions, it is important to record 
 the relaxation of the chains by which the Church of England 
 has been bound. The Low Church endeavor to confine the 
 Established Church within the strict letter of its Calvinistic 
 Articles ; the High Church, especially the Ritualistic portion 
 of the body, wish to condemn all who do not follow with 
 servile obedience the syllogisms of Aristotle and the abuses 
 of the Roman Church; the Broad Church, alone, wish to 
 give that full liberty to the Church of England which the 
 late Bishop Wilberforce delighted to boast of and to cel- 
 ebrate. 
 
 One of the first cases which, after Lord Brougham's Act 
 of Parliament, came before the Ecclesiastical Committee of 
 Privy Council was the case of Mr. Gorham. Mr. Gorham 
 had been appointed to a living in Cornwall. In looking over 
 the new scene of his labors, he found in a corner of his 
 church a square stone altar which had been used before the 
 Reformation. He moved the altar back from its corner and 
 replaced it by a communion table suitable to the reformed 
 Church. But his ofience was not overlooked by the High 
 Church party. On his being appointed to another living in 
 Devonshire, the Bishop of Exeter summoned him to appear 
 before him to answer for a heresy, into which he was said to 
 have fallen, in the subject of baptism. Mr. Gorham, who 
 was poor and in weak health, was compelled to walk between 
 four and five miles each day, and was kept fasting while he 
 
376 APPENDIX I. 
 
 was exposed to. the dialectics, divinity, and metaphysics of 
 his inexorable enemies. They found, of course, that he was 
 unable to hold the living to which he had been appointed. 
 But happily for Mr. Gorhara, the case came before the Judi- 
 cial Committee, the members present of which were Lord 
 Larydale, Lord Campbell, Sir James Parke, Dr. Lushington, 
 Sir J. L. Knight Bruce, and Mr. Pemberton Leigh. The 
 Archbishops of Canterbury (Sumner), and York (Musgrave), 
 and the Bishop of London (Blomfield), assisted by special 
 command of Her Majesty. 
 
 On the 8th of March, 1850, the judgment of the Judicial 
 Committee was read in the Council Chamber by Lord Lary- 
 dale. The Lords of the Council did not decide that the 
 opinions of Mr. Gorham were the opinions of the Church of 
 England, but they declared ' that it appears that opinions, 
 which we cannot in any important particular distinguish 
 from those entertained by Mr. Gorham, have been pro- 
 pounded and maintained without censure or reproach by 
 many eminent and illustrious prelates and divines, who have 
 adorned the Church from the time when the Articles were 
 first established. We do not altirm that the doctrines and 
 opinions of Jewell, Hooker, Usher, Jeremy Taylor, Whitgift, 
 Pearson, Carlton, Prideaux, and many others, can be received 
 as evidence of the doctrines of the Church of England ; but 
 their conduct, unblamed and unquestioned as it was, proves, 
 at least, the liberty which has been allowed of maintaining 
 such doctrine.* 
 
 On the 9th of March, 1850, the Privy Council was held, at 
 which were present Her Majesty the Queen, Prince Albert, 
 the Lord President, Lord John Russell, Viscount Palmerston, 
 and Sir George Grey. The Queen, having taken the judg- 
 ment of the Committee of the Privy Council into considera- 
 tion, * was pleased to approve thereof, and of what is tlierein 
 recommended, and to order, as it is hereby ordered, that the 
 same be duly and punctually observed, complied with, and 
 carried into execution.' 
 
APPENDIX 11. 877 
 
 The committee say in their judgment : ' The case not re- 
 quiring it, we have abstained from expressing any opinion 
 of our own upon the theological correctness or error of the 
 doctrine held by Mr. Gorham, which was discussed before us 
 at such great length and with so much learning.' This judg- 
 ment was a great enlargement of the liberty of the Church 
 of England, and influenced many other cases. I proceed to 
 one of these upon a matter of very great importance. 
 
 II. 
 
 In" 1864, the judgment of the Judicial Committee of Privy 
 Council was delivered upon a case affecting the opinions of 
 two of the authors of the work entitled ' Essays and Reviews.' 
 
 It is well known that the authors of these Essays declared 
 publicly, that they were not collectively responsible for any 
 one of the Essays contained in their work. But the point 
 of the judgment pronounced by Lord Westbury, in 1864, is 
 still of very great importance, and affected very seriously the 
 position and reputation of two of the authors, namely, Dr. 
 Williams, Vicar of Broad-Chalke, in Wiltshire, and Henry 
 Bristow Wilson, B.D., Vicar of Great Staughton, Hunts. 
 
 The points on which they were arraigned are so clearly 
 defined in an opinion signed by Sir Roundel Palmer, now 
 Lord Selborne, and Sir Hugh Cairns, now Lord Cairns, that 
 I think I can do nothing better than copy the opinions 
 signed by them: — 
 
 ' We understand the Lord Chancellor to have, in substance, 
 founded his judgments upon a negative answer to the in- 
 quiry, whether every clergyman of the Church of England 
 was strictly bound to affirm the two following propositions : 
 
 < " 1. That every part of every book of Holy Scripture was 
 written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and is the 
 Word of God." 
 
(Signed) 
 
 378 APPENDIX II. 
 
 * " 2. That it is impious or heretical to entertain or express 
 a hope that even the ultimate pardon of the wicked, who 
 are condemned in the day of judgment, may be consistent 
 with the will of Almighty God.'* 
 
 ' These are the exact propositions referred to in our 
 opinion. 
 
 Roundel Palmer 
 (now Lord Selbome). 
 II. M. Cairns 
 (now Lord Cairns).' 
 
 The members of the Judicial Committee present at these 
 appeals were — the Archbishop of Canterbury (Longley), 
 the Lord Chancellor (Westbury), the Archbishop of York 
 (Thompson), the Bishop of London (Tait), now Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, Lord Cranworth, Lord Chelmsford, Lord 
 Kingsdown. Two of these, the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 and the Archbishop of York, stated ' that they do not concur 
 in those parts of this judgment which relate to tlie 7th arti- 
 cle of charge against Dr. Williams, and to the 8th article of 
 charge against Mr. Wilson.' All the others, namely, the 
 Lord Chancellor (Westbury), the Bishop of London (Tait), 
 Lord Cranworth, Lord Chelmsford, and Lord Kingsdown, 
 must be reckoned as having concurred in the judgjnent. 
 
 I have quoted these opinions of Mr. Gorham in regard to 
 baptism, and of Dr. Williams and of Mr. Bristow Wilson, 
 without any thought of espousing the opinions either of Mr. 
 Gorham in respect of baptism, Dr. Williams or Mr. Wilson in 
 regard to the doctrine of eternal punishment. I have quoted 
 them in order to show the liberty of opinion which is allowed 
 by the judgments of the Committee of Privy Council to mem- 
 bers of the Church who have endeavored to seek the truth, 
 and have honestly exercised the right of private judgment 
 which is exercised by all true Protestants. 
 
 An attempt was made in the House of Commons by some 
 ritualistic members of Parliament to deprive the judgments 
 of the Privy Council of ecclesiastical authority. By a very 
 
APPENDIX II. 379 
 
 cunning artifice, it was proposed that a committee of Privy- 
 Council in ecclesiastical cases should consist entirely of lay- 
 men ; this motion was carried unopposed, and almost unper- 
 ceived, in a committee on the 'Bill of Judicature/ It is 
 obvious what would have been the next step. It would have 
 been contended that a judgment of laymen could have no 
 weight with the bishops and archbishops, deans, rectors, and 
 vicars, who had been admitted to ordination as priests. 
 There is no saying how far this argument might have pre- 
 vailed in producing schism in the Church, and confusion in 
 the Law. Happily the trick was detected. Lord Cairns 
 perceived that it was a stratagem w^ith the Ritualists, and 
 must be opposed in the House of Lords. Lord Selborne, 
 then Lord Chancellor, proposed an amendment by which the 
 poison of the amendment of the Commons was neutralized 
 and rendered harmless. When I went to the House of Lords, 
 I found that the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York had 
 consented to the amendment of the Lord Chancellor, and 
 that the subtle device of the Ritualists was sure to fail. 
 
 I rely upon the legal knowledge and the freedom from 
 prejudice of Lord Selborne and Lord Cairns to defeat any 
 similar artifice. It is clear that the Ritualists are not dis- 
 posed to give up the contest. Dr. Pusey has publicly declared 
 that the judgment in the case of Mr. Gorham was an error 
 and ought to be reversed. Until the religion of the Church 
 of England has been assimilated to the religion of Rome, of 
 St. Thomas Aquinas and of Aristotle, the Ritualists will not 
 be satisfied. 
 
 It remains to be seen what part Mr. Gladstone will take 
 in this great contest. The principles of the Reformation are 
 on one side, the adherents of the Church of Rome on the 
 other. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Abercrombie, James, election of, 268. 
 
 Aberdeen, Lord, course suggested with 
 regard to Ecclesiastical Titles Act, 
 211 ; his Ministry, 221. 
 
 Adams,_ Mr., his conduct with regard 
 to the 'Alabama' claims, 228. 
 
 ' Alabama ' claims, Earl Russell on 
 the, 228; Mr. Fish's proposition, 
 326. 
 
 Althorp, Lord, as Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, 56; speech on the res- 
 ignation of ministers, 84 ; restora- 
 tion of his Mmistrv, 83 ; introduces 
 the Coercion Bill, '92 ; and Bill for 
 the Reform of the Church of Ire- 
 land, 93 ; Bill for Reform of Poor- 
 laws, 95 ; speech on the Irish Church 
 question, lUO ; opposes the Coercion 
 Act. 104; resignation, 104 ; restored 
 to power under Lord Melbourne, 
 106; resignation and retirement from 
 public life, 106; attempts to promote 
 free trade, 167; influence in the 
 House of Commons, 215; on the 
 Uniim Act, 231; waits upon Sir R. 
 Peel, 238; grants incurred by the 
 abolition of slavery, 348. 
 
 America, opinions on the Treaty of 
 Washington, 323 ; points in support 
 of these opinions, 325; our land 
 frontier in, 3Q1. 
 
 American Civil War, a calamitous 
 event, 235 ; neutrality of England, 
 235. 
 
 Anne, Queen, Parliament during the 
 reign of, 217. 
 
 Australia, 166. 
 
 Austria, intent'ons of Russia towards, 
 337 ; aggresion of, 364. 
 
 Azeglio, Alarquis de, letter to, 234. 
 
 B. 
 
 Baldwin, Mr., discussion on respon- 
 sible government in the colonies, 
 165. 
 
 Baptism, Mr. Gorham's opinions on, 
 376. 
 
 Baring, Mr. Alexander, his objections 
 to reform, 33 ; deputed by the Duke 
 of Wellington to form a government, 
 84; opposition to the Keform Bill, 
 85; fails to form a government, 87. 
 
 Bedford, Duke of; 306 
 
 Belfast, illegal meeting at, 288. 
 
 Bible, the, in national schools, 294; 
 evidence against Ritualism, 353; use 
 of, 355. 
 
 Bills, private, in Parliament, 289. 
 
 Births, registration of, 117. 
 
 Bissett, Mr., on Lord Wellington be- 
 fore the battle of Salamanca, 11. 
 
 Black Sea Treaty, 366. 
 
 Blomfield, Dr., treaty regarding edu- 
 cation, 308. 
 
 Bonaparte, Emperor Napoleon, his 
 downfall, 335 ; his character, 369. 
 
 Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon, his quar- 
 rel with Germanv, 336 ; and results, 
 336 ; his character, 363. 
 
 Boroughs, origin of nomination, 29. 
 
 Boundary Bill, adoption of the, 74. 
 
 Bright, Right Hon. John, his interest 
 in the Irish Church, 126. 
 
 Britain, Great, its constitution, 176, 177; 
 advantages of government forms of, 
 176 ; her honor tarnished by the 
 Treaty of Washington, 366. 
 
 British and Foreign School Society, 
 foundation of, 306; grants to, 309. 
 
 British Isles, their security from inva- 
 sion, 361; exposed to dangers, 362, 
 363. 
 
382 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Brougham, Lord, his reputation as an 
 orator, 4G ; accepts the otter of the 
 Great Seal, 55; speech on the Re- 
 form Bill, 65-(i8; his qualities, 111, 
 112; deprived of the (jrcat Seal, 
 113 ; Lord Melbourne's objections, 
 to, 113; proposes a grant for edu- 
 cational societies, 30^ ; attention de- 
 voted to endowments, 359. 
 
 Bruce, Mr., appointed Home Secretary, 
 242. 
 
 Brunswick, Duke of, 1, 2. 
 
 Burdett, Sir Francis, his proposal of 
 parliamentary reform, 30; meeting 
 at his house, 298. 
 
 Burke, Edmund, on monopoly of trade 
 to Kngland, 274; on commerce of 
 Ireland, 275; Goldsmith on, 275; 
 on Lord Chatham, 281. 
 
 Byron, Lord, lines on the Tories, 346. 
 
 c. 
 
 Cairns, Lord, his opinions on Dr. Wil- 
 liams's and Mr. Wilson's case, 377 ; 
 opposition to the Bill of Judicature, 
 379 
 
 Campbell, Lord, as Lord Chancellor, 
 235. 
 
 Canning, Mr., an opponent of parlia- 
 mentary reform, 23; on the heads of 
 the Government, 32; and on Earl 
 Kussell's speech on iteform, 37, 
 38; succeeds Lord Castlereagh, 39; 
 objections against being appointed 
 I'rime Minister, 42; made Prime 
 Minister, 43; resignation of his col- 
 leagues, 43; his conduct of affairs, 
 43; his reputation as an orator, 45 ; 
 his death, 47. 
 
 Card well, Mr., appointed Secretary of 
 War, 241. 
 
 Castlereagh, Lord, his power before 
 and atter the battle of Waterloo, IG ; 
 his opin'ons and abilities, 21; as an 
 orai{)r, 21; his character, 22; de- 
 cisiuUM on (iiiestions of social prog- 
 ress, 23; death, 39; intluencc ni 
 the House of Coninions, 215. 
 
 Cuve of Adiillam, dcscnplion of the, 
 237; opposition to tlu; Ministry, 237. 
 
 Cavendish, Lord IVederick, his scheme 
 of religious education, 320. 
 
 Chamberlain, Mr., deprived of his scat 
 in Parliament, 344; description of, 
 344. 
 
 Chamberlain of London v. Allen Evans, 
 31G. 
 
 * Chapter of Irish Landlordism,' ex- 
 tract from, 252. 
 
 Chartist riots, 206 ; suppression of the, 
 208, 348. 
 
 Christianity, teaching of, 140. 
 
 Church in England, state of the, 352; 
 one of two things to be a<lopted with 
 regard to the, 355; relaxation of the 
 chains, 375; case of Mr. Gorham, 
 375; judgment, 37G ; case of Dr. 
 Williams and Mr. Wilson, 377. 
 
 Church property, disposal of, 141. 
 
 Clare, Lord, in the Hou.se of Lords, 
 304. 
 
 Clarendon, Lord, his proposal in refer- 
 ence to the Turkish Government, 
 222; as Secretary for Foreign Af- 
 tiairs, 242; on Oliver Cromwell's 
 scheme of representation, 3.58. 
 
 Cobden, Mr., on the United States, 
 3G2. 
 
 Cockbum, Lord Chief Justice, on the 
 'Alabama' claims, 332. 
 
 Coercion Bill, Ireland, 92. 
 
 Colonial affairs. Earl liussell's interest 
 in, 1G2 ; his policy, 1G3. 
 
 Colonies, prop<Jsition regarding pro- 
 tection of the, 1G3; discussion on 
 responsible government in tlie, 165; 
 position of Britain with regard to 
 the, 1G5, 166. 
 
 Commons, House of, debate on the 
 Catholic question, 23; slave trade, 
 24; conduct of Lord Sidmouth. 24; 
 suspension of the Habeas Corpus 
 Act, 24; Wliig opposition, 25; linnn- 
 cial economy, 27 ; propo.sal of parii i- 
 meutary reform, 28; dissatisiactioa 
 at the representation of, 28; motions 
 and division on the Koman Cath- 
 olic question, 40; a|ipointmcnt of 
 Mr. (,'anning as Prime Minister, 42; 
 separation of the Tory party under 
 Canning, 45; oratory in the House, 
 45; Mr. Peel as leader, 47; repeal 
 of the Corporation and Test .Vets 
 carried, 48; the Koman Catholic 
 Helief Bill, 48, 49; rupture of the 
 Tory party, 49; fall of the Tory 
 Ministry, 51 ; poor-laws, 52-54; .Min- 
 istry of Lord (Jrey, 55; formation 
 of committee <'n parliamentary re- 
 f 'rm, 56 ; effects of the introduction 
 of the Keform Uill on the House, 
 58, 69; second reading of the He- 
 f(nm Bill, 6t); dissolution of Par- 
 liament, IS'M, (51; great exeitement 
 in the House, G2, 63 ; result of gen- 
 eral election, 63. deltate on l^etonn 
 IVill, 64; adoption of the Houndary 
 Bill, 74; third reading of the he- 
 form Bill, 75; final passing of the 
 
 1 Keform Bill, 1832, 70; auieudmcut 
 
INDEX. 
 
 383 
 
 to the Reform Bill, 79-82 ; resigna- 
 tion of Lord Grey's Ministry, 83; 
 Duke of Wellington offers to form 
 a government, 83; motion on the 
 Reform Bill, 84, 85; debate on the 
 Reform Bill, 86; Duke of Welling- 
 ton fails to form a government, 88; 
 debate on the Coercion Bill, Lord 
 Stanley's speech, 92; Bill for the 
 Reform of the Church of Ireland, 
 93 ; Irish Church Temporalities Bill 
 and the Colonial Slavery Abolition 
 Bill, 94; opening of Parliament, 1834, 
 94; the King's speech, 94; reform 
 of the poor-laws, 95, 96 ; Poor-law 
 Bill introduced by Lord Althorp, 
 96; Irish Church question, 97; Earl 
 Russell's speech on the Irish Church 
 question, 97, 98; motion upon the 
 Irish Church question, 99; Lord 
 Althorp's speech, 100; resignation 
 of four Cabinet MinivSters, 101; and 
 explanation of by the Earl of Ripon, 
 101 ; resignation of Lord Grey, 102 ; 
 cause of his resignation, 103 ; Lord 
 Melbourne's administration, 105; 
 Lord Althorp leader under Lord 
 Melbourne, 106 ; resignation of Lord 
 Althorp, 106 ; offer of leadership to 
 Earl Russell, 107; dismissal of the 
 Ministry, 107; confidence in Lord 
 Melbourne's Government, 108; elec- 
 tion of Speaker, 109 ; Sir Robert 
 Peel, minister, 109 ; difficulties of 
 Sir Robert Peel, 109, 110 ; return of 
 Lord Melbourne to power. 111 ; res- 
 olution on Irish Church, 111; Lord 
 Melbourne's Ministry, 115 ; commu- 
 tation of tithes, 116; speeches on 
 the Marriiige Bill, 119-121; educa- 
 tion, 122 ; the Appropriation Clause, 
 125 ; Encumbered Estates Act, 159 ; 
 introduced by Sir John Romilly, 160; 
 course pursued with regard to free 
 trade, 168 ; Earl Russell's motion de- 
 feated, 169; dissolution of Parlia- 
 ment, 170; inauguration of New 
 Ministry under Sir R. Peel, 171; 
 repeal of the corn-laws, 171 ; suc- 
 cess of Sir U. Peel's administration, 
 172; difficulty with Ireland, 172; 
 Sir R. Peel's' measures lor the en- 
 dowment of Maynooth College, 173; 
 repeal of Navigation Act, 175; ad- 
 vantages of British lorm of govern- 
 ment, 17G ; election of constituents, 
 177; financial periods, 177; danger 
 in the Eastern question, 184 ; death 
 of William IV". and accessio.i of 
 Queen Victoria, 183; sugar duties, 
 190; system of protection, 191; corn 
 
 duties, 191 ; defeat of Whig Ministry, 
 191; Sir R. Peel's Ministry, 193; 
 Tory policy, 194; Pitt's policy, 194; 
 changes of Tory policy, 196; want 
 of confidence in Tory .Ministrv, 197 ; 
 Protection of Life Bill, 198; defeat of 
 bir R. Peel's Ministry, 198; admin- 
 istration of Lord Russell, 198; divi- 
 sion on the sugar duty, 199 ; progress 
 of free trade, 200; Philosophical 
 Radicals' motion, 205; debate and 
 division, 206; Chartist riots, 206; 
 meeting of Cabinet, 297; Ecclesias- 
 tical iithes Act, 210; Lord Russell 
 resigns office, 211; Mr. Tierney on 
 office, 211; leaders, 214; parlia.nen- 
 tary government, 215 ; conduct in the 
 Walcheren expedition, 216; in the 
 time of Addington, 216; and Queen 
 Anne's reign, Zl8; Robert Walpole, 
 Pitt, and Fox as leaders, 218, 219; 
 Lord Aberdeen's Ministry, 221; al- 
 tercations on the Crimean War, 
 222; foreign policy, 226; neutral- 
 ity in American Civil War, 235 ; 
 Lord Rus=ell as First Lord of the 
 Treasury, 236 ; the Cave of Adullam, 
 237 ; Reform Bill of 1867, 239; gen- 
 eral election and defeat of Ministry, 
 241; Mr. Gladstone forms a Min- 
 istry', 241 ; courses pursued as to 
 Irish Church question, 259; repre- 
 sentation in Scotland, 267 ; affairs 
 in Ireland, 277; Roman Catholics 
 of Ireland, 278; Pitt's plan of coa- 
 lition, 280; George IIl.'s policy, 
 282; resignation of Ministry, 282; 
 Irish Church question, 285; policy 
 after the union with Ireland, 288; 
 Home Rule, 289 ; private bills, 289 ; 
 national education in Ireland, 294; 
 Landlords and Tenants' Law, 299 ; 
 national education, 305 ; plan of re- 
 ligious instruction, 307; compromise- 
 with the Bishops on national edu- 
 cation, 309; giants to educational 
 societies, 310; Education Act of 
 1870, 310; compulsory church-rates 
 abolished, 313 ; schemes for religious 
 education, 320; Treat}' of Washing- 
 ton, 323; foreign policy, 335; sug- 
 gestions on luture policy, 337; gen- 
 eral election, 339 ; defeat of Whig 
 Ministry, 339; Sacheverell clause, 
 340; the Irish Church Bill, 341 ; Land 
 Act, 341; Education Act of 1870, 
 342 ; abolition of slavery, 348; ques- 
 tions which deserve to be noted in 
 approaching sessions, 357 ; represen- 
 tation in the time of Oliver Crom- 
 well, 357 ; topics to which atteutioa 
 
384 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 must be directed, 359 ; public opin- 
 ion, 3G0; security from foreign inva- 
 sion, 3G1; Bill of Judicature, carried, 
 379. 
 
 Compulsory Church-rates, Act for the 
 abolition of, 313. 
 
 Continent of Europe, state of affairs 
 on the, 17, 206. 
 
 Corn duties, I'Jl. 
 
 Corn-laws, repeal of the, 171. 
 
 Cornwallis, Lord, and the Irish Union, 
 278. 
 
 Corporation and Test Acts, repeal of 
 the, 48. 
 
 Cottenham. Lord, introduces Encum- 
 bered Estates Act, 159; on 8ir R. 
 I'ecl, 197. 
 
 Coulson, Mr. Walter, frames Encum- 
 bered Estates Act, 159, IGO. 
 
 Crimean War, its origin, 222. 
 
 Croker, Mr., a formidable opponent of 
 the Reform Bill, 76. 
 
 Cromwell, Oliver, government of, 357 ; 
 his system of representation, 357; 
 his project suggested as a model of 
 reform, 372. 
 
 D. 
 
 Denominational schools, 319. 
 
 Derby, Lord, news of his death, 182; 
 his Reform Bill of 1807, 239. 
 
 ' Directorium Anglicanum,' 350. 
 
 Disestablishment and disendowment 
 of churches, suggestions regarding, 
 359. 
 
 Disraeli, Right Hon. B., and Tory 
 party, 196; as First Lord of the 
 Treasury, 239; his ideas of Reform, 
 239; resignation, 241. 
 
 Dissenters, 312, 313; position of, 310; 
 denominational fees, 318; views on 
 the subject of religion, 320; griev- 
 ances, 322; behavior of Mr. Forster 
 towards, 343. 
 
 Drumniond, Mr. Ileniy, 321. 
 
 Dungannon (Convention, and resolu- 
 tions at, 277. 
 
 Durham, Lord, his suggestions on the 
 disfranciiiscment ot seats in Parlia- 
 ment, 74. 
 
 Eastern question, the, 183; Lord 
 Palmcrston's policy, 183; state of 
 afl'airs in the East, 185. 
 
 Ebriiigton, Lord, his motion upon the 
 Reform Bill, 86. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Committee of Privy Coun- 
 cil, Mr. Gorhams case belbre the, 
 375. 
 
 Education, Earl Russell's scheme, 123; 
 inspection in the schools of the 
 National Society, 123; Duke of New- 
 castle on, 124; suggestions on, 125; 
 object and fundamental principle in 
 Ireland, 134 ; rules for religious and 
 secular instruction, 134-136; rules 
 of the Irish Board, 136 ; wages of 
 teachers, 137 ; system introduced in 
 Ireland in 1831, 1G8; principle of 
 the National School sy&tcm of Ire- 
 land, 139; Christian teaching, 140; 
 report in Ireland, 142; Archbishop 
 Whately on education in Ireland, 
 294; inquiry into English Universi- 
 ties, .305; Universities of Oxford 
 and Cambridge, 305; foundation of 
 the British and Foreign School So- 
 ciety, 306; and National Society, 
 306; want of education in England, 
 307; division on, in House of Com- 
 mons, 308 ; resolutions in House of 
 Lords, 303; compromise with Bish»- 
 ops, 309; grants to the National and 
 British and Foreign Societies, 309; 
 Act of 1870, 310, 342; opinions and 
 suggestions on the Act of 1670, 
 811; board schools, 311; voluntary 
 schools, 311; proposed plan in Eng- 
 land and Wales, 314; principles of 
 plan, 315; position of Dissenters, 316; 
 M'ggestions as to Church schools, 
 319. 
 
 Egerton, Sir Francis, on Roman Catho- 
 lic question, 40. 
 
 Election, general, in 1841, 192; in 
 1868, 241; in 1807, 283; in 1874, 
 339; in 1841, 340. 
 
 EUenborough, Lord, his scheme of the 
 Rclbrm Bill, 82. 
 
 Encumbered Estates Act, 159; intro- 
 duced by Sir John Romilly, 160. 
 
 England, finanoiul .state of, 15; state in 
 1833, 91 ; ' Times * concsnondent on 
 the state of, 143; Count Metternich 
 on the state of, 206; st.ite of affairs 
 in, in 1856, 223; ncutralitv in Amer- 
 ican Civil War. 235; IVIr. (Jrotc'a 
 opinion, 236; comi)ari!<on between 
 miinlcr in Ireland and, 254; conduct 
 towards Ireland, 288 ; position 
 towards Franci", 337; *uggcsiions as 
 to policy towards Genuuny, 337; 
 state of the Church in, 352: one of 
 two things to be adopted with reganl 
 to the Chureh, 355; parlianiontary 
 representation in, in the time of 
 Oliver Crumwull, 357; treaty with 
 
INDEX. 
 
 385 
 
 Paris, 1856, 3G6; religious liberty 
 in, 373. 
 
 England, Church of, 375 ; case of Mr. 
 Gorham, 375; and judgracnt, 376; 
 case of IMr. Wilson and Dr. Wil- 
 liams, 377. 
 
 ' English in Ireland,' bv James Anthony 
 Froude, sketch of, 302, 
 
 'Essays and Reviews,' case of the au- 
 thors of, 377. 
 
 Europe, peace of, 14; sketch by Pitt 
 of a restored, 17; supposed preten- 
 sions of the sovereigns of, 337; 
 changes from Charles V. and Louis 
 XI. to present time, 372, 373; au- 
 thority of governments, 373. 
 
 Exchequer, receipts of the, in 1857, 
 175. 
 
 Exeter, Bishop of, his objections to the 
 Marriage Bill, 120, 121. 
 
 FiXANCiAL economy, suggestions on, 
 27. 
 
 Financial system in England, 15. 
 
 Fish, Mr., on the concessions of the 
 United States, 326. 
 
 Fitzgerald, Sir Edward, 304. 
 
 Fitzgibbon, Mr. Gerald, his pamphlet 
 about Land question, 153, 154. 
 
 Eitzwilliam, Lord, 304. 
 
 Fletcher, Air., his character, 269. 
 
 Fletcher, Mrs., anecdote of, 267; ex- 
 tract from her diary, 268 ; character, 
 269. 
 
 Foreign affairs, state of, in 1856, 222; 
 present state of, 224. 
 
 Foreign policy, 14, 335; from 1860 
 to 1865, 226 ; suggestions on future, 
 337. 
 
 Forster, Mr., his errors regarding the 
 Education Act of 1870, 343. 
 
 Fox, Charles James, his conduct tow- 
 ards the French Government, 4; in 
 favor of parliamentary reform, 30; 
 his character, 219; in Pitt's Ministry, 
 281; differences with Pitt, 281; 
 death, 282. 
 
 Fox, Henry, 219. 
 
 France, state of affairs in, 1, 2; policy, 
 293 ; marriage and education in, 293 ; 
 state of, on the downfall of the P^m- 
 peror Napoleon Bonaparte, 335 ; her 
 quarrel with Germany, 336 ; and 
 results, 336; suggestions of policy 
 towards, 338; state of its constitution, 
 367; Whigs of, 368; Duke of Orleans 
 made king of, 368 ; present state of, 
 36 J; form of government recom- 
 
 mended by M. Thiers, 3G9; improba- 
 bilities ot a Bonapartist restoration, 
 371. 
 
 Free trade, course pursued by the Cab- 
 inet in 1840, 168; measures proposed 
 by Mr. Huskisson, 168; and their 
 results, 168; duties on corn, 191; 
 explanation by Whig Ministry, 192; 
 Sir Robert Peel's conduct with re- 
 gard to, 193; Pitt approves of, 194; 
 supported by Sir James Graham, 
 200; promoted by Sir Robert Peel, 
 200; its progress, 200 ; and triumph, 
 202; support of the Liberal ToriLS, 
 202. 
 
 Froude, Mr., on Ireland, 257; on 
 smuggling in Ireland, 272; 'English 
 in Ireland,' sketch of, 302. 
 
 G. 
 
 George IIL, bis personal dislikes. 48; 
 letter to Mr. Pitt, 279 ; on (he death 
 of Fox, 282; consequences of his 
 policy, 282 
 
 George IV., his personal dislikes, 48. 
 
 Gladstone, Right Hon. W. E., speech 
 on the Irish Church question, 241; 
 forms a Ministry, 241 ; opinions on 
 the Protestant Church of Ireland, 
 284; his qualities, 242, 285; his \hA- 
 icy, 286; his illustration of the fall 
 of the Irish Church, 287 ; his Landlord 
 and Tenant Act, 301; mistaken pol- 
 icy, 332; defeat of his Ministry, 339. 
 340; his parliamentary eloquence, 
 340; his legislation, 341; success of 
 the Land Act, 341; Education Act of 
 1870, 342 ; causes of the defeat of his 
 Ministry, 343 ; faults of his foreign 
 policy, 344 ; his political expediency, 
 372. 
 
 Goldsmith, Oliver, lines on Burke, 275. 
 
 Gorham, Mr., case of, 375, 377; opin- 
 ions on baptism, 376. 
 
 Government, British, advantages of its 
 forms of, 176. 
 
 Government, Parliamentary, since the 
 Revolution of 1688, 213 : leaders in 
 the House of Commons, 214; during 
 Queen Anne's reign, 218: in fe 
 time of Robert Walpole, 218; and 
 Wil iam Pitt and Fox, 219. 
 
 Graham Sir James, resigns his seat jn 
 the Cabinet, 101 ; supports free 
 trade, 200; his suggestions with 
 regard to Ecclesiastical Titles Act, 
 211. 
 
 Grampound, disfranchisement of, 32. 
 
 26 
 
386 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Granard, Lord, his idea on tenant- 
 rif,'lit, 145. 
 
 Grant, Mr., supports the Reform Bill, 
 75. 
 
 Granville, Lord, his conduct respecting 
 tiie Crimean War, 224; on the con- 
 cessions of the United States, 325; 
 mistaken policy, 'S'-i2. 
 
 Grattan, Henry, on the Tithe Act, 123; 
 on religious teaching in Irel nd, 133; 
 his speeches on Irish affairs, 276, 
 277, 302. 
 
 Grenviile, I,ord, his view of Conti- 
 nental aflairs, 6; and of the corn 
 duties, 191; proposal of his Minis- 
 try with respect to the Army, 282; 
 his resignation, 282; his correspon- 
 dence with (jeorge Washington, 331. 
 
 Grey, L"rd, as leader of the Opposi- 
 tion, 25; his Ministry, 55; dissolu- 
 tion of Parliament, 61 ; proposes 
 second reading of tlie Reform Bill, 
 65; speech on the Reform Bill, 68- 
 70; decision regarding his resigna- 
 tion, 71; debate on the postpone- 
 ment of the disfranchising clauses of 
 the Uefonn Bill, 79; opi ions on the 
 amendment to the Reform Bill, 81; 
 restoration of his Ministry, 8J; 
 passing of the Reform Bill, 8,); 
 resignation and character, 102; 
 cause of his resignation, 103; on 
 the Union Act, 2i)l; his desire for 
 Reform, 347. 
 
 Grey, Sir (Jeorge, represses agrarian 
 crime, 161. 
 
 Grote, George, speech on the Irish 
 C'luirch question, 100; on Poor Law 
 AnuMidment Act, 188; on the con- 
 diK t oi Knglund iu the American 
 Civil War, 236. 
 
 II. 
 
 IlAnKAs Corpus Act suspended in 
 Lngland, 24. 
 
 Hammond, Mr. George, his correspon- 
 dence w th Mr. .JeHerson. 331. 
 
 ILuvwood, Vav\ of, his opinions on the 
 LVlbrm Mill, SO. 
 
 IIarr(iwl)v. Lord, proposes alterations 
 in thc'Ref.rm Mill, 78. 
 
 Ilartiiigtou, Lord, his opinions on land 
 triMire in Irolaiul. 144. 
 
 lIcrlH-rt, Dr., anecdote told hy, 127. 
 
 llolland. Lord, letter to Mr. Allen re- 
 garding Spanish ufiairs, G. 
 
 .Home policy, 18. 
 
 Home l{ule' in Ireland, 283; proposals 
 .regarding, 230. 
 
 Ilubner, Baron de, his opinions on the 
 Treaty of Washington, 323. 
 
 Hud.-jon, Sir J., letter to, regarding 
 Italian Revolution, 223. 
 
 Hume. Joseph, a great supporter of 
 parliamentary reform, 53; on ex- 
 penditure of the state. 205. 
 
 Huskisson, Mr, his ideas on parlia- 
 mentary re.brm, 43; pro|K>sals re- 
 garding free trade, and their results, 
 168, 2u0 
 
 Hutchinson, Mr. Hely, on woollen goods 
 in IreUnd, 271. 
 
 I. 
 
 Income tax, 361. 
 
 Indian Empire, land frontier in our, 
 302; danger of the, 363; strength 
 of the, 365. 
 
 Inglis, .>ir Robert, his speech regarding 
 the Reform Bill, 83; speech on the 
 Marriage Bill, 119. 
 
 Ireland, state of, 19; policv pursued by 
 Sir Robert Peel .and the Duke of 
 Wellington, 43, 50; state on the 
 abandonment of the Appropria- 
 tion Clau-^e, 125; 'lithe Act, 1 23; 
 Established Chiirch, 127; discn- 
 dowmtnt of the Protestant Church, 
 128; wants overlooked. 123; state 
 of the Roman Catholic ("hurcb, 
 130; object of national education, 
 134 ; religious instruction, 13i>- 
 137; rules of the National Board 
 regarding education, 134 ; sy.stem 
 of eduiati(»n introduced in 1831, 
 138 ; principle of the National 
 School system, 139; welfan', 141; 
 report of the ( 'onunis.*ioncrs i>f 
 National Education, 142 ; land 
 tenure, 144, 157; Ireland and Eng- 
 land, 148; tenant-right, 145; titles 
 of the land-owners, 151 ; govern- 
 ment, 152; summing-up ol griev- 
 ances, 155; improvenu'ut.s, 155, 153; 
 her progress, 1.56; wants, l.'>7; 
 crime, 161; Sir Robert Peel's diffi- 
 culty with, 172; suggestions as to 
 the improvement of government, 
 168; extract from *. Journals upon 
 Ireland,* 244; murders. 24<>; com> 
 parison ot' murder in England to 
 murder in Ireland, 254; liibbon con- 
 spiracy in, 254; murder of Mrs. 
 Neill. 255; conduct of the Goveni- 
 nient, 256; justice, 257; intluencc 
 of Roman Cath«»lic clergy over the 
 people, 257; Mr Fronde on, 257; 
 virtues of the people, 258 ; history of 
 
INDEX. 
 
 387 
 
 the Eoman Catholic reh'gion, 258; 
 Mr. Froude ou the people, 261 ; 
 character of the people, 202; objec- 
 tions to establishment of Roman 
 Catholic Church, 263; Bishop Law 
 on Roman Catholic priests, 263; 
 suggestions in favor of the endow- 
 ment of the Roman Catholic Church, 
 204 ; policy to, 264 ; state since 
 1708, 269 ; woollen goods, 270 ; 
 smuggling, 272 ; Burke on, 274 ; 
 augmentation of volunteers, 277 ; 
 state of affairs, 277 ; convention and 
 resolutions, 277 ; union of England 
 with Ireland, 284 ; two ways of 
 governing, 284; conduct of England 
 towards, 288; policy after the Union, 
 289; Home Rule, 289; government 
 under Home Rule, 290 ; petitions 
 that ought to be granted, 291; and 
 ought to be refused, 292; national 
 education, 294 ; anecdote of a priest, 
 296 ; sufferings of parish priests, 296 : 
 law of landlord and tenant, 298; 
 ill-government, 299; tenants, 300; 
 continuation of grievances, 301; 
 tithes, 302; difficulties of govern- 
 ment, 304 ; parliamentary repre- 
 sentation in the time of Oliver 
 Cromwell, 358. 
 
 Irish Church, Lord Russell on the, 97, 
 99 ; resolution on the. 111 ; Mr. 
 Gladstone's speech, 241 ; courses 
 pursued with regard to the, 259; 
 Dr. Arnold's opinions, 262; policy 
 of Mr. Gladstone, 286; success of 
 Mr. Gladstone's Bill, 341; sugges- 
 tions as to its government, 359. 
 
 Italy, sympathy towards the" people of, 
 229 ; correspondence with Sir J. 
 Hudson, 229 ; letter to the Marquis 
 d'Azeglio, 234; her policy, 293 ; 
 marriage and educatioa in, 293. 
 
 J. 
 
 Jefferson, Mr., his correspondence 
 
 with Mr. George Hammond, 331. 
 Jeffrey, Francis, election of, 268. 
 John Bull, description of, 344. 
 ' Journals upon Ireland,' extract from, 
 
 244. 
 Juan, surrender of the island of, 327 ; 
 
 dispute regarding boundary-line, 
 
 328. 
 Judicature, Bill of, in Houses of Lords 
 
 and Commons, 379. 
 
 K. 
 
 King, Locke, his motion on County 
 Franchise, 211. 
 
 Lambton, Mr., supports parliamentary 
 reform, 36. 
 
 Landlords and tenants, letter from Lord 
 Portsmouth about, 149 ; ' Daily 
 News ' and ' Spectator ' on, 149; 
 'Times' conclusion regarding, 150 ; 
 derivation of the titles of Irish land- 
 lords, 151. 
 
 Land question, tenant-right in Ireland, 
 145 ; Lord Granard's ideas, 145 ; 
 Lord Hartington's opinions, 144; 
 custom of tenant-right in Ulster, 
 146 ; ' Times ' correspondent's re- 
 port, 148 ; Lord Portsmouth's letter, 
 149 ; tenants and landlords, 150; 
 religion of landlords, 151 ; sugges- 
 tions, 152; Mr. Fitzgibbon's pam- 
 f)hlet, 153 ; tenancy of land, 153 ; 
 and tenure in Ireland, 157 ; success 
 of Mr. Gladstone's Act, 341. 
 
 Lansdowne, Lord, joins the Cabinet 
 of Mr. Canning, 44; insists upon 
 inspection in the schools of the 
 National Society, 123; course pur- 
 sued with regard to the Irish Church, 
 259 ; and national education, 307; 
 appoints Inspector of Education, 
 309. 
 
 Laval, Duke of, anecdote of, 368. 
 
 Law, Bishop, on Roman Catholic 
 priests, 263. 
 
 Leinster, Duke of, anecdote of, 341. 
 
 Liberal party, strength in 1835 of the, 
 116 ; measures which owe their suc- 
 cess to the, 116. 
 
 Liberal-Tories and free trade, 202. 
 
 Lindsay, Mr., on the results of the 
 Navigation Act, 175. 
 
 Liverpool, Lord, his character, 20 ; 
 death, 41. 
 
 London, threatened disturbances in, 
 206. 
 
 Lords, House of, second reading of the 
 Relbrm Bill, 65; rejection of the 
 Reform Bill, 71; doubts regarding 
 the passing of the Kefbrm Bill in the, 
 77 ; steps taken to procure a majority 
 on the Reform Bill, 77-79; division 
 on the bill, 79; bill in committee, 
 79 ; third reading of the Reform Bill, 
 89; question as to the vote, 89 ; de- 
 fect in the composition of the House. 
 178 ; advantages of a House of Peers, 
 
888 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 179-181 ; second reading of the Bill 
 for the repeal of Navigation Laws, 
 209 ; Landlord and Tenant Act in 
 the, 301 ; on the Treaty of Wash- 
 ington, 326; opposition to the Bill 
 of Judicature, 379. 
 
 Louis XVL, government of, 368. 
 
 Lowe, Right Hon. K., Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, 242 ; on education in 
 1839, 308. 
 
 Lyndhurst, Lord, on the postponement 
 of the disfranchising clauses of the 
 Keform Bill, 79; his efforts to form 
 a Tory Government, 83. 
 
 M. 
 
 Macaulat, Lord, on William Pitt's 
 conduct, 213 ; on William, Lord 
 Kussell, 286. 
 
 Mackintosh, Sir James, on the legality 
 of the Teterloo meeting, 287. 
 
 Manchester, petition of, in I'avor of the 
 Keform Bill, 86; Peterloo meeting 
 at, 287. 
 
 Manslieid, Lord, and the position of 
 Dissenters, 313; judgment in Cham- 
 berlain V. Allen Evans case, 316. 
 
 Marriages, civil, 117; legalitv of, 119; 
 Bill of 1836, 119; speech of Sir 
 Robert Inglis, 119 ; speech of Earl 
 Russell, 120; speech by the Bishop 
 of Exeter, 120; suggestions regard- 
 ing, 121, 122. 
 
 Mason Mr., Confederate Commissioner, 
 interview with Earl Russell, 227. 
 
 Massachusetts, schools in, 319. 
 
 Mayne, Sir Richard, suppresses the 
 Chartist riots, 208. 
 
 Maynooth College, measures for its 
 endowment by Sir Robert Peel, 
 173; discontent in England at, 173. 
 
 Mayo, Lord, his speech on the state of 
 Ireland, 283. 
 
 Melbourne, Lord, forms an Adminis- 
 tration, 105; dismissal by the King, 
 107; cause, 108; capability in otHce, 
 108; return to power, 111; dislike 
 to Lord Brougham, 111; his charac- 
 ter compared with Lord Brougham's, 
 115; sketch of his administration, 
 171, 172; interview with Earl Rus- 
 sell, 184. 
 
 Melville, Lord, 216. 
 
 Metternich, Count, on the state of 
 Kngland, 206. 
 
 Milton, John, lines on religious liberty, 
 374. 
 
 Minto, Lord, as head of the Admiralty, 
 185. 
 
 Mundella, Mr., re-election of, 344. 
 Murray, Archbishop, on reading of 
 Bible in National Schools, 294. 
 
 N. 
 
 National Societv, foundation of the, 
 306; grants to,' 309. 
 
 Navi''ation Act, repeal of the, 175; re- 
 sult, 175 ; second reading, 209. 
 
 Neill, Mrs., murder of, in Ireland, 255. 
 
 Newcastle, Duke of, his comraissiou on 
 national education, 124. 
 
 Newton, Sir Isaac, resigns seat in Par- 
 liament, 339. 
 
 Nicholson, Mr., attempted murder of 
 in Ireland, 253. 
 
 Nonconformists, 317. 
 
 ' No Popery ' cry, 283. 
 
 o. 
 
 O'CONNELL, Mr., 111. 
 O'Connor, Fergus, as head of the Chart- 
 ist riots, 208. 
 O'Keeffe, Father, case of, 295. 
 Oratory in the House of Commons, 45. 
 Orleans, Duke of, King of France, 368. 
 
 ' Pall Mall Gazettb,' extract from, 
 319. 
 
 Palmerston, Lord, his policy in the 
 l'2ast, 183-185 ; as Secretary tor For- 
 eign Affairs, 211; foreign poliry, 
 226; adheres to the retention of 
 Canada, o24. 
 
 Paris, treaty of, 1856, 366. 
 
 Parliamentary representation, 15; in 
 the time of Oliver Cromwell, 358. 
 
 Peel, Sir Robert, leader of the House 
 of^ Commons, 47; on the Catholic 
 Relief Bill, 48; policy pursued t«»w- 
 ards Ireland, 49, 50; on the LV- 
 forin Bill, 64; opposes the itetbnn 
 Bill, 75; refuses to accept ollice, 
 83; conduct compared with that of 
 the Duke of Wellington, 83; asked 
 to form a government and advises 
 dissolution, lOD; )x)sition in the 
 House of Commons, 109, 110; re- 
 signs, 111; his opposition to free 
 trade, 168; inauguration of new 
 Ministry, 171; success of his ad- 
 ministration, 172; dilfuulty wi h 
 Ireland, 172^ Maynooth Act, 173; 
 avcupts otlice, 1U2; taults of his 
 
INDEX. 
 
 389 
 
 policy, 193; concessions of, 195; 
 on repeal of the Coru-laws, 195; 
 resignation of, 198 ; su, porter of 
 free trade, 200; his views as to 
 educational societies, 309; chief 
 heads of his policy, 346; his Cabinet 
 rejects reform, 347 ; his imposition 
 of the income tax, 361. 
 
 Percival, Mr., author of the 'No 
 Popery' cry, 283. 
 
 Perratt, Baron, 317. 
 
 Philosophical Radicals on the expendi- 
 ture of the IState, 205; their defeat, 
 _ 206, 348. 
 
 Pitt, William, his sketch of a restored 
 Europe, 17; ideas of home policy, 
 18; objections to parliamentary re- 
 form, 30; policy, 194; Macaulay 
 on the conduct of, 213; his charac- 
 ter as leader of the House of Com- 
 mons, 219; encourages the Roman 
 * Catholics of Ireland, 278; letter to, 
 
 from George III., 279; differences 
 with Fox, 281; death, 282. 
 
 Pliny, l^roconsul of Trajan, denounces 
 Christianity, 132. 
 
 Plunket, Mr., his reputation as an 
 orator, 46. 
 
 Political affairs, 1701-1800, 216. 
 
 Poor Laws, 51-54; reform of, intro- 
 duction of bill by Lord Althorp, 96. 
 
 Pope on English commerce, 204. 
 
 Portsmouth, Lord, his letter regarding 
 tenants and landlords, 149. 
 
 Press, influence of Government over 
 the, 292. 
 
 Private bills, 289. 
 
 Protection of Life Bill, 198; division 
 on, 198. 
 
 Protestant Church of England, and 
 the doctrines of the Roman Catho- 
 lic Church, 129, 130, 352. 
 
 Protestant Church in Ireland, opinions 
 ot Mr. Gladstone on the, 284; Earl 
 Russell on, 284. 
 
 Puscy, Dr., his opinion on the judg- 
 ment of Mr. Gorham's case, 379. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quarterly Review,' extract from, 
 respecting Reform Bill, 36, 37. 
 
 Reform, notions prevailing about, 26; 
 opinions on, 26, 27; state of, in 
 1819, 28-40; Sir Francis Burdett 
 on, 30 i Mr. Lambtou on, 36; re- 
 
 jected by Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet, 
 347; jn the ap(jroaching sesfcious, 
 357 ; suggestions regarding future, 
 358; admission of householders to 
 vote in counties, 372; project of 
 Oliver Cromwell suggested as a 
 model, 372. 
 
 Reform Bill, supporters of, 38; for- 
 mation of committee, 56, 57 ; effect 
 of its introduction on the House of 
 Commons, 58, 59; second reading, 
 60, 63; Sir Robert Peel's opinion on, 
 64; discussions, 64; second read- 
 ing in the House of Lords, 65 ; Lord 
 Brougham's speech, 65; Lord Grey's 
 speech, 68; rejection in the House 
 of Lords, 70; revision of list of 
 boroughs, 72 ; steps taken for ascer- 
 taining the boundaries of boroughs, 
 72-74; disfranchisement of seats in 
 Parliament, 74; third reading, 75-, 
 finally passed in 1832, and results, 
 76; doubts regarding its passing in 
 the House of Lords, 77; alterations 
 proposed by Lords Harrowby and 
 Wharncliffe, 78 ; steps taken in the 
 House of Lords to procure a ma- 
 jority, 77-79; its passing, 79; in 
 committee, 79; an amendment, 79- 
 81; excitement in London respect- 
 ing, 84, 86; debate, 86; Sir Robert 
 Inglis on, 86; passes through com- 
 mittee, 89; receives the royal as- 
 sent, 89; Reform of 1867 and Min- 
 istry, 239. 
 
 Reformers compared with Ritualists, 
 352. 
 
 Religious instruction in Ireland, 135- 
 137. 
 
 Religious liberty, Corporation and Test 
 Acts, 186-188. 
 
 Revolutionary War, distinct periods of, 
 1,4. 
 
 Ribbon conspiracy in Ireland, 254. 
 
 Richmond, Duke of, resigns his seat 
 in the Cabinet, 101. 
 
 Ripon, Earl, his resignation, 101. 
 
 Ritualists, compared with reformers, 
 352; evidence of Scripture again.st, 
 353; defeated on the Bill of Judi- 
 cature, 379. 
 
 Robespierre, 368. 
 
 Roebuck, Mr., re-election of, 344. 
 
 Roman Catholic question, 40. 
 
 Roman Catholics, admitted to power, 
 195 ; history of the religion of, 258 ; 
 new franchise granted to, 298; 
 claims of the, 278, 283. 
 
 Roniiin Catholic Church in Ireland, 
 influence of the clergy, 257; rec- 
 ommendations of endowment of the, 
 
390 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 201 : Dr. Arnold's opinions, 2G2; ob- 
 jections to establishment, 20-} ; Bishop 
 J.UW on priests, 203 ; su<;^estions in 
 favorof the endowment, 2(ii; its pres- 
 ent state, 2iJ6: anecdote of a priest, 
 2,H') ; sufierings of parish priests, 290 ; 
 suggestions respecting, 2J7. 
 
 Roman Empire, morals of the, 131. 
 
 Home, the Church of, 321; its symbol- 
 ical worship. 349; its intentions, 
 351 ; its theologians, 353. 
 
 Romilly, Sir .John, introduces the 
 Encumbered Estates Bill for Ireland, 
 159. 
 
 Rosse, Lord, on Ireland, 244. 
 
 Russell, Earl, elected member of Parlia- 
 ment, 1; visits his brother, 8; at the 
 head-quarters of Lord Wellington, 
 8; bt't regarding the lines of Torres 
 Vcdnis, 9 ; in company with Lord 
 Wellington during the time of the 
 Peninsular War, 10, 11; meets Lord 
 \\cllington at Cadiz, 11; interview 
 •with Napoleon Bonaparte at Elba, 
 13; reform discouraged, 34; speech 
 on relbrm; 37; success of, 38; effects 
 of the introduction of reform on the 
 House of Commons, TjS, 59; second 
 reading of Reform Bill. GO, 03; car- 
 ried, in 1832, 70; and its results, 70; 
 speech upon tlie Irish Church ques- 
 tion, 97, 98; dissatisfaction regarding 
 speech, 99 ; offer of leadership of the 
 House of Commons, 107; leader of 
 the Liberal party, 110; speech on 
 the Marriage liill, 120; scliome of 
 education, 123 ; opinions on Encum- 
 bered Estates Act, ICO; takes interest 
 in colonial affairs, 102; colonial pol- 
 icy of, 102; PAotion on free trade 
 defeated, 109; relation to the Whig 
 party, 174; remarks on his parlia- 
 ijientaty work, J8l ; doubts about 
 the I'astom nuostion, 184; interview 
 with Lord >I('ll)(>urnc, 184; consults 
 Duke of Wellington iipon affairs, 
 18(i; considerations of, 180-188; and 
 corn dutii'S, 191; votes against Pro- 
 tection of Life hill, 198; his Minis- 
 try, 198; on free trade, 200; opposes 
 the Philosophical Radicals, 200 ; the 
 Chartist riotSj 207;is supported by 
 the House ot Lords, 20!t; enemies, 
 209 ; introduction of ICcclesiastiral 
 Titles Act, 210; caricature of, 210; 
 relation with Lord Palmcrston. 211; 
 resigns office, 2 1 1 ; letters regarding 
 Italian revolution, 229; foreign pol- 
 icy, 220; extract from speeches and 
 despatches, 220; interview with Mr. 
 Blason, 227; on the 'Alabama,' 228; 
 
 letter to Marquis d'Azeglio. 234; as 
 First Lord of the Treasury, 23tJ; 
 resignation as head of the Whig- 
 Radical party, 242; political charac- 
 ter, 285; hi*s policy, 347; his own 
 impression of his reception in public 
 life, 350. 
 
 Russell, Lord William, Lord Macaulay 
 on, 280. 
 
 Russia, her quarrel with Turkey, 221; 
 treaty with 1 urke}', 223; inientions 
 towards Austria, 337 ; power of, 
 304; her dangers, 305; objections 
 to Treaty of Paris, 1850, 366. 
 
 S. 
 
 Sacheverell clause, 339, 340. 
 
 Salisbury, Lord, advises railway along 
 the Indus, 305. 
 
 St. Juan, surrender of, 327; dispute 
 about bound. I ry line, 329; want of 
 policy on the part of the British 
 Government, 330-334; correspond- 
 ence between the two Governments, 
 331, 332. 
 
 Salt, Mr., his scheme of religious educa- 
 tion, 320. 
 
 Sawyer. Sir Robert, member of Parlia- 
 ment, 339. 
 
 Scotlan(l. jwlicy towards, 264; Union 
 of, 205 ; government of, 266; par- 
 liamentary representation in, 207; 
 political liberty in, 267; parliamen- 
 tary representation iu the lime of 
 Oliver Cromwell, 367; farming in, 
 300. 
 
 Scripture, ouoting of. in politics, 118. 
 
 Selborne, Lord, his opinions on Dr. 
 Williams and Mr. Wilson's case, 
 377; opposes the Bill of Judicature. 
 379. 
 
 Senior, Mr. Nassau, extract from his 
 Journal, 244. 
 
 Shakespeare's 'King Henry V.,' ex- 
 tract from, 200. 
 
 ' She Stoops to Conquer,' extract from, 
 344. 
 
 Shuttleworth, Sir James Kaye, ap- 
 pointed Inspector of lulucation. 309. 
 
 Sidniwiith, Lord, his means of discover- 
 ing insurrectionists, 24. 
 
 Slavery, abolition of, and grants to the 
 owners of slaves, 348 
 
 Sobral. description of the fort of, 9. 
 
 Somci-s, Lord, his speech on the Union 
 of Scotland, 205. 
 
 Somerville, Lord, 306. 
 
 Spanish Canon, anecdote of a. 851. 
 
 hpanish War, 5; opinions regarding, 7. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 391 
 
 Speeches and Despatches, vol. ii., ex- 
 tracts from, 226, 227. 
 
 l^^peiicer, Lord, 215. 
 
 IStael, Madame de, her designation of 
 the Tories of England,' 340. 
 
 Stanhope, Colonel -lames, conducts Earl 
 Kussell to the head-quarters of the 
 Duke of Wellington, 8. 
 
 Stanley, Lord, cliief secretary to the 
 Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, 56 ; a 
 staunch supporter cf the Kelorm Bill. 
 75; speech on the Coercion Bill, 
 92; appointed Secretary of State for 
 the Colonies, 94; retires from the 
 Cabinet, 101; on religious instruc- 
 tion, 308. 
 
 Stansfeld, Mr., his opinion of the Edu- 
 cation Act of ] 870, 311. 
 
 Stephen, Mr., his estimate of loss by 
 planters incurred by abolition of 
 slavery, 348. 
 
 Stopford, Admiral, at the taking of 
 Acre, 185. 
 
 Sugar duties, 190; division on, 199. 
 
 Sussex, Duke of, 300. 
 
 Swift, Dean, on the Duke of Monmouth, 
 343. 
 
 T. 
 
 Taylor, Sir Herbert, his influence 
 
 with the King, 88. 
 Taylor, Mr., his estimate of loss by 
 
 planters incurred by aboliiion of 
 
 slavery, 348. 
 Tenant-right in Ireland, LnrdGranard's 
 
 idea on, 145; custom of, in Lister, 
 
 146; unsuitable to Kerry or Cork, 
 
 140. 
 Tenants in Ireland, 300., 
 Thiers, M., form of government in 
 
 France, recommended b}', 309. 
 Tiorney, Mr., joins the Cabinet of Mr. 
 
 Canning, 44; on the dilHculties of 
 
 holding office, 211. 
 ' Times ' correspondent's report on the 
 
 Land q:;estion in Ireland, 148 ; 
 
 conclusions regarding Tenants and 
 
 Landlords, 150 ; and the Cabinet, 
 
 292 ; on the strength of the empire, 
 
 345. 
 Tippoo Saib on the British Army, 365. 
 Tithes, commutation of, 116; registra- 
 tion of births, 117. 
 Tithes in Ireland, speech by Grattan, 
 
 802. 
 Torres Vedras, head-quarters of the 
 
 Duke of Wellington, bet regarding, 
 
 9. 
 Tory pnrty, error of the, in 1815, 14; 
 
 separation under Canning, 44 ; rupt- 
 ure of the, 49 ; observations on the, 
 174; policy of, 194-196; changes of 
 policy, 197; opinions of, 210; chiefs 
 of the, 346. 
 
 Trajan, Emperor, treatment of Chris- 
 tians, 132. 
 
 Trench, Mr., on the Ribbon conspiracy, 
 168 ; extract from ' Realities of Irish 
 Life,' 246; his description of murder, 
 247. 
 
 ' Trent,' seizure on board the, 226. 
 
 Turkey, her quarrel with Russia, 221. 
 
 Turkish Empire, state of the, in 1840, 
 167. 
 
 u. 
 
 Ulster, custom of tenant-right in, 146. 
 
 United States, behavior to the British 
 Government, 226 ; ambition of the, 
 362 ; ' Buncome ' speeches in, 303. 
 
 University Bill, 292. 
 
 V. 
 
 Victoria, Queen, accession of, 186. 
 
 w. 
 
 Walcheren Expedition, 216. 
 
 Waller ou English commerce, 204. 
 
 Walpole, Sir R., his decisions on home 
 policy, 34; his character as leader of 
 the House of Commons, 218. 
 
 Warburton, Mr. Henry, letter of, 189 ; 
 gives advice to the Government, 
 189; suggests penny postage, 190. 
 
 Ward, Mr., his motion upon the Irish 
 Church question, 99. 
 
 Washington, Baron de Hiibner's opin- 
 ions on the treaty of, 323; opinions 
 of the public and the Americans, 
 324; points in support of .American 
 opinion, 325; British honor tarnished 
 by the treaty, 366. 
 
 Washington, George, his correspond- 
 ence with Lord Grenville, 331. 
 
 Wellesley, Lord, and Lord Wellington, 
 
 n. 
 
 Wellington, Lord, at Pero Nero, 8; 
 conversation regarding the holding 
 of Torres Vedras, 10 ; his conduct 
 during the Peninsular War, 10; dif- 
 ficulty with regard to the army in 
 the Peninsula, 11; coolness of, 12; 
 his policy towards Ireland, 49, 50; 
 
392 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 announces the fall of his povern- 
 nieiit, 51 ; his conduct couipared 
 with that of Sir Robert I'eel, 83; 
 offers to form a government, 83: 
 deputes Mr. IJarinic to form a gov- 
 ernmfent, 84; and tails. 87; iiis opin- 
 ion on the Chartist riots, 207. 
 
 Wiiarncliflfe, Lord, proposes alterations 
 in the Reform Bill, 78 ; his opinion 
 of the amendments to it, 81. 
 
 Whately, Archbishop, on the rending 
 of the IJible in National Schools, 234. 
 
 Whig opposition, 25. 
 
 Whig party, error of the, regarding the 
 Spanish War, 6 ; its state since 1688, 
 
 34; considerations on the. 34; ob- 
 jects un -er Fox, 35; changes arcnm- 
 plished from 1830-I8f>0, 174; its 
 recent downfall of power, 340, 
 
 William III , his management of 
 foreign and domestic affairs, 217. 
 
 William IV., his speech on the opening 
 of Parliament. 18{4, 94; death, ISO; 
 conduct duiing his reign, 186. 
 
 Williams, Dr.. before the .Judicial 
 Committee of Privy ('ouncil, 377. 
 
 Wilton, Henry Hristow, IJ.D., before 
 the Judicial Committee of Privy 
 Council, 377. 
 
 Wood, Mr. John, 321. 
 
 Cambridge: Press of John WUsoa aud Soa. 
 
HOME USE 
 
 CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 MAIN LIBRARY 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below. 
 1-month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405. 
 6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books 
 
 to Circulation Desk. 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior 
 
 to due date. 
 
 ALL BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO RECALL 7 DAYS 
 
 AFTER DATE CHECKED OUT. 
 
 BEC. CIR. FEB I ? np. 
 
 INTt:RLIBRARY LOAN 
 
 m. 6 - 1984 
 
 - UNIV. OF feAUtf.. flSttK- 
 
 WO 
 
 juH 3 mi 
 
 Lr)2 
 
 A-40mft.'75 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
GENERAL LIBBflBV-u.C. BERKELEY 
 
 
 "^Iria 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
*. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ) : 
 
 s I