voured to restore the omitted clause in the Lords, but did not succeed. On the 29th of July the Tithes Commutation Bill went into committee. It was not to come into operation for five years, in order to give time for collecting the arrears due on the advance made by Parliament to the clergy. O'Connell proposed to give up the arrears, and let the bill come into immediate operation. This amendment was carried, and the bill was read a third time. The Lords threw it out. Protestant Ireland went into an ecstacy. Lord Winchelsea was invited over, and instructed Orangemen how to applaud at meetings by the "Kentish fire." A great Orange gathering met at Hillsborough. Sixty thousand Orange yeoman marched in military style. "Before the Orangemen of Ulster," said the Standard, "O'Connell and his followers will not stand a week." "The Protestants of Ulster," said the Times, "constitute a tremendous military force, and will be able to defend themselves." No person thought of attacking the Protestants of Ulster. Their English friends always teach them to regard any constitutional measure that does not please them as an armed invasion. They were now triumphing over a popular defeat.

On the 14th of November Lord Althorp succeeded to the House of Lords as Lord Spencer, and the King took the occasion of dismissing the Melbourne Ministry. Peel became Prime Minister, the Earl of Haddington Viceroy, and Sir Henry Hardinge Chief Secretary.

On the 18th of December a large force of military and police proceeded to collect tithes to the value of forty shillings from a widow at Rathcormack. A desperate and long-contested fight took place, in which twelve peasants were killed. A thrill of varied emotions passed over the country; but the most significant fact, and that which left the deepest impression on all minds, was that the country people stood the fire and charge of the soldiery with indomitable determination. A general election took place, and the new Parliament met early in 1835. By O'Connell's aid a Whig Speaker, Abercromby, was elected. Sir H. Hardinge brought forward a Church Reform Bill almost identical with that rejected by the Lords. But the Whigs and Radicals were determined to drive Peel from office, and took combined action for that end. Lord J. Russell moved for a Committee of the whole House to consider the temporalities of the Irish Church, and proposed that the surplus revenues should be applied to some popular use. This motion passed, but not till two further resolutions affirming secular appropriation were carried did Peel resign.

Lord Melbourne received the King's command to form an administration. Rumours reached the Palace that O'Connell was to be appointed Irish Attorney-General.1 The King's anger was uncontrollable. Melbourne assured him there was no such intention. The intolerance of O'Connell was by no means confined to the King. Lord Lansdowne afterwards stated that Mr. T. Grenville, with whom he was on intimate terms, wrote to him, saying he regretted he could no longer visit at his house, lest he should run the risk of meeting O'Connell. He ran no risk whatever of meeting O'Connell at Lord Lansdowne's. It appears, however, that Lord Mulgrave, the Viceroy, had led O'Connell to expect that he would

1" Life of Lord Melbourne," vol. ii., p. 118.

be offered the Irish Attorney-Generalship, and that the Irish leader had already framed his policy and course of conduct in the discharge of that office. He had directed his son to find a suitable mansion where he might dispense the wide hospitality that would help to effect and demonstrate the effacement of religious feuds. He was fitted beyond all other men for the office of Attorney-General, and the duties he associated with it. The Ministry owed its existence to his honesty and influence. His power in Ireland was unexampled. He would lose the annual tribute which the people raised for him since he gave up his practice at the bar, and in 1834 it amounted to £13,000, and the Union would have gained the confidence of the people. Humiliation of the man was preferred to conciliation of the nation. When word was brought that he must waive his personal claims, or that the chance of forming a ministry must be abandoned, he did not conceal his disappointment. He owned that he had dwelt with satisfaction on the effects his assumption of office would produce. He had longed for the opportunity of proving to the Protestants of Ireland, by deeds and not by words, that he would do them justice. He now patiently, and to men's eyes cheerfully, submitted to his exclusion, and took his seat on the Ministerial side, where he continued for six years. In June, 1836, Lord Morpeth introduced a fresh bill commuting tithes to a rent charge, and containing the previous appropriation clause. It was read three times in the Commons, and rejected by the Lords. In April the next year, Lord Morpeth again passed his bill through the Commons. The Lords rejected the appropriation clause. In May, for the fifth time, he brought it forward, without the appropriation clause, but with a proposal to impose a tax of ten per cent on the clergy for educational purposes. O'Connell acquiesced. The bill had reached a second reading, when the King died, and Queen Victoria ascended the throne. The new Parliament met February 21st, 1838. Government declared themselves content to introduce a bill for the mere conversion of tithes to a rent charge. O'Connell assented, and proposed that the arrears then due should be remitted by applying the million loan to their discharge, thus making it a gift to the clergy. This was agreed to. This was agreed to. So the Tithes Commutation Bill became law.

SECTION X.

For the present nothing was gained, but much was lost to the national cause, by the Tithes Commutation Act. The Protestant Church was no longer allowed or compelled to collect its tithes from a Catholic people. Herein was acknowledged the injustice of such an impost. But the collection was continued in a new and unassailable form. The thing that was admitted to be wrong was enthroned by the side of rent. If tithes had been wholly abolished, their amount would have been added to the landlord's receipts. Unless we extricate ourselves from the entanglements and absorbing interests of the special contest, unless we keep ourselves aware that the result of the long conflict may be a present loss, and can only turn out to be a gain in the distant sum of events, we shall never understand Irish history, or any history. O'Connell is reported to have

HOW THE WORLD ADVANCES.

15

said that by throwing the burthen of the Church on the landlords its final overthrow was ensured. There is much apparent truth in the cruel taunt that is always reiterated about a people agitating for redress, that they do not know what they seek, and that they hold erroneous notions concerning the particular object for which they are sacrificing their peace. Through the reform struggle most of the Scotch members took the hostile side. One of their favourite topics was the unfitness of the people of Scotland for the elective franchise. Sir William Rae told the House of Commons that his countrymen could never be trusted with popular election, because they could never assemble without bloodshed. Sir Charles Forbes testified that they were so ignorant that they neither knew what reform nor what representation meant; and a noble duke asserted in the Lords that the people of Scotland were only interested in reform because they thought it would give them "free whisky." Lord Malmesbury tells us that the English lower classes were similarly ignorant and deluded; that they were convinced that the Reform Bill would alter their whole condition; that servants left their places, feeling sure they need never serve again; and that marriages were put off until the redemption of the poor from poverty was effected. The tithe and repeal contests in Ireland were constantly assailed with charges of this kind. The people could gain nothing by the abolition of tithes ; they did not know what repeal meant. Those shallow mockings are founded on the assumption that human progress must be the result of provident self-interest. If we desire to purify and elevate our conceptions of man, let us compare the lives and fortunes of any dozen individuals who have risen to power and influence through politics in our own times, with the fate of the multitudes who have borne the brunt and burthen of the fray. If the latter did not know what they were contending for, the former did. How far does their knowledge go to establish their superiority? We basely conclude that men do not know what they are seeking for unless they are fighting for some personal advantage; if they are merely labouring for fair play and justice and truth, we conclude it must be in ignorance. There is no more reassuring spectacle to any one who desires to profit by it, than the populations of England and Ireland giving themselves to toils and losses for triumphs which leave their condition almost unchanged. Their sorest discouragement is when they see men leaving their side for honours and preferments which are no gain to the cause, and cast a doubt on the purity of its motive. Tithes Commutation Bill, without the appropriation clause, was, for the moment, victory to the Lords, security to the Church, surrender on the part of the Ministers, and ground of accusation against O'Connell. was carried amid a tempest of passions. It was a war of words, and every word was a fulmination of explosive rage. The combatants have passed away, but the air is still heavy from the discharge of that baleful artillery, and the firmanent still echoes the threats, the insults, the shouts of defiance, that characterised the combat. The host of Tory and Orange factions fought against one man. How great his strength and daring must have been appears not only from the greatness of the 1 "Cockburn's Journal," vol. i., p. 8.

2 "Lord Malmesbury's Memoirs,” vol. i., p. 38.

The

It

multitude he withstood, but from the fact that so many struck at him without shame or compunction. Fear of him conquered the fear of the condemnation of future times. How had he offended? He was striving to unite a divided kingdom and to efface a crime, not by vengeance or reversal, but by restoring the victims to equality with those who did the wrong. Here are his words: "I want to unite together in one indissoluble bond, based upon the principle of equal rights and privileges, the people of England, Ireland, and Scotland." "I have considered repeal as a means to an end; that end I am now looking for by other means." That end was equal union, and he was now seeking to accomplish it by aiding the party that represented the Liberal hopes and instincts of England.

SECTION XI.

For accepting his aid the Ministry was reviled, and O'Connell was execrated in England, and suspected by some of his friends in Ireland. When Peel was Premier, in 1835, all the Liberal sections came together, and agreed to follow a common course of action. They met at the house of Lord Lichfield, and O'Connell promised his support. The alliance was therefore called the "Lichfield House compact," and as O'Connell was understood to be a party to it, common opinion assumed it to be an agreement between the Government and O'Connell. The people of Ireland were proud of their champion's achievement, and as Lord Mulgrave, the new Viceroy, was supposed to have negotiated the alliance, he was received in Ireland with enthusiastic welcome. This was the very end which a wise statesman would have aimed at. Thus the Union would be made valid. "The reconciliation of the Whigs with O'Connell was perfectly legitimate, as it amounted to no more than an understanding that in consideration of a Liberal policy towards Ireland he was to support them. The Tories had no right to taunt the Whigs with trying to please O'Connell, as they were eager at all times to co-operate not only with ultra-Radicals, but with Chartists."1 "Compact there was none, but an alliance on honourable terms of mutual co-operation undoubtedly existed." But what evil meaning is there in the words "Lichfield House compact," that their mere sound should contain a rebuke, an exposure, a deadly accusation? The words are harmless, but jealousy and hatred of O'Connell and Ireland gave them malevolent import. This simple fact explains what the Irish Union and representation in Parliament were intended and understood to be. It was never meant that the Irish members should have the rights of membership, or enter into the general transaction of business, or have any weight in the balance of parties. Curran had correctly calculated English expectations when he spoke of "fifteen or twenty Irish members, who might be found every session sleeping in their collars under the manger of the British Minister." But this could not be when O'Connell entered the House of Commons. He was the most powerful man there. The meaning of the Union with England, in its obvious and equitable sense, was that in the forming of

1 "Life of Lord Campbell," vol. ii., p. 156.

2 "Earl Russell's Recollections and Suggestions," p. 135.

On

ministries, and framing of policies, and general transaction of government, ability and influence, wherever they came from, should take their level. The instant this claim was supposed to stand good in the case of Irishmen, the Tory faction burned with fury. They could not openly say that the Irish had no rights, and that their interference in Parliamentary government was an intolerable intrusion; but they knew that this sentiment would be understood, and they loaded the words "Lichfield House compact" with it, and so made them a bludgeon with which to brain their adversaries. It was O'Connell who, by his presence in Parliament, brought the true relations of England and Ireland into light. He claimed equal privileges for Irish members as for English, and if they were not granted he demanded the restoration of the Irish Parliament. It has been the careful policy of the Conservatives to keep the former alternative out of view. His claims for equality could not be refuted, because he was more than their equal in his own person; so all that remained was to crush and silence him. In 1837 an association was formed in London to raise subscriptions for the purpose of furthering petitions against Irish elections. A special effort was proposed for expelling O'Connell from Parliament. The danger of an undertaking of this kind lay in the notorious partiality of the election committees. the 21st of February, 1838, at a dinner given to him at the Crown and Anchor, O'Connell spoke of the feul perjury committed in the Tory committees of the House of Commons. Lord Maidstone, the eldest son of Lord Winchelsea, brought this language before the House of Commons, and moved that it was a false and scandalous imputation on the honour of the House. Everyone knew that the imputation was literally true, and that it had been expressed by many other persons in still stronger language. Yet the motion that O'Connell should be reprimanded was carried by 226 to 197. The Conservatives came in crowds to see his humiliation. They merely blunted the edge of words of censure, as has since been done with terms of criminal condemnation. O'Connell made the occasion one for proving his statements. Six weeks after, a member who was unseated on petition wrote a letter to the Morning Chronicle, in which he said that the majority of the committee before whom his case came were the "most corrupt that ever degraded the administration of justice and the name of the Commons of England." The letter was brought before the House, and the Tories carried their proposal by so small a majority that the subject was not renewed. In this year, on the death of Baron Joy, the Mastership of the Rolls was offered to O'Connell. The post was held by O'Loghlen, who took it with the understanding that he might, at a future time, be expected to vacate it in O'Connell's favour. O'Connell now declined it, and there can be no doubt that his main objection was that he thought he could better serve the Liberal cause out of office.1

SECTION XII.

A Poor-law and a Municipal Reform Bill, which had gone through their first stages in the preceding reign, were finally carried in the first year of Queen Victoria. The circumstances that made poor-laws neces

1 "Greville's Memoirs," part 2, vol i., p. 101.