THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

437

two seats, in the boroughs seven. In Scotland they gained two, and in Ireland eight. On the whole, it was calculated that in the new Parliament Sir Robert Peel would command a majority of about seventy-six.* This, however, was not so much a triumph of Conservative opinion, as a censure upon the inefficiency of the Melbourne Administration, and a vote of confidence in Sir Robert Peel as the statesman best qualified to deal with the difficulties of the situation.

The new Parliament assembled on August the 19th, Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell meeting at the bar, and shaking hands "very cordially." Mr. Shaw Lefevre was re-elected Speaker without opposition; then came the Queen's Speech; the Address, and an amendment on the Address, moved simultaneously in both Houses, which expressed the alarm of Parliament at the continued excess of expenditure over income, promised a careful consideration of the interests commended to them, but declared that nothing could be done while the Government did not possess the con

"North of Trent the Whigs held their ground, but throughout the southern districts of England they were smitten hip and thigh from Lincoln to St. Ives. The adherents of the Government had to surrender something of their predominance in the boroughs, while those who sat for the counties were turned out in shoals. There were whole shires which sent back their writs inscribed with an unbroken tale of Protectionists. All the ten Essex members were Conservatives, in town and country alike; and so were all the twelve members for Shropshire. Before the Irish returns had come to hand, it was already evident that the Ministerial loss would be equivalent to a hundred votes on a stand-and-fall division. The Whigs had experienced no equally grave reverse since, in 1784, Pitt scattered to the winds the Coalition majority."-G. O. TREVELYAN, 'Life of Lord Macaulay, ii. 92.

438

ILLUSTRATIVE QUOTATIONS.

fidence of the House or of the country, and asserted that her Majesty's present advisers did not possess that confidence. In the Lords the Amendment was carried by a majority of 72; in the Commons, by a majority of 91. A quarter of a century elapsed before the Liberal party recovered from this defeat, and under the auspices of Mr. Gladstone resumed the work of reform, with a larger majority than, in 1841, supported Sir Robert Peel.

Sir Robert spoke at the close of the debate, following Mr. O'Connell, and some passages from his speech must here be quoted, in illustration both of his character as a statesman and his career as a Minister. With his crushing retort upon the Irish agitator it is not necessary to concern ourselves. His reference to the Corn Laws was an unmistakeable abandonment of the old Tory position::-"If you ask me," he said, "whether I bind myself to the maintenance of the existing law in its details, or if you say that such is the condition or compact on which the agricultural interest give me their support, I say on that condition I will not accept their support. I repeat, I must reserve to myself the unfettered power of considering details. Now, you are not satisfied, I know. The whole stream of obloquy that has been directed against me, and which, after an experience of about thirty years, has produced as little of irritation or of uncomfortable feeling in my mind as it would perhaps in that of any man, has flowed from this-that I will not now state what alterations I mean to propose. . . . I ask any reasonable man whether a more preposterous demand was ever made upon a public

PRINCIPLES OF CONDUCT.

439

man than that he should not only declare his preference of a principle, but explain to the whole world, and bind himself irrevocably to the mode in which he thinks to carry it out?"

In concluding, he said:-" With my views of government, with my views of the obligation which it imposes, of the duties which it entails, of the sacrifices which it involves, I am little disposed indeed to add to those sacrifices by accepting it with a degrading or a dishonourable condition. I am told, sir, that in the exercise of power, I must be the instrument of maintaining opinions and feelings which I myself am disposed to repudiate. I am told that I must necessarily be the instrument of effecting objects in Ireland which I myself disapprove. I am asked whether I dare affront my associates and partisans. The honourable member for Meath [Mr. Henry Grattan] alluded to the conduct of a public functionary in Ireland, who, he said, had offered an insult to the religious feelings of his fellowcountrymen, by some public act of a most offensive nature. I am not afraid of expressing my opinion with respect to acts like this; and I say at once, that there is no man in this House, no Roman Catholic member of this House, who could hear with pain deeper than I did, or deeper regret than I did, that a gratuitous and unprovoked insult, and an unnecessary insult, had been offered to the religious feelings of the people of Ireland. If I cannot gain power or retain it except by encouraging and favouring such feelings, I say at once, that the day on which I relinquish power, rather than defer to such feelings, will be a ten times prouder one than the day

440 RESIGNATION OF THE MELBOURNE MINISTRY.

on which I obtained it. If I do accept office, it shall be by no intrigue; it shall be after no unworthy concession of constitutional principle; it shall be by no unnatural and factious combinations with men-honest I believe them to be-entertaining extreme opinions from which I entirely dissent. If I attain office, it shall be by walking in the open light, and in the direct paths of the constitution. If I exercise power, it shall be upon my conception-perhaps imperfect, perhaps mistaken-but yet my sincere conception of public duty. That power, I repeat, I will not hold unless I can hold it consistently with the maintenance of my own opinions; and that power I will relinquish the moment I am satisfied that I am not supported in the maintenance of them by the confidence of this House and the people of this country."

The resignation of Lord Melbourne and his colleagues took place immediately upon this overwhelming defeat, and was announced by Lord John Russell in the Commons on the 30th of August.*

*The Melbourne Ministry fell without honour, and none but the hangerson of office regretted its demise. "Men had waited long," says Miss Martineau, "if not patiently, for this issue; and the general satisfaction was evident enough. Perhaps it was worth waiting so long to see the exhaustion so complete. It afforded every needful advantage to the incoming Administration; and it yielded a striking lesson to all governments and their constituents. No government had a fairer chance than that of the Whigs from popular and royal favour-no government had a clearer task to perform, or more aids and supports and stimulus in the performance; and, when it became apparent where the want of strength and clearness lay—that their principles were weak, their views obscure, their purposes fluctuating, their knowledge deficient, and their political honour relaxed— no ministry of such popular promise ever sank so low. It was well for the

LORD MELBOURNE'S CHARACTER.

441

political morality of the country that the case was so clear-made so clear at last by the suicidal appeal to the country in the elections. This clear exposition of the case might afford some reparation-the only reparation possible for the mischief of a long retention of office by men who could not, with all means of power in their hands, govern the country." One of its most illustrious members, Macaulay, expressed his satisfaction at a catastrophe which released him from "a Government wretchedly weak, and struggling for existence." Why was it so weak? Because it wanted a policy, and a leader, It lived from "hand to mouth;" always waiting, Micawber-like, for something to turn up: prolonging a miserable life by every kind of shift and expedient; bringing forward measures, not, apparently, from any firm conviction of their necessity or value, but because they seemed to catch some prosperous current of public opinion; and dropping them at anybody's bidding, without the slightest evidence of compunction or humiliation. The Premier and his colleagues were men of ability. A Cabinet could not be considered contemptible which included a Melbourne, a Russell, a Palmerston, and a Macaulay. But it wanted a leader; a man capable of giving a definite shape to the convictions of his colleagues, of possessing a clear and intelligible course of action; a man whose earnestness and intellectual power would be felt and acknowledged by the country. Not such was Lord Melbourne. A fine scholar, a consummate gentleman, a good debater, but nothing more, His procurantism was enough to demoralize any Cabinet. He was always for leaving things

alone. No doubt there are times when it is the highest wisdom to do nothing; but doing nothing always is not the statesmanship that recommends itself to the English people. And Lord Melbourne was dangerously fond of ministerial ease. As for his colleagues, who among them was fitted to guide and inspirit and consolidate a great party? Hence the wonder is, not that the Melbourne Ministry fell so ingloriously, but that it had not fallen long before. Lord Melbourne never again held office; in truth, he immediately ceased to occupy an influential position in the world of politics. The trusted adviser and political teacher of his sovereign, and the official head for years of the Liberal party-passed from the stage almost suddenly and noiselessly; and no one cared to ask what had become of him. So complete an effacement of a public man can hardly be paralleled in our history; and yet the reason of it is not difficult to discover. He had never represented a principle; his name was not associated with any great legislative achievement; and he had never exhibited any popular sympathies, A combination of circumstances had placed him in the premiership; but he had not won his way to it. It was not his by