With Lord John's concurrence, Mr. Hume proposed to curb the power of the Ministers by limiting the supplies. But the proposal raised fresh remonstrances among the old Whigs. Mr. Spring Rice declared that it was doubtful whether he could support the motion. Lord Grey, writing from Woburn, where he was resting on his way to London, said After you went I wrote to Howick, reporting very fully my feelings upon this matter. They are so strong that, if I were in the House of Commons, I should certainly both speak and vote against the motion. Lord John, after such communications, had nothing for it but to persuade Mr. Hume to give way. To quote his own words : A notion prevailed even among Liberals that Sir Robert Peel should have a fair trial; an advantage 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 supply would affect public credit and alarm the country. I therefore reluctantly renounced this intention. ... 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 crucis as the question of the Irish Church. Such was the account which Lord John gave in his old age of the motives which actuated him in 1835. He was probably himself aware in using this language that he attached a very different sense to the words 'a fair trial' from that which the Tories generally, and some of his Whig friends, applied to them. They wished that an opportunity should be given for 'trying' the use which the Minister would make of his accession to office. He, on the contrary, was determined to try whether Sir Robert Peel ought to be Minister at all. As the conduct of the more moderate Lord John saw this distinctly enough at the time. Sir Robert Peel, on Whigs made it hopeless to obtain this decision by a vote of want of confidence, or even by the refusal of the supplies for more than a limited period, no more fitting issue could have been raised than that which Lord John proposed. And, indeed, his own hands were to some extent forced in the matter. Mr. Ward, the author of the Appropriation clause, wrote to him on March 3 to announce his intention of proposing on the 12th a resolution asserting 'the right of the State' to appropriate the surplus revenues of the Irish Church to other than ecclesiastical purposes. Lord John was blamed at the time for replying rather shortly that he himself proposed to submit a motion on the subject.' 1 But the reply was surely wise. If it were desirable that such a motion should be proposed at all, it was right that it should be brought forward by the responsible leader of the Opposition. Yet there was a further difficulty to be surmounted. In the break-up of the Whig Administration in the summer of 1834, the Whigs had endeavoured to stave off disunion by issuing a commission of inquiry to ascertain what were the surplus revenues of the Church. Lord John had himself defended the necessity for inquiry. I want facts established procured on the spot. . by the best evidence that can be We wish to ascertain the numbers of persons belonging to the established Church, the number attending divine service, and the increase of the members of the established Church of late years.2 But at the beginning of March the commission had not reported; and, though Lord John through Lord Duncannon March 16, urged the Opposition to bring forward a vote of want of confidence; and Lord John, in reply, said that the ground on which the right hon. gentleman had stood ever since the formation of the Government was that, though the House might not give the Ministry implicit confidence, they were entitled to a fair trial, to be allowed an opportunity of bringing forward their measures;' and later on in the debate he divulged the open secret which was influencing him. If the Opposition had brought forward any direct vote of want of confidence, the right hon. baronet might have gained the votes of a great number of persons on the ground of being unfairly treated.'-Hansard, xxvi. 1030, 1031. Greville, iii. 222. 2 Hansard, xxiii. 8co. endeavoured to quicken its steps, the preliminary reports were not in the hands of the Government till the end of March, and were not ready for presentation for some time afterwards. It was open then for the Government to contend that the result of the inquiry was not known, and that the House of Commons had not the materials before it which would enable it to determine whether the Irish Church had any surplus. revenues. Yet Lord John was almost compelled to move; for the Ministry, which had already explained how it proposed to deal with the grievances of the Nonconformists by providing for their marriages and by the reform of the ecclesiastical courts, introduced on March 20 a proposal with respect to Irish tithes, and there was a manifest inconvenience in discussing the details of the Tithe Bill until the question of appropriation had been definitively settled. And in giving notice of his motion for a committee of the whole House on the Irish Church, Lord John had reason to hope that the first report of the commission would be in the hands of members before the day fixed for the debate; finding that there were some doubts on the point, he asked Sir H. Hardinge, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, a question on the subject; and as Sir Henry was unable to give him any definite information upon it he decided on postponing his motion for a week, while Sir Robert Peel undertook to defer the second reading of the Government measure until after the debate on Lord John's motion. The struggle which thus commenced has rather an historical than a biographical interest. After a four nights' debate Lord John's resolution was carried by 322 votes to 289, and the House went into committee. On the following evening in committee Lord John proposed a further resolution for the local application of the surplus revenues of the Church to the general education of all classes of Christians,' and the committee adopted the proposition by 262 votes to 237. On April 7 he proposed that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment which does not embody the principle thus laid down. The House adopted the new motion by 285 votes to 258, and on the following morning Sir Robert Peel, seeing that it was impossible to protract the struggle, resigned his office into the King's hands. As this struggle proceeded, it was evident that the interest which attaches to a personal contest had been restored to English politics. In former periods the rivalry of Sir Robert Walpole and Lord Bolingbroke, of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox; in the nineteenth century of Mr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh, had given zest to political warfare. But, from the death of Lord Londonderry in 1822 to the spring of 1835, a personal conflict of this kind had not existed. Mr. Canning and Sir Robert Peel were hardly ever pitted against one another as rivals; and, after Mr. Canning's death, Sir Robert Peel was the undisputed champion of the political arena. He could hardly find a foeman worthy of his steel.' No one could have foreseen that such an opponent would be found in the politician whose constitutional delicacy had constantly interfered with his Parliamentary attendance. Even Lord Melbourne, when he put forward Lord John as a leader, did not venture on disputing the King's objection that he would make 'a wretched figure.' He thought, no doubt, that he was playing the best card in his hand, but he had no knowledge that he was laying down the commanding trump. The months of February and March 1835 suddenly revealed the powers which Lord John had hitherto held in reserve. Called upon to command a disunited party, he succeeded in reconciling their differences and in leading them from victory to victory. And the success which he thus achieved was gained over no mere tyro like himself, but over the first Parliamentary statesman of his own time, and, as some men would say, the first Parliamentary statesman of any time. During the conflict both of the combatants showed themselves at their best. Sir Robert Peel, indeed, had never seemed so great as during his short Administration of 1835. The breadth of his policy and the skill with which he defended it were equally admirable. But Lord John made a more startling impression both on the House and on the country; for, while the leader of the Tory party had long been regarded as the first man in the House of Commons, the. great capacity of Lord John had been unrecognised or even unknown. What was thought of Lord John's conduct at the time may perhaps be shown from a single extract. Mr. Charles Gore, who almost immediately afterwards became his private secretary, wrote to him on April 8— Well and truly did Lord Wellesley say to me on Sunday, 'Lord John's conduct as leader has been admirable, and he has shown himself more than equal to so difficult a task. He possesses all the temper and tact of Lord Althorp, with ten thousand times his eloquence and power.' Foemen worthy of one another's steel are apt to rise in each other's estimation. It is pleasant to be able to say that the chief combatants in the political arena in 1835 maintained throughout the struggle a mutual regard, and the leader of one party came up to the leader of the other, shook hands with him, and congratulated him on his coming marriage.' For, though Lord John's nights had been given to the House of Commons, and though his days had been almost constantly occupied with seeing reluctant followers, and with framing and recasting critical resolutions, he had found time to engage himself to be married. Lady Ribblesdale, on whom his choice fell, was the widow of the second Lord Ribblesdale-a nobleman who died at a comparatively early age in December 1832-and the sister of Mr. Lister, of Armitage Park, Staffordshire, a gentleman well known in literary circles as the author of 'Granby,' and still better known, both in the world of letters and fashion, as the husband of Mrs. (afterwards Lady Theresa) Lister. By her first husband Lady Ribblesdale had four children. The eldest, Adelaide (now Mrs. Maurice Drummond); the second, Thomas, third Lord Ribblesdale; the third, Isabel (Mrs. Warburton); and the fourth, Elizabeth (Lady Melvill). Lord John had met Lady Ribblesdale for the first time at Torquay during the Devonshire election. Mr. Sharp, who was known in social circles as 'Conversation Sharp,' was passing the winter there with his ward, Miss Kinnaird, who was after 1 Moore's Memoirs, vii. 129. |