forward which I utterly disapproved of... then it was my intention, as it was my duty, whatever obloquy or whatever imputation might be cast upon me . . . not to withhold from the House the solemn and decided expression of my opinion.

Men of mark applauded the Minister's language. Lord Spencer, who had been informed of his intention beforehand,

wrote

I am delighted to hear your determination, but not surprised. I hope and trust you will swim; but, if you go down, it must be with colours flying.

And Lord Tavistock, who was personally prepared to go further than his brother, said with much truth

The more I reflect, the more I feel satisfied you did right.. No public man, especially in your position, can be efficacious but in proportion as his character stands high. In acting as you have done, you have put yourself on lofty ground, and I think you will find the benefit of it. Many people-narrow-minded and poor reasoners they must be-think you were imprudent and might have said less, that is, you might by some sort of shuffling, some ambiguity of expression, have evaded the question and thus put off the evil day. . . . What was to be gained by so doing? Who would have been deceived? Who satisfied? It is in all cases better to do early and from foresight that which we shall be obliged to do from necessity at last..... By drawing the storm upon your head a little earlier, you have probably saved yourself from much eventual embarrass

ment.

But the storm, while it lasted, was very severe. Lord John was taunted by the Radicals with betraying his party, and they thenceforward fastened on him the nickname Finality Jack.' Happily he could preserve his accustomed phlegm in cloud as well as in sunshine: and he received sympathy from an unexpected quarter. His old colleague, Lord Brougham, had been lashed into a fury by the neglect of his own claims and by the appointment of Lord Cottenham to the Chancellorship; and in this very session had indulged in an attack on Lord Melbourne, which induced the Prime Minister to retaliate in what Lord Brougham, writing to Lord John, called 'womanlike-Billingsgate-woman-like-language.' But he exempted Lord John from the indignation with which he regarded the

rest of the Ministry; and, after his first angry disappointment in 1835, resumed his former affectionate relations with his old colleague. The' caro Giovanni,' as he called him in 1828, became 'dear J. R.' in 1837. At this juncture some Reformers waited on Lord Brougham to ask him to preside at a great Reform dinner, and expressed to him their annoyance at Lord John's desertion of the cause. Lord Brougham, so he wrote to Lord John

distinctly denied all they urged as to you individually, and complained of the gross injustice of charging you, who were the stoutest Reformer of the whole, and one that had been the longest and steadiest in the cause and lent it the most effectual assistance.

In another letter he added

My sincere friendship for your family-to whom I feel a kind of allegiance on public grounds, and an affection founded on esteem and the most lasting gratitude on private grounds-prohibits me from closing this letter without expressing what I feel on the late unfortunate occurrences which bid fair to produce schisms that I had hoped might be escaped. All I will say is this-and I have again and again said it in your defence-if any one complains of a new light having been given by what you have now spoken, he is unreflecting and unjust. Let him rather complain of his own blindness. Neither you nor others ever did or said what was inconsistent with your present position. . . . But I must make one remark in addition. I have repeatedly warned some of your colleagues of the dangerous game they were, not playing themselves, but allowing others to play. . . . I mean letting their underlings and friends out of place systematically misrepresent them to keep the restive Reformers friendly or at least quiet. . . . I am beyond measure annoyed at seeing that the same kind of friends are at work even now drawing a distinction between you and your colleagues. My assertion everywhere is that, on the contrary, you are the stoutest Reformer of them all.

1 That Lord Brougham did not exaggerate may be seen from the following extract from a speech of Lord John's in 1834: Ministers proposed a . . . large and extensive Reform because it was more likely to be permanent than a less Reform. This was the ground upon which the Reform Bill was introduced; this was the ground on which he was now prepared to stand by it. He was not prepared for a measure which would carry Reform further' (Hansard, xxiv. 509). The language of 1834 was, therefore, exactly identical with the finality declaration of 1837.

While Lord John strenuously resisted every attempt to meddle with the cardinal principles of the settlement of 1832, he entertained a strong wish to improve the machinery of that Act. Bribery, unfortunately, had not been abolished by the Reform Act; and the old Grenville Committees were unable, and perhaps unwilling, effectually to repress it. Lord John, on November 25, 1837, circulated a memorandum in the Cabinet suggesting that election petitions should in future be tried by a court of five members selected by the Speaker from lists furnished to him by the heads of the Chancery and Common Law Courts. The Cabinet, however, was afraid of entertaining a project which deprived the House of Commons of the right of determining the validity of its members' elections and the proposal is chiefly noteworthy for the proof that it affords that Lord John in this matter, as on other questions, was a generation before his time.

Speeches on the Address and on the Report were only incidents in the preliminary battles. The three great measures affecting Ireland were still unpassed. The Queen had specially alluded to all three in the speech from the throne, and the Cabinet still desired to make a fresh effort for their passage.

And, at the end of 1837, there appeared fair reason for hoping that all parties, wearied with a protracted contest, were anxious to arrive at some reasonable compromise. The Duke of Wellington, in particular, instead of imitating the language of Lord Lyndhurst, had been careful to say that he was most anxious to concur in any reasonable measure for a final and satisfactory settlement.? Lord Melbourne, always ready to meet his opponents half way, wrote to Lord John on the 13th of August

Lord John wished (1) The Chancellor, the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron to name each three barristers properly qualified; out of the list of each the Speaker to name one, making in all four. (2) The same judges in like manner to name one person each, out of whom the Speaker to choose a president of the court. (3) The said five to form a court sitting in London for England, Scotland (?), and Ireland. The old Grenville Committees were finally abandoned in 1839 for committees chosen by a committee of selection; and the trial of election petitions was not referred to an extra-Parliamentary tribunal till 1867, thirty years after Lord John had brought forward his plan.

2 Hansard, xxxviii. 1682.

With respect to the measures about Ireland, I think we should so far concede to the Lords as to introduce them in the order in which they wish to have them. As they have professed a desire to settle all these questions, and as they hold that the Poor Law Bill and the Tithe Bill will afford them facilities for the Municipal Bill, I think we should introduce the Poor Bill first, which it will also in other respects be more convenient to do. Whether we shall persist in the Appropriation Clause or not entirely depends upon the feelings of our supporters. If they would have permitted us, I was for giving it up last session. It is one of those measures which looks specious at a distance, but which, when you approach it, vanishes into nothing.

Lord Melbourne's opinion was naturally adopted. On December I Lord John introduced the Poor Law Bill, and four days afterwards the Municipal Bill. But the House, occupied with the Civil List and matters relating to it, was unable to make any further progress with either measure before it separated for the Christmas recess; and on the eve of the adjournment news reached England which temporarily diverted attention from Irish affairs. Civil war had apparently begun in another part of her Majesty's dominions. Rebellion had broken out in Canada.

Discontent in Canada had been growing for half a century. After its conquest Lower Canada had been left under its old institutions, and, so long as the province was chiefly French, no material inconvenience had resulted. In the thirty years which succeeded its conquest, a large British immigration occurred. The new settlers clamoured for a change, and in 1791 Mr. Pitt's Administration gave them a brand-new constitution, consisting of a Governor, a Council appointed by the Crown, and an Assembly elected by the colonists. The Upper Chamber which was thus created soon became exclusively British; the Lower Assembly was chiefly French in its composition. A conflict soon rose between the two branches of the Legislature. The House of Assembly desired to obtain a more effectual control over the finances of the province. Finding its efforts opposed by the Upper Chamber, it demanded that the Legislative Council should be made elective, and, pending the acceptance of these demands, refused the supplies. It was almost indispensable to make some provision

for the deadlock which had thus arisen, and on the 6th of March, 1837, Lord John, in a speech of great length, proposed a series of resolutions, describing the difficulty that had occurred, resisting to some extent the claims of the colony, and applying certain of its revenues to the cost of civil government. Armed with the powers which the resolutions conferred upon him, Lord Gosford, the Governor of Canada, tried to induce the House of Assembly to give way. Failing in his attempt, he dissolved the Chamber. The dissolution led to riot and insurrection, the news of which reached England as Parliament was on the point of separating for the Christmas recess.

It was Lord John's duty on December 22 to refer to these bad news, and to state that, though they had not been confirmed by official despatches, the Government thought that it would not be justified in adjourning the House beyond the middle of January. Lord John's announcement was followed by a debate, which was practically closed by a second speech from Lord John, which Mr. Greville declared

was

just such as a Minister ought to make-manly, temperate, and constitutional. He is a marvellous little man, always equal to the occasion, afraid of nobody, fixed in his principles, clear in his ideas, collected in his manner, and bold and straightforward in his disposition. He invariably speaks well when a good speech is required from him, and this is upon every important occasion, for he gets no assistance from any of his colleagues, except now and then from Howick.

The speech was made under great disadvantages, for the members of the Cabinet were not agreed on the policy to be pursued. Most of the Ministers' were in favour of repealing an Act, passed in 1831, which had placed a great portion of the colonial revenues under the control of the colony; a few of them were in favour of suspending the Canadian constitution; while Lord Howick was opposed to both measures, and, Lord Melbourne had 'very little doubt,' would resign if either of them were adopted. The Prime Minister was full of anxiety. He wrote on the last day of 1837—

I have the greatest dislike to the Government's breaking up