history conquering the anti-Saxon spirit of Ireland, and adding eight millions to the King's subjects.

From Darrynane to Brighton was a far journey. But there is some use in contrasting the opinions which were entertained at the Irish abbey with those which were expressed at the King's Pavilion. Writing on January 2, 1837, in a letter approved by the King,1 Sir H. Taylor, after alluding to the alarm and uneasiness with which William IV. regarded the character and proceedings of the General Association, went

on

His Majesty is sensible of the importance of municipal institutions and of the advantage which may be derived from the establishment of corporations in Ireland upon well-considered and safe principles. But, adverting to the general state of society in that country, to the religious differences which unhappily prevail, to the preponderance of a faith opposed to the Established Church of the realm, and to the influence actually exercised over the Catholic portion of the population, his Majesty conceives that a measure for which Ireland may not as yet be duly prepared ought to be approached with extreme caution; and, above all, that it would be desirable if possible to come to some understanding with those who so strenuously opposed the Bill last year, before another is introduced resembling it in its general features, and tending to produce much angry and eventually useless discussion. His Majesty cannot help suggesting whether this difficulty and renewed embarrassment might not be obviated by postponing the establishment of municipal corporations in Ireland until the introduction of a Poor Law in Ireland, and its operation, should have prepared and fitted the mass of the population in some degree for the enjoyment of another of those institutions which England conceives beneficial for herself. The King has learned with sincere satisfaction that on the subject of tithes your Lordship considers that, after the experience of the last two years, it would be useless and vexatious to propose a measure containing provisions exactly similar to those which, in 1835 and 1836, were rejected, and

1 In a few instances the King's letters to his Ministers are holograph. In many more they are in Sir H. Taylor's handwriting, but in the King's name. Most of them are from Sir H. Taylor by the King's order, but on the more important of these William IV. used to mark his approval by writing 'Approved. William R.'

that you are disposed to abandon the Appropriation Clause altogether, rather than again press on the two Houses a Bill which must ultimately fail.

Thus both at Darrynane and at Brighton there was a growing desire to abandon the question on which the Ministry had been founded; but Mr. O'Connell desired to thrust the Municipal Bill into the forefront of the battle, while the King was anxious to postpone its introduction to the distant day when an Irish Poor Law was passed and in operation.

Lord John forwarded Sir H. Taylor's letter to the Prime Minister, who returned it with the observation, 'I see Sir H. Taylor considers you to have decided upon giving up the Appropriation Clause.' But he made no remonstrance; and, as Lord John was detained at Oakley, where Lord Tavistock was residing, by his wife's illness, and the meetings of the Cabinet were consequently postponed, Ministers had no opportunity of considering the details of their policy till the eve of the session. Though the speech from the throne in 1837 recommended early consideration for the Irish Municipal Bill, the Irish Tithe Bill, and the Irish Poor Law, the Cabinet had not made up its mind how to deal with the second of these measures when Parliament met.

The Irish Municipal Bill was more forward, and a week after the meeting of Parliament Lord John, in asking leave for its introduction, made a great speech on Irish policy. Three thousand five hundred Irish Protestants had just met in Dublin, and had passed a series of resolutions denouncing Lord Mulgrave's conduct and the formation of the General Association. Lord John-quoting from a speech, in which Mr. Fox had avowed his desire that the whole Irish government should be regulated by Irish notions and Irish prejudices, and his belief that the more Ireland was under Irish govern

1 Lord Melbourne to Lord John, Jan. 5, 1837.

2 The King made an excuse of the Duchess of Gloucester's illness not to open Parliament in person. Lord Melbourne told Lord John that no King had ever stayed away before except on account of some personal infirmity of his

own.

ment, the more she would be bound to English interests— proceeded to argue that Lord Mulgrave had acted upon the principles laid down by Mr. Fox. The formation of the General Association was not due to any neglect on the part of the Irish Government, but to the conduct of the Tory party in the House of Lords. 'As the forcible phrase of Lord Plunket expressed it, in speaking of the Catholic Association, it is the spawn of your own wrong.' Lord John added:

Can we wonder at such things? . . . Your oppression taught them to hate your concessions to brave you: you exhibited to them how scanty was the stream of your bounty, and how full the tribute of your fear.

The speech gave infinite satisfaction to Lord Mulgrave, who sent at once from Dublin :

Just one line to say how delighted I am with your bold and brilliant speech.

Lord Melbourne awaited the result with some anxiety. Writing on the following morning, before he had read the newspaper, he said :—

I hope you have said nothing damned foolish. I thought you were rather teeming with some imprudence yesterday.

He had no reason to complain of his colleague when he had read his clear and vigorous defence of Lord Mulgrave's policy. Nor did he complain when, in winding up the debate, Lord John referred to the position of the Irish Church, and stated his intention of postponing any Bill on this subject till a later period of the session.

But no personal feeling of mine, no false pride on my part, shall stand in the way of a settlement of this great question.

Lord Melbourne at once put the natural interpretation on these words, and expressed his concurrence with them.

What you said at the end of the debate is understood to intimate pretty plainly the giving up the Appropriation Clause.1

1 Mr. Greville evidently understood Lord John's words in the same way. (Memoirs, iii. 388.)

Is it necessary to bring that question again before the Cabinet? I rather fear the wrong-headedness of some of them. It would be a pity, now that we are well launched before the wind with good principles, to run the risk of having our course interrupted by any foolish differences amongst ourselves.

It is clear, therefore, that, in the first ten days of February 1837, Lord John and Lord Melbourne were agreed on abandoning Appropriation, and on pressing forward the other Irish measures for the relief of the Irish poor and for the reform of Irish municipalities.

In accordance with this determination, Lord John, on February 13, introduced the Irish Poor Law. The speech in which he explained its provisions afforded a striking proof of his moral courage. Nothing that the Whigs had done was so unpopular as the Reform of the English Poor Law; and Lord John went out of his way to defend the principles on which the Act of 1834 had been based. Courage often succeeds where pusillanimity fails; and the House received Lord John's proposal with more favour than he had expected. The King wrote to him on February 14—

has been so well

He rejoices to learn that the measure received, in general, by the House of Commons. His Majesty derives great satisfaction from any proof that there may be questions of public interest and utility, the discussion of which is divested of that party spirit which unfortunately prevails to so great an extent at this period.

The preliminary success which was thus achieved was soon followed up. Four days later, on February 17, the House read the Irish Municipal Bill a second time without a division. On the 23rd it resolved itself into committee on this measure, after the Government had defeated a motion of Lord Francis Leveson's, supported by the whole strength of the Tory party, by 322 votes to 242.

Three days after this division, Miss Fox (Lord Holland's sister) wrote to a friend—

My brother is delightfully well, and Lord John's spirits rise with the occasion. His speeches this year are in the noblest

VOL. I.

T

style of statesmanlike oratory and enlarged views. You cannot imagine how high he stands, not only in the estimation of his friends, but in that of his enemies. It is quite astonishing to see the energy of mind overcome the weakness of his bodily frame.

The Government had not won so great a victory during the two years in which Lord Melbourne had held office. It was encouraged by its success to introduce its Church Rate Bill. Three years before, during the administration of Lord Grey, Lord Althorp had endeavoured to abolish church rates, applying £250,000 a year from the land-tax to the repair of parish churches. The proposal did not meet with much support. Nonconformists contended that there was no reason why the State should apply its resources to the support of an institution which, from their standpoint, was already too rich. The project was accordingly withdrawn; but, before its withdrawal, Lord John distinctly avowed his desire to maintain the Church, and his belief that all classes should contribute to its support.1

Lord John wished, in 1836, to deal with the subject on the lines which had already found favour with Lord Althorp. But the Cabinet was of opinion that it was unwise to touch it until the other measures of relief to the Dissenters and of Church

Reform had passed. Their passage would determine whether the Church had surplus revenues of her own which could be made available for the repair of the fabrics. If Parliament, after full deliberation, decided that there was no available surplus, its decision would afford a good reason for the proposed measure.2 In the result it was discovered that the bishops' estates, with good management, could be made more than sufficient for the income of the bishoprics; and the surplus, it was thought, could not be better applied than to the purposes for which church rates had been levied. The Ministry accordingly decided on a scheme of this character; and, as it was contrary to the opinion which Lord John had expressed, it was entrusted to Mr. Spring Rice. Its intro

1 Hansard, xxii. 1048, and xxiii. 507.

2 The opinion quoted in the text was Lord Palmerston's.