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. had broken out in Canada.

Rebellion

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 arose 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 March 6, 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, either in consequence of internal disunion, which can never be made either adequate or satisfactory, or at a time of national danger and difficulty, which always looks like fear and shrinking from responsibility. But there may be no help for it.

Lord Howick gave way; and on January 16, after a short Christmas recess, part of which had been spent by Lord and Lady John and their children with the Queen at Windsor, Lord John was able to assure the House that the Ministry had decided on suspending the Canadian constitution for

four years, on sending Lord Durham to Canada, and on authorising him, in concert with any five members of the Council, to frame laws.

In this proposal the great majority of the House concurred. The resolutions which Lord John Russell proposed were adopted; a Bill founded on them was passed; and by the end of January the Ministers were able to devote themselves to the ordinary work of the session. Though the discussions on which they had been engaged had successfully terminated, the policy which the Government had adopted had increased the irritation of their more Liberal supporters. Men who were already dissatisfied with Lord John's so-called 'Finality' declarations were annoyed at the suspension of constitutional government in an important colony. They had soon an opportunity of displaying their vexation. On February 15 Mr. Grote, who is best known to the present generation as the historian of Greece, but who was regarded fifty years ago as the most earnest member of the Radical party, proposed a motion for the adoption of the ballot. It was almost impossible for the Ministry, after Lord John's speech in December, to do otherwise than exert its utmost strength in opposing it. Lord John, though he was far from well, came down to the House and spoke strongly against it, and the Ministry eventually succeeded in throwing out the motion by 315 votes to 198. Yet during the three years in which it had been in power it had never experienced a more significant division. The majority by which the Government was supported was largely composed of its usual opponents; the minority by which it was opposed consisted of its nominal supporters; and, to increase Lord John's personal difficulty, every one imagined that his own declaration had created the embarrassment, which was in reality due to the Prime Minister's reluctance to make the ballot an open question. Those, indeed, who were behind the scenes warmly approved Lord John's conduct. Lord Spencer wrote on February 20

The list of the division was awful. It was one of the many

things that disgusted me with politics, to see the selfishness of people. That a great body of men who feel and are convinced that it is of the utmost importance to keep your Government in power should do their best to throw you out on such a question as the ballot, merely because they will not hazard a little temporary popularity with their constituents, is too bad. I still am of opinion that the course you have taken will do you good and raise your character; for all, even of those who, like myself, approve of the ballot, must be pleased to see you take a firm and decided tone, and not allow yourselves to be driven about because those who ought to follow you want to lead.

Notwithstanding Lord Spencer's opinion, Lord John was naturally disgusted with the result of the division. It was reported all over the town that he had resigned.'1 The rumour reached his father, who was passing the spring at Nice, and who wrote and told his son that he had been informed that he had been out and in again, and that he was actually out of office for three hours. But neither the Ministry nor its leader was out. On the contrary, the Government was about to be placed more firmly in office by an indiscreet movement on the part of its opponents. Sir William Molesworth, representing the feelings of the extreme Radicals, proposed on March 7 a direct vote of want of confidence in Lord Glenelg, the Colonial Minister. He grounded his attack, not merely on the Canadian revolt, but on the general policy of the Colonial Office, and on its refusal to grant autonomous institutions to New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. Sir Robert Peel was unwilling to support such a motion, but, as his followers insisted on his seizing the opportunity of assaulting the Treasury Bench, he entrusted Lord Sandon with an alternative amendment, censuring the dilatory conduct of the Colonial Office, but condemning still more strongly the 'wicked and treasonable designs' of the insurgents in Canada. No fairer amendment was ever moved by an Opposition leader. It seemed to have been purposely drawn to prevent the Conservative party from forming even a temporary

1 Greville, 2nd ser., i. 61.

alliance with the Radicals, since it denounced the insurgents, whom the latter were disposed to favour, at least as vehemently as it censured the Minister whom they desired to condemn. Yet so strong was the Conservative phalanx in the Parliament of 1837 that the Ministry was in some apprehension of defeat, and Lord John himself told the Queen that he could not rely on a majority of more than fifteen. The result of the division was twice as satisfactory. The Government was supported by 316 votes to 287, and the unexpected success naturally increased the confidence of its friends. Lord Spencer wrote on the 13th of March

I flatter myself you will now get smoothly over this session. Your victory was decisive.

Fortified by their success, Ministers resolutely pushed on the Bills which they had decided on introducing. Foremost among them was the Irish Poor Law. And this measure the Government had the satisfaction of carrying very much in its original shape. But the Poor Law in a political sense was of less importance than the Tithe Bill, which had been the cause of the formation of the Ministry, or than the Municipal Bill, for the sake of which Mr. O'Connell and the Irish were ready to abandon the Appropriation Clause. For years these questions had occupied the time of the Legislature; and it was at least evident that, if the Ministry had been unable to carry Appropriation in the Parliament of 1835, it was hopeless for them to attempt to do so in the Parliament of 1837.

It was, however, almost as difficult to abandon the Appropriation Clause as to carry it; and Lord John thought that the possibility of doing so might be improved if some provision were simultaneously made for the Roman Catholic clergy. He suggested the alternative to the Viceroy at the close of 1837; and Lord Mulgrave saw Dr. Murray, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, and replied on the 23rd of December

I did not find that he personally saw the objections to the plan 1 Greville, 2nd ser., i. 76.