income of capitular establishments to the general purposes of the Church; and a third discouraging pluralities. The first of these measures was passed in 1836; the two others became law in 1838 and 1839. In carrying them, Lord John might fairly claim that, if he had done more to satisfy Dissent than any statesman since the days of Nottingham, he had done more to strengthen the Church than any Minister since the days of Godolphin.

Well might Lord Western write to Lord John on the 20th of August

I congratulate you on the termination of this most arduous session. I think you have had more difficult cards to play than ever fell into the hands of any leader of the House of Commons, and I do sincerely think that you have done yourself immortal honour in the struggle. I have experienced great satisfaction in contemplating the course you have taken upon each successive very difficult question that has arisen, and carried through with so much discretion, temper, and ability.

But, though an English statesman or an English nobleman might contemplate the session of 1836 with satisfaction, no Irish politician could regard it with the same feelings. For it was unfortunately true that, if Ministers had experienced a great success in carrying their English measures, their Irish measures had met with a different reception. And, while from an English standpoint the statutes of 1836 could be accepted with pleasure, from an Irish standpoint the statutes of 1836 were not worth the paper they were printed on.

Lord John was, of course, the member of the Government directly responsible for Irish administration. In 1835 the Lord Lieutenant virtually acted under the Home Office, and the Chief Secretary was essentially Secretary to the Viceroy. The Home Office was the pivot on which Irish policy and Irish administration continually turned; and both on questions of policy and questions of administration Lord John was in favour of a change of system. The lessons which he had learned during his short visit to Ireland in 1833 had not been lost on him; and, while he was eager to do justice to religion

by curtailing some of the surplus revenue of the Church of the minority, he was equally anxious to do justice to Protestant and Catholic, landlord and tenant, by enforcing the ordinary law without resorting to exceptional measures of coercion.

The state of Ireland in 1835 was sufficiently anomalous. Roman Catholic Emancipation had been carried six years. before. But, with the exception of Mr. O'Loghlen's appointment in the previous autumn, no Roman Catholic had ever been placed in a prominent office. From the Castle to the constabulary all officials were tinged with Orangeism. It was the custom to hoist the royal standard at the Castle notonly to celebrate great days of public rejoicing like the birthday of the King or Queen, but also days of 'Orange' triumph, such as the battles of the Boyne and of Aghrim.1 Politicians in England watched with alarm the progress of the formidable association over which Mr. O'Connell presided. Politicians in Ireland regarded the Orange lodges as branches of a more formidable society. At the head of one association was Mr. O'Connell, Member of Parliament and barrister at law; at the head of the other was the Duke of Cumberland, the King's brother.

The first thing, then, to do to satisfy Irishmen was to show them that the Castle was no longer affected by a distinctly. 'Orange' policy. Much was done in this direction by the selection of Lord Mulgrave and by his conduct as Viceroy. But Lord Mulgrave saw from the first that a still greater change was required, and that it would be necessary to remove the Under Secretary. He endeavoured to secure a colonial appointment for him: he finally obtained for him the post of Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons; and he chose, as Sir W. Gosset's successor, Mr. Drummond, an Engineer officer, whose views were as broad as his capacity was large, and who is still recollected as the only official who has filled the post of Under Secretary and given complete satisfaction to the Irish people.2

: 1 Letter from Lord Mulgrave to Lord J. Russell.

2 Mr. Drummond, who, subsequent to his appointment, married the young VOL. I.

S

Mr. Drummond's appointment was only one symptom of a change of system. Up to 1835 troops had been sent in aid of any tithe-owner who apprehended disturbances in collecting his tithes. In 1835, Lord John expressed his formal concurrence with the views of the Irish law officers that 'the assistance of the military and police ought to be reserved for those cases where the attempt to collect tithe has produced riot or breach of the peace.' He went on to say that, where soldiers had been sent in England in aid of the civil power, he had 'specially warned the Lord Lieutenant and the Commander-in-Chief not to allow the troops to be brought within sight of the people unless actual rioting took place.' About the same time other steps of equal significance were taken, with Lord John's approval, by Lord Mulgrave: (1) Roman Catholics were no longer excluded from the lists from which the sheriffs were chosen; (2) a due proportion of Roman Catholics were selected among the solicitors appointed to conduct local prosecutions; and (3) pronounced Orangemen were removed from the constabulary.

The last of these three measures was exceptionally necessary. Nothing in Ireland was more deplorable than the organisation and activity of the Orange lodges. There were said to be 50,000 Orangemen in London, 350,000 in the United King.dom, and 12,000 in Canada.1 Still more alarming was the circumstance that lodges had been instituted in thirty or forty regiments on the authority of warrants from the Grand Lodge. At the close of the session of 1835, Mr. Hume had drawn lady who was intended to carry the umbrella at Lord John's wedding, is chiefly recollected for his famous apophthegm, Property has its duties as well as its rights.' How necessary such a saying was in Ireland may perhaps be scen from the following extract from a letter written in October 1835 by Lord Duncannon to Lord John: The county of Carlow is perhaps in the worst state in this part of Ireland. The contested election and an Orange gentry have evoked an excitement quite unparalleled. This has not been improved by Lord [I suppress the name] having turned off his property to-day 63 families, about 300 souls, on the single ground that they are Catholics. They had all paid their rent and were good tenants, but had voted for Vigors and Raphael.'

1 Sir R. Blennerhasset in The Reign of Victoria, i. 535. Sir R. Blenner. hasset thinks that historians have not paid sufficient attention to this remarkable organisation.

attention to the fact, and had asked the House of Commons to condemn it. The King, acquainted beforehand with the motion, declared that he had no doubt that it would be found that Mr. Hume had discovered a mare's nest. The debate did not fulfil the King's expectations. It was shown clearly that lodges had been formed in the army under warrants signed by the Duke of Cumberland. All that the Duke or his friends could allege in excuse was that warrants, signed by the Duke in blank, had been filled up by the persons to whom they had been entrusted in a manner which the Duke himself had not contemplated.

In these circumstances it became impossible to deny the existence of lodges in regiments, and strict orders were issued to try by court-martial any officer or soldier who belonged to an Orange lodge. The King, indeed, in assenting to this course, took occasion to condemn other societies which he perhaps thought would not be equally disliked by his Ministers. He wrote on August 7 that

He highly disapproves of all similar societies, whether Protestant or Catholic, including, of course, political and trades unions, and he sincerely wishes all could be put down by the strong arm of the law.

For the moment the matter dropped. In the recess Mr. Hume continued to urge Lord John to take further steps for the dissolution of Orange clubs, and at the commencement of the session of 1836 moved an address to the Crown for the removal of every functionary, civil or military, who attended the meeting of any Orange lodge or of any other political club. Lord John, rising immediately after the motion had been seconded, proposed an amendment praying the King to take such measures as he might deem advisable for the effectual discouragement of Orange lodges and of all political societies. Perhaps no speech in the House of Commons before or since has ever produced a more remarkable effect than that which Lord John then made. The leading Orangemen themselves,

1 The King to Lord J. Russell, July 18, 1835.

though they desired to exclude from the amendment any express allusion to their own organisation by name, yielded at once to the temper of the leader of the House. Lord Stanley congratulated his noble friend on the triumph he had obtained by the mild, quiet, prudent, and statesmanlike tone he had assumed on the occasion. Mr. Greville declared that Lord John had immortalised himself. His

speech, far surpassing his usual form, dignified, temperate, and judicious . . . drew tears from the Orangemen, enthusiastic approbation from Stanley, a colder approval from Peel, and the universal assent of the House. . . . In accomplishing this by moderate and healing counsels, by a conciliatory tone and manner, Lord John deserves the name of a statesman, His speech is worth a thousand flowery harangues which have elicited the shouts of audiences or the admiration of readers, and he has probably conferred a great and permanent benefit upon the country.

Whilst the King, who had now learned to regard his Minister in a very different light from that in which he looked upon him in 1835, highly approved

the very judicious course adopted by Lord John Russell. His Majesty does not think that, under all the circumstances which had led to the agitation of the question, the words 'Orange lodge' could reasonably have been excluded from the amendment, and his Majesty rejoices that the amendment was cárried without a division.

Thus, thanks to Lord John, a great step was taken in 1836 to reconcile Ireland. In the same session the House of Lords and the Tory party did much to widen the breach between it and England. The question of appropriation, which had been thrust into prominence in 1834, was now connected by the rejection of the Irish Municipal Bill with the question of local self-government. Irish politicians and Irish agitators were beginning to see that the second subject was of even greater importance than the first. The Ministers, however, could not yet make up their minds to sacrifice the measure on which they had come into office, and decided on re-introducing both the Tithe and the Corporation Bills. The Lords, under Lord