A

never so likely to be exemplified as at the present moment. very large party are prepared to be led by you, if you choose to lead them; and, with no other bond of union than that of turning out a Government which the Whigs consider most injurious to the country, they are prepared to submit to you. As a commencement you have directed a circular to be sent to all Reformers, and this among others has been sent to O'Connell, who in the excess of courtesy has informed you that he will attend your summons, and now and hereafter assist you in the objects you have in view, and for which you are asked to lead a large party of those opposed to the present Government. This is all that has occurred; for with respect to the packet of letters it was not sent in your name, nor are you in any way committed by it, as will appear by the enclosed, which, in consequence of what you told me, I procured in Cleveland Square. But really, if we are commencing an opposition to the Government by trembling at shadows and quaking at the names of O'Connell and every other Radical who may tender you assistance, our prospects of success will not be very promising, and I fear you will shortly find a very small body to lead. I wish you very

much to talk this over with Melbourne, and to consider well whether you will not give additional strength to the Radical party by separating yourself from them, instead of making them subservient to a certain degree, which they are now prepared to be. At all events consider well before you write, as you proposed to-day what must settle the business finally.—Yours truly, DUNCANNON.1

The enclosure referred to by Lord Duncannon was as follows:

that Mr. Sheridan thought that this conduct was usual with Whigs, as Lord Duncannon seems to imply. Lord Duncannon's letter is dated Tuesday; I assume Feb. 17, 1835.

1 It ought to be added that Lord Duncannon had, in the preceding January, been in private communication with Mr. O'Connell. But it appears from a correspondence between Lord Lansdowne and Lord John (which is among the Lansdowne papers) that these communications were made by Lord Duncannon without authority, and were not relished by some, at least, of the future Cabinet; and that it was practically decided that Lord John should confine himself to merely making such communications as could not be avoided, and that he should scrupulously abstain from intimate concert. Lord John in acknow ledging Lord Lansdowne's advice on Feb. 6, 1835, said that he did not think the line between necessary communication and intimate concert quite so broad an one' as Lord Lansdowne supposed.

Those copies of Lord John Russell's circular which were sent to the Irish members were forwarded to Mr. O'Connell, not by Lord John, but by Mr. Warburton, with a note from that gentleman requesting he would put the proper address to each and forward them by post. J. F. BROWNING.

Here, told for the first time, is the secret history of the so-called Lichfield House compact. It is evident that the overture, such as it was, was not made to Mr. O'Connell by Lord John; that, when he became acquainted with it, he was alarmed; and that but for the strong and, it must be added, very sensible, remonstrance of Lord Duncannon, he would have written to Mr. O'Connell in terms which would not have encouraged co-operation. Yet, if Lord Duncannon's views were founded on reason, unfortunately there were ample grounds for Lord John's uneasiness. The old Whigs, who were connected with Lord Grey, could hardly tolerate concert with the Irish. Lord Grey himself wrote:

...

HOWICK: Feb. 23, 1835.

MY DEAR LORD JOHN,—I have this moment received your letter. I can easily conceive that in many cases my views of what expediency requires might be modified or altered if I was on the spot. But there is one point on which my opinion and my resolution can admit of no change. I have already stated to you and to others that nothing could induce me to be a party to anything like concert or communication with O'Connell and the Radicals. . . . Though I agree with you, therefore, as to the propriety, I should rather say the duty, of acting upon the principles which you always professed, and not rejecting the support of those who are willing to assist you in measures prescribed by those principles, I could not read without the deepest regret, I might say with absolute dismay, the account of your having written to O'Connell, Hume, &c., to attend the meeting on the question of the Speakership. The view taken by Howick of these proceedings I entirely approve; and, though his motive for attending the meeting was such as I cannot condemn, I should have been better satisfied if he had adhered to his original intention of staying away. That he will do so, if unhappily any future meeting of a similar description should take place, I cannot allow myself to doubt.

Having said this, I willingly turn to a more agreeable topic, and I am sure you will give me credit for the sincere pleasure which I received from the accounts, sent to me from all quarters, of the success of your speech. Be assured there does not exist a more sincere well-wisher to your fame and happiness than myself. . . .-Ever, dear Lord John, yours most sincerely,

GREY.

The French saying, 'Ce n'est que le premier pas qui coûte,' might have told Lord Grey that concert once begun could not be abruptly terminated. Lord Tavistock, indeed, owned to Mr. Greville that the meeting at Lichfield House had alarmed and disgusted many of the old Whigs, and that it was settled that there should be no more such meetings. But if there were no more meetings the various sections of the Opposition agreed in giving a great dinner to their new leader.

There were two hundred and sixty present at Lord John Russell's dinner, and twenty more who were absent put their names down. O'Connell, who declared it was the most delightful evening he ever passed in his life, publicly acknowledged John Russell as his leader, and the Radicals were all present but Hume.1

The solitary absentee was meditating a new movement. 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:

1 Greville, iii. 238. Cf. Melbourne, ii. 100.

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.1 As the conduct of the more moderate 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

1 Lord John saw this distinctly enough at the time. Sir Robert Peel, on 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.

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 ... by the best evidence that can be procured on the spot. . . . 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 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, 1 Greville, iii. 222.

2 Hansard, xxiii. 800.