out the house, when was witnessed-what never occurred before or since, in the writer's experience—a suspension for a few minutes of all attention to the business of the House, whilst every member was engaged in close and earnest conversation with his neighbour. The intelligence had arrived of the abdication and flight of Louis Philippe, and of the proclamation of the Republic. . The writer of these pages was sitting by the side of the late Mr. Hume when the tidings reached their bench. Sir Robert Peel was on the opposite front seat, alone, his powerful party having been broken and scattered by his great measure of Corn Law Repeal. 'I'll go and tell Sir Robert the news,' exclaimed Mr. Hume, and stepping across the floor, he seated himself by his side and communicated the startling intelligence. On returning to his place, he repeated, in the following words, the commentary of the ex-minister: This comes of trying to carry on a government by means of a mere majority of a chamber, without regard to the opinion out of doors. It is what these people (pointing with his thumb over his shoulder to the Protectionists behind him) wished me to do, but I refused.'"

66

Dread of Office.-Mr. Charles Greville wrote in his Journal, under date Feb. 15, 1847: Arbuthnot [the Duke of Wellington's secretary and confidant] said he was quite sure Peel would never come into office again. He gave me a more detailed account of his parting request to the Queen, when he said, after begging her never to ask him to take office again, that he could not help remembering that Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Canning had all died in office, and victims of office; that he did not dread death, and this recollection would not deter him; but when he recollected also that Lord Castlereagh and Lord Liverpool had also died in office, the one a maniac and the other an idiot, that recollection did appal him, and he trembled at the idea of encountering such a fate as theirs."

"The Greatest Member of Parliament."-Mr. Disraeli, who had done so much to overthrow the Minister, nevertheless thus wrote of him in his "Life of Bentinck," published soon after Sir Robert's death: “One cannot say of Sir Robert Peel, notwithstanding his unrivalled powers of despatching affairs, that he was the greatest Minister that this country ever produced, because, twice placed at the helm, and on the second occasion with the Court and the Parliament equally devoted to him, he never could maintain himself in power. Nor, notwithstanding his consummate parliamentary tactics, can he be described as the greatest partyleader that ever flourished among us, for he contrived to destroy the most compact, powerful, and devoted party that ever followed a British statesman. Certainly, notwithstanding his great sway in debate, we cannot recognise him as our greatest orator, for in many of the supreme requisites of oratory he was singularly deficient. But what he really

was, and what posterity will acknowledge him to have been, is the greatest member of Parliament that ever lived. Peace to his ashes! His name will be often appealed to in that scene which he loved so well, and never without homage even by his opponents."

SIR JAMES GRAHAM.

(1792-1861.)

The Child Father of the Man.-As a boy (says Professor Pryme) Graham exhibited the future bent of his life. When other boys were choosing what they would be, he would say, "I will be a statesman." A stone is still shown in his native village on which the youthful politician stood and harangued his playmates.

A Contemptuous House.-Mr. Graham was first returned for Hull in 1818, at the age of twenty-six. His election cost his family 60007. His first appearances in the House were failures. Among his carly displays was a speech with regard to a bill which had been introduced to prevent any person not an inhabitant or freeman of a town from taking part in its political meetings. Mr. Torrens says: "Mr. Graham wished to know if a member who sat for a borough of which he was neither an inhabitant nor freeman would come within the mischief of the Act? He paused to listen for the report of his shot; but few were attending, and nobody cried 'Hear.' He looked to see if it had hit, but the under-secretaries were talking to one another on the Treasury bench, and Lord Castlereagh was occupied in smelling the hot-house flower in his button-hole. Mr. Graham repeated his question in other words, but with no better effect. He felt half vexed with himself at having got up, but he was up, and must go on; so he thought he would argue the point. The case was not an imaginary one, he said, for it was his own, as he happened to sit for a borough of which he was neither a freeman nor an inhabitant, and of which he was not likely to become either, having no connection with the place. At this unlucky proffer of irrelevant information he heard, or thought he heard, something like a suppressed laugh. He felt himself getting confused, a little at first, and then very much so. For a few minutes he rambled on through commonplace and reiteration, but no timely cheer came to his rescue, and he sat down without any distinct recollection of what he had said or what he had intended to say. Mr. Henry Lascelles, who sat opposite, whispered to a mutual friend, 'Well, there is an end of Graham; we shall hear no more of him.""

His later Appearances.-Very tall in person (says Mr. Maddyn), "with a handsome and intellectual countenance, Sir James Graham possessed great advantages for addressing an aristocratic assembly. His manner, at first, was apparently so mild that in commencing one of his elaborate attacks, the hearer could scarcely conceive how much hoarded ammunition was about to be exploded, with the certainty of doing dreadful damage to his adversaries. When just about to make a spring upon his political foe, there was an air of drawing-room lassitude about the wily descendant of the Græmes that reminded one of his ancestors; sudden in attack, and about as merciless as sudden. Standing at the table in the calm attitude of a Mayfair fine gentleman, who could have expected so much fierceness of nature to dwell within that breast?"

"Hats Off!"-On the 20th of June, 1837, the King died at Windsor;

and on the same day both Houses met for the purpose of taking the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. On the following day Lord John Russell appeared at the bar of the Commons charged with a message from the Queen. A cry instantly arose (says Torrens) of "Hats off!" and the Speaker, forgetful for the moment of the precise usage on such occasions, announced from the chair that "members must be uncovered." Everyone present forthwith complied, with the exception of Sir James Graham, who excited some observation by continuing to wear his hat until the first words of the message were pronounced. As nothing at the time escaped the vigilance of party criticism, a paragraph appeared the same evening in the True Sun, reflecting on the supposed indecorum. At the meeting of the House next day the right honourable baronet called attention to the fact, for the purpose of explaining that he had only complied with the older, and, as he thought, better custom, of waiting until the initiatory word " Regina," or Rex," was uttered before uncovering; a mode of testifying respect for the Crown which was more emphatic, and which had, he thought, a better effect. The Speaker said that the honourable member for East Cumberland was correct in his observance of the practice of the House; and he accounted for his own apparent deviation therefrom by his desire to preserve order and to save time.

66

Opening of Letters by the Home Office.-In June, 1844, Mr. T. S. Duncombe presented petitions to the House of Commons from several gentlemen, one of whom was M. Mazzini, complaining that their letters had been delayed and opened by the Post Office authorities, and praying for a committee of inquiry on the subject. Sir James Graham, who was then Home Secretary, said that power was given to the Secretary of State by statute to open letters passing through the Post Office, and he had given his warrant in the case of one of the petitioners accordingly. Sir Robert Peel defended the action of his colleague, by saying that Fox and Grenville had exercised the same power. There was a strong feeling in the House, however, against it, and a motion which virtually amounted to want of confidence in the Ministry was defeated only by 206 against 162. Eventually the Government agreed to the appointment of secret committees of both Houses to inquire into and report upon the subject. It appeared from the reports presented that the power in question was exercised under the statute 9th Anne, cap. 10, which directs that no letters sent by post should be opened or delayed without an express warrant under the hand of one of the principal Secretaries of State; and 1st Victoria, cap. 36, which contains a similar direction. The Lords' committee reported that 182 warrants had been issued since 1822, and added that "the issue of six or seven warrants annually upon a circulation of 220 millions of letters cannot be regarded as materially interfering with the sanctity of private correspondence." The Commons' committee found that "the last two warrants rested on grounds connected with the personal safety of a foreign sovereign (the Emperor of Russia) intrusted to the protection of England," and added, "It appears to your committee that under circumstances so peculiar, even a slight suspicion of danger would

justify a minister in taking extraordinary measures of precaution." Information obtained from some of the opened letters, respecting an intended insurrection in Italy, was found by both committees to have been communicated to a foreign power, but "it was not (added the Commons) of a nature to compromise the safety of any individual within reach of that power, nor was it made known to that power by what means that information had been obtained." The matter excited great commotion in the country, and for some time afterwards envelopes and seals, with such mottoes as "Not for Sir James Graham," were commonly exhibited for

sale.

up

Disposing of "Hansard."-In 1846 Sir James Graham had made up his mind to defend a Corn Law no more. Sentence after sentence and phrase upon phrase, which had fallen from him in the heat of rhetorical indiscretion in the days when he sat on the left of the Speaker's chair, were now dug up out of "Hansard," and flung at him by exasperated Protectionists, amid the angry cheers of those around him, and the loud laughter of those opposite. But he had anticipated this, and had made his mind how to deal with it. When challenged by Mr. Stafford to say whether or not he had changed his opinion, he replied, "I freely admit that past declarations of opinions made by members of the House who have subsequently arrived at power, or who aspire to power, much more the declarations made by the First Minister of the Crown, if at all at variance with the course which he has subsequently pursued, are subjects worthy of reference, and which call for explanation. The honourable member for Northamptonshire made a direct appeal to the Government, and challenged us, if we had changed our opinions, manfully to own it. I answer that challenge. I do frankly avow my change of opinion, and by that avowal I dispose of whole volumes of 'Hansard,' and of all the charges which have been made on the ground of inconsistency."Torrens.

Altered Circumstances.-When addressing the House one evening on the oft-debated subject of the connection between the rate of wages and the price of food, Sir James reiterated his declaration that experience had convinced him that the former had a constant tendency to rise as the latter fell. Lord George Bentinck, who was sitting on the front Opposition bench below him, threw back his head, and looking round at him exclaimed, "Ah! but you yes; know you said the other thing before." A shout of laughter, in which Sir James joined, was followed by cheers and counter-cheers, and curiosity was on tip-toe for the retort. From his perch, as he used to call it, the ex-minister looked down at his noble antagonist, and said, in a tone of ineffable humour, "The noble lord's taunts fall harmless upon me; I am not in office now."—Ibid.

Curliness and Sarcasm.-On the vote of want of confidence which defeated Lord Derby's Ministry in 1859, Mr. Disraeli referred to a speech Sir James Graham had made at Carlisle during the recent general election, while introducing a young relative* as a candidate for that

* Mr. (afterwards Sir Wilfrid) Lawson.

borough. He affected to understand Sir James's remarks, when he read them, as coming from this young candidate, and said: "When I read that charge upon the Ministry, which was made without the slightest foundation, and with a bitterness which seemed to me to be perfectly gratuitous, I naturally said, 'Young men will be young men.' Youth will be, as we all know, somewhat reckless in assertion, and when we are juvenile and curly, one takes a pride in sarcasm and invective. One feels some interest in a young relative of a distinguished member of this House; and, although the statements were not very agreeable to her Majesty's Ministers, I felt that he was a chip of the old block. I felt-and I hope my colleagues share in the sentiment-that when that young gentleman entered this House, he might, when gazing upon the venerable form and listening to the accents of benignant wisdom that fell, and always fall, from the right honourable gentleman the member for Carlisle (laughter)—he might learn how reckless assertion in time might mature into accuracy of statement-and how bitterness and invective, however organic, can be controlled by the vicissitudes of a wide experience" (much laughter). Sir James replied to this a few nights afterwards: "The right honourable gentleman remarked upon the mild influences of age, presenting in his own person a contradiction to the Horatian maxim, Lenit albescens animos capillus,' because he was an illustration of the fact that one might lose one's curls and still retain one's taste for sarcasm. . . The right honourable gentleman will pardon me if I express to him an opinion. I regard him as the Red Indian of debate. By the use of the tomahawk he has cut his way to power, and by a recurrence to the scalping system he hopes to prevent the loss of it" (cheers and laughter).

DANIEL O'CONNELL.

(1775-1847.)

Introduction of the Repeal Question.-The year 1834 was rendered remarkable by the introduction of the Repeal question into the House of Commons. O'Connell told me (says Mr. Daunt) he was forced to take this step bitterly against his will. "I felt," said he, "like a man who was going to jump into a cold bath; but I was obliged to take the plunge." His motion was rejected by a majority of 484.

66

A Wonderful Shower of Rain.-In the session of 1833 (writes his son) a speech of Mr. Daniel O'Connell's, upon an Irish question of considerable interest and importance, was not only grievously abbreviated (by the reporter), but the sense of it entirely perverted in several passages. As I recollect, it was a speech on the then very exciting and difficult subject of the tithes of the Protestant Church in Ireland; and Mr. O'Connell, among other things, was made to say that he would vote in a certain way on the immediate point under consideration, "although it was directly in the teeth of all his former opinions on the subject!" On his bringing the matter before the House, under the usual form of a "Breach of Privilege," and making complaint of being thus treated, the defence set up by the reporter was that, during his walk from the House